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

Wives Are Part Of Household Of Prophet

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

sorry to contradict you but the verse of purification was revealed for azwaj e mutahharat....

And do you find anywhere in quran tha i special reward being promised to members of ahlebayt(excluding azwaj e rasool saw).. Or that special rulings being set for them unlike other muslims?

(bismillah)

(salam)

Allah huma salle ala muhammadin wa ali muhammad wa azwajihi

see even in this azwaj is not part nof that ahlul bayt e tahara

this durood will make your salah void

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Advanced Member

I disagree with you, and I've asked many local and well-known scholars about this issue. They've affirmed what I've said, but we'll leave those disagreements aside. :-)

same is mine case i too asked this question to many scholars everyone answered what i said in my reply and even the classical sholars agreed with me on this issue.

(bismillah)

(salam)

Allah huma salle ala muhammadin wa ali muhammad wa azwajihi

see even in this azwaj is not part nof that ahlul bayt e tahara

this durood will make your salah void

(wasalam)

seriously i dnt wanna waste my time aftr u. If any sensible person would have asked this question i would have loved to answer it. Anyways 4 u i jst wanna say that frm ur logic from narration of thaqlain(ahlebayti wa itrati) we deduce that ahlebayt are not itrat whch sounds as an oxymoron. And following itrat leads u astray. This wht concluded frm ur reasonings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

seriously i dnt wanna waste my time aftr u. If any sensible person would have asked this question i would have loved to answer it. Anyways 4 u i jst wanna say that frm ur logic from narration of thaqlain(ahlebayti wa itrati) we deduce that ahlebayt are not itrat whch sounds as an oxymoron. And following itrat leads u astray. This wht concluded frm ur reasonings.

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro

you cannot even keep your own words in just one para/long sentence

but wallahi what else can you expect from the followers of ibn taymiya(la)

the nasbis with the bugz of the ahlul bayt(as) having clouded their heart

you guys are so lost and pathetic,

this is jahiliyya of the worst order, even worst than the pagan arabs

i would not be surprised in times to come that you would have installed

ibn taymiya as a prophet just like the ahmedis/qadianis

afterall they also follow the fiqh e hanafia

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

same is mine case i too asked this question to many scholars everyone answered what i said in my reply and even the classical sholars agreed with me on this issue.

I guess we're not going to get a straight answer on this issue because the scholars I asked also referenced classical scholars. X_X

Link to post
Share on other sites

The wives of Rasoolullah (ra) are not part of Ahlul Bayt at-Tahireen

The majority if not all of Ahl al-Sunnah opines that the Wives of the Prophet (Õáì Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíå æÇáå æÓáã) are meant with "Ahl al-Bayt" in Allah's Most High Kalâm. Just a quick reference http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2773&CATE=1

I can't recall neither classical scholars excluding the Wives of the Prophet (Õáì Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíå æÇáå æÓáã) from Ahl al-Bayt "at-Tahireen", where do you got this claim from? Don't come to me with your local scholars rather present the text of the classical scholars saying such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority if not all of Ahl al-Sunnah opines that the Wives of the Prophet (Õáì Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíå æÇáå æÓáã) are meant with "Ahl al-Bayt" in Allah's Most High Kalâm. Just a quick reference http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=2773&CATE=1

I can't recall neither classical scholars excluding the Wives of the Prophet (Õáì Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíå æÇáå æÓáã) from Ahl al-Bayt "at-Tahireen", where do you got this claim from? Don't come to me with your local scholars rather present the text of the classical scholars saying such thing.

Thank you for the resources. I will ask the local scholars to give me those references again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

if the wives were the purified ahllulbait than how come they sinned?

Imami scholars (such as Shaykh Mufeed and majority of his time) believed that Prophets [except Muhammad ] were not protected from minor sins before the time of their prophetic mission.

Åä ÌãíÚ ÃäÈíÇÁ Çááå - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíåã - ãÚÕæãæä ãä ÇáßÈÇÆÑ ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÈÚÏåÇ æãÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ãä ÇáÕÛÇÆÑ ßáåÇ¡ æÃãÇ ãÇ ßÇä ãä ÕÛíÑ áÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ÝÌÇÆÒ æÞæÚå ãäåã ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÚáì ÛíÑ ÊÚãÏ æããÊäÚ ãäåã ÈÚÏåÇ Úáì ßá ÍÇá¡ æåÐÇ ãÐåÈ ÌãåæÑ ÇáÅãÇãíÉ¡ æÇáãÚÊÒáÉ ÈÃÓÑåÇ ÊÎÇáÝ Ýíå.

Imams of Ahlul Bayt were also not protected from minor sins before the time of their Imamah.

Åä ÇáÃÆãÉ ÇáÞÇÆãíä ãÞÇã ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ (Õ) Ýí ÊäÝíÐ ÇáÃÍßÇã æÅÞÇãÉ ÇáÍÏæÏ æÍÝÙ ÇáÔÑÇÆÚ æÊÃÏíÈ ÇáÃäÇã (1) ãÚÕæãæä ßÚÕãÉ ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ¡ æÅäåã áÇ íÌæÒ ãäåã ÕÛíÑÉ ÅáÇ ãÇ ÞÏãÊ ÐßÑ ÌæÇÒå Úáì ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ

http://www.alkadhum....vael_almagalat/

æóÝöí ÍóÏöíË ÂÎöÑó: Åöäø ÇáÅöãÇãó ãõÄóíøöÏ ÈöÑõæÍö ÇáÞõÏõÓ æóÈóíúäóåõ æóÈóíúäö Çááøóå ÚóãõæÏ ãöä äõæÑò íóÑìþ Ýöíåö ÃóÚãÇá ÇáÚöÈÇÏö æóßõáøóãÇ ÇÍÊÇÌó Åöáóíúåö¡ áöÏöáÇáóÉò ÇØáóÚó Úóáóíúåö æóíõÈÓöØóåõ ÝóíóÚáóãõ æóíõÞÈóÖõ Úóäúåõ ÝóáÇ íóÚúáóãõ.

æóÇáÅãÇã íõæáóÏõ æóíóáöÏõ¡ æóíóÕöÍøõ æóíóãÑóÖõ¡ æóíóÃúßõáõ æóíóÔúÑóÈõ æóíóÈõæáõ æóíóÊóÛóæøóØ¡ æóíóäßöÍõ æóíóäÇãõ æóíóäÓìþ æóíóÓåõæ¡ æóíóÝÑóÍõ æóíóÍÒõäõ¡ æóíóÖÍóßõ æóíóÈúßí æóíóÍúíóì æóíóãõæÊõ æóíõÞÈóÑõ æóíóÒÇÑõ¡ æóíõÍÔóÑõ æóíõæÞóÝõ¡ æóíõÚÑóÖõ æóíõÓÃóáõ¡ æóíõËÇÈõ æóíõßÑóãõ¡ æóíóÔÝóÚõ¡ æóÏóáÇáóÊõå Ýöí ÎöÕáóÊóíúäö Ýöí ÇáÚöáúãõ ÇöÓúÊöÌÇÈóÉ ÇáÏøóÚúæóÉ æóßõáøö ãÇ ÃóÎúÈóÑ Èöåö ãöäó ÇáÍóæÇÏöË ÇáøóÊöí ÊõÍÏóËõ ÞóÈúáõ ßõæäöåÇ ÝóÐáßó ÈöÚóåúÏö ãóÚåõæÏ Åöáóíúåö ãöä ÑóÓõæáó Çááøóåöþ Õóáøóì Çááåõ Úóáóíúåö æóÂáöåö ÊóæÇÑóËóåõ æóÚóäú ÂÈÇÆöåö Úóäúåõþ Úóáóíúåöãõ ÇáÓøóáÇóãõ æóíóßõæäõ Ðáößó ãöãøóÇ ÚóåöÏó Åöáóíúåö ÌöÈúÑóÆöíáþ Úóáóíúåö ÇáÓøóáÇãõ ãöä ÚóáÇøãö ÇáÛõíõæÈö ÚóÒøó æóÌóáøó.

19-2 In another tradition we read, “The Imam is certified by the Holy Spirit. There is a column of light between him and God through which he sees the deeds of the people. He is informed about what he needs by it. Sometimes that light is shined at him and he gets to know (what he must become aware of). And sometimes it is taken away and thus he will not know (what he needs not know). “The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps. He forgets and he makes mistakes. He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned. He is rewarded and honored. He intercedes. There are two important signs for him: his knowledge and the fulfillment of his prayers. He has heard the news that he gives about the events in the future from his grandfathers from the Prophet of God (s). The Prophet of God (s) has heard them from Gabriel. Gabriel has heard them from the Almighty God. (Uyun ahbarul riza p 193.)

Sheikh sadooq even brought sahi narrations about sahv of prophet(Saw) and he commented on them saying....

Åä ÇáÛáÇÉ æÇáãÝæÖÉ áÚäåã Çááå íäßÑæä Óåæ ÇáäÈí Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå

Qulat and al-mufawidha denied error of Nabi (sallalahu alaihi wa ali).

So if your classical scholars believed that imams could error....then the only possibilty is that, they didnt understand the verse of purification as ou try to understand... And which is not the correct way to understand since it doesnt makes anyone infallible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

forget the link bro sam

bro wellwisher you are still a non thinker aren't you

forget what sheikh mufeed(ra) writes for it is not a hujjah upon us

but let us just suppose he is right

was ummul momineen aisha rebuked after she had married the holy prophet (pbuh) and hence was ummul momineen at that time

so even your this theory goes out of the window

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

forget the link bro sam

bro wellwisher you are still a non thinker aren't you

forget what sheikh mufeed(ra) writes for it is not a hujjah upon us

but let us just suppose he is right

bro sheikh sadooq or sheikh mufeed, these are grand personalities. & as per my view it is hujja on every shia. Because till yet i didnot come across any marji claiming this i.e. not hujja on shia's.

Imami scholars (such as Shaykh Mufeed and majority of his time) believed that Prophets [except Muhammad ] were not protected from minor sins before the time of their prophetic mission.

Åä ÌãíÚ ÃäÈíÇÁ Çááå - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíåã - ãÚÕæãæä ãä ÇáßÈÇÆÑ ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÈÚÏåÇ æãÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ãä ÇáÕÛÇÆÑ ßáåÇ¡ æÃãÇ ãÇ ßÇä ãä ÕÛíÑ áÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ÝÌÇÆÒ æÞæÚå ãäåã ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÚáì ÛíÑ ÊÚãÏ æããÊäÚ ãäåã ÈÚÏåÇ Úáì ßá ÍÇá¡ æåÐÇ ãÐåÈ ÌãåæÑ ÇáÅãÇãíÉ¡ æÇáãÚÊÒáÉ ÈÃÓÑåÇ ÊÎÇáÝ Ýíå.

Imams of Ahlul Bayt were also not protected from minor sins before the time of their Imamah.

Åä ÇáÃÆãÉ ÇáÞÇÆãíä ãÞÇã ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ (Õ) Ýí ÊäÝíÐ ÇáÃÍßÇã æÅÞÇãÉ ÇáÍÏæÏ æÍÝÙ ÇáÔÑÇÆÚ æÊÃÏíÈ ÇáÃäÇã (1) ãÚÕæãæä ßÚÕãÉ ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ¡ æÅäåã áÇ íÌæÒ ãäåã ÕÛíÑÉ ÅáÇ ãÇ ÞÏãÊ ÐßÑ ÌæÇÒå Úáì ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ

Bro can you please give the name of the book, you are quoting!

Edited by serious-sam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

bro sheikh sadooq or sheikh mufeed, these are grand personalities. & as per my view it is hujja on every shia. Because till yet i didnot come across any marji claiming this i.e. not hujja on shia's.

Bro can you please give the name of the book, you are quoting!

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro sam

no scholar is a hujjah upon us

the only hujjah are the masoomeen(as)

and

as per their instructions

the only other hujjah(limited)

is our taqleed of a marja in the furoo only

and not the usool

correct me if i am wrong bro, will be well taken with thanks

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro sam

no scholar is a hujjah upon us

the only hujjah are the masoomeen(as)

and

as per their instructions

the only other hujjah(limited)

is our taqleed of a marja in the furoo only

and not the usool

correct me if i am wrong bro, will be well taken with thanks

(wasalam)

i am confused.

As what i think, sheikh sadooq or sheikh mufeed were most educated & experienced then us. They were more accurate then present shia.

So what ever they wrote was the extract of vast knowledge. present shia gain knowledge from their books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

link is not working!

sorry here is teh link, it will work inshallah

http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/aqaed/avael_almagalat/

And isnt it an irony that the greatest classical shia scholars from whom the todays schlrs learns things didnt even understand a very important verse for their madhab ... But the fact is that they did....that is why the held the same view as that of ahle sunnah excpet that the personalities refered in that verse, but they too understand in the same way as ahle sunnah that the verse doesnt makes anyone infallible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

sorry here is teh link, it will work inshallah

http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/aqaed/avael_almagalat/

And isnt it an irony that the greatest classical shia scholars from whom the todays schlrs learns things didnt even understand a very important verse for their madhab ... But the fact is that they did....that is why the held the same view as that of ahle sunnah excpet that the personalities refered in that verse, but they too understand in the same way as ahle sunnah that the verse doesnt makes anyone infallible.

(bismillah)

(salam)

so, now i know why you treat ibn taymiya(la) words as infallible

the holy prophet (pbuh) and his holy ahlul bayt(as) are not

but scholars are

good logic bro wellwisher

but then you never had any in the first place

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

so, now i know why you treat ibn taymiya(la) words as infallible

the holy prophet (pbuh) and his holy ahlul bayt(as) are not

but scholars are

good logic bro wellwisher

but then you never had any in the first place

(wasalam)

hahaha....

wake up man... dreaming time is over now....

Now please refer us any scholar who said ibn taymiyyah is infaalible? or its just you who want to cover u your flaws my attributing this false blief to us??

If you cant provide a statement of scholar of salafees that they believe ibn taymiyyah to be inffalible, then its sure that you are not a reliable and truthful guy around here.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

hahaha....

wake up man... dreaming time is over now....

Now please refer us any scholar who said ibn taymiyyah is infaalible? or its just you who want to cover u your flaws my attributing this false blief to us??

If you cant provide a statement of scholar of salafees that they believe ibn taymiyyah to be inffalible, then its sure that you are not a reliable and truthful guy around here.....

(bismillah)

(salam)

bro can't read

kindly read my post again

before you guys start to lose it all

blindness or else comprehension(understanding/logic)

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry here is teh link, it will work inshallah

http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/aqaed/avael_almagalat/

And isnt it an irony that the greatest classical shia scholars from whom the todays schlrs learns things didnt even understand a very important verse for their madhab ... But the fact is that they did....that is why the held the same view as that of ahle sunnah excpet that the personalities refered in that verse, but they too understand in the same way as ahle sunnah that the verse doesnt makes anyone infallible.

Bro. I never say it is a lie, if some one explains it correctly. I know the knowledge of sheikh sadooq & sheikh mufeed is not comparable with today's shia's, speacially those who don't know what they believe & what there marji is!

As i know, till yet no ayatullah said any words against the knowledge of these grand names.

These are not like today's yasir habeeb.

Imami scholars (such as Shaykh Mufeed and majority of his time) believed that Prophets [except Muhammad ] were not protected from minor sins before the time of their prophetic mission.

Åä ÌãíÚ ÃäÈíÇÁ Çááå - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíåã - ãÚÕæãæä ãä ÇáßÈÇÆÑ ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÈÚÏåÇ æãÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ãä ÇáÕÛÇÆÑ ßáåÇ¡ æÃãÇ ãÇ ßÇä ãä ÕÛíÑ áÇ íÓÊÎÝ ÝÇÚáå ÝÌÇÆÒ æÞæÚå ãäåã ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÚáì ÛíÑ ÊÚãÏ æããÊäÚ ãäåã ÈÚÏåÇ Úáì ßá ÍÇá¡ æåÐÇ ãÐåÈ ÌãåæÑ ÇáÅãÇãíÉ¡ æÇáãÚÊÒáÉ ÈÃÓÑåÇ ÊÎÇáÝ Ýíå.

I am not able to find this narration in that book. Can you please tell me the page no. of that book.

(bismillah)

(salam)

so, now i know why you treat ibn taymiya(la) words as infallible

the holy prophet (pbuh) and his holy ahlul bayt(as) are not

but scholars are

good logic bro wellwisher

but then you never had any in the first place

(wasalam)

Bro be fair. If you have any sahih hadith regarding the infallibliltiy of imam (as) then please show us. I am really confused after reading the narration of sheikh sadooq & sheikh mufeed. They proved with sahih hadith.

Tell me one answer: You believe imam (as) was infallible, then how you know that? Obviously through the hadith of masoomin (as) but these hadith was transmitted by fallible narrators.

Today all our hadith is narrated by fallible narrators then how you can claim the hadith in your hand is sahih?

Obviously we have to depend on the grand perosnalities for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I am not able to find this narration in that book. Can you please tell me the page no. of that book.

ÇáÕÝÍÉ 62

32 - ÇáÞæá Ýí ÚÕãÉ ÇáÃäÈíÇÁ - Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã -

ÃÞæá: Åä ÌãíÚ ÃäÈíÇÁ Çááå - ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíåã - ãÚÕæãæä ãä ÇáßÈÇÆÑ ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÈÚÏåÇ æãÇ íÓÊÎÝ (1) ÝÇÚáå ãä ÇáÕÛÇÆÑ ßáåÇ¡ æÃãÇ ãÇ ßÇä ãä ÕÛíÑ áÇ íÓÊÎÝ (2) ÝÇÚáå ÝÌÇÆÒ æÞæÚå ãäåã ÞÈá ÇáäÈæÉ æÚáì ÛíÑ ÊÚãÏ æããÊäÚ ãäåã ÈÚÏåÇ Úáì ßá ÍÇá¡ æåÐÇ ãÐåÈ ÌãåæÑ ÇáÅãÇãíÉ¡ æÇáãÚÊÒáÉ ÈÃÓÑåÇ ÊÎÇáÝ Ýíå

Chapter 32, page 62....

http://www.alkadhum.org/other/mktba/aqaed/avael_almagalat/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Wellwisher and 'Ikramah Nasibi

Nasai said: Thiqat.

Ibn Muin said: Thiqat.

Ahmad Ijli said: Thiqat.

Buhari said: There is no one from our companions who wouldn't rely on Ikrima.

Abu Khatim said: Thiqat and to be rely on.

Ibn Hibban mentioned in "Thiqat". "Tahzib at-tahzib" 7/239

If you try to weaken Ikrima, or to describe him like a liar, answer me a single question, who narrated "Khutba ash-shiqshiqiya" from ibn Abbas?

What well-wisher (anti-shia) concealed here is this:

- Mizan Al-Itidal by Ath-Thahabi (summarized from a lengthy paragraph):

Ikrimah was from the
Khawarej
, he declared all people in the Masjid of the Prophet as Kuffar,
when he died no one prayed on his Janazah, in addition to attributing him with lies as Abbad said, etc..

"As for Ikrimah, he was accused of lying and attributing his lies to Ibn Abbas. Al-Hafeth ibn Hajar said in (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb):
"Saieed bin al-Musayyib said to his servant Burd: "O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikramah lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas"
. Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas chained him(ikrimah) and when he was asked why, he replied: 'He forges and attributes to my father'. Sa'eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sayreen and others considered him a "liar". For more information: look at 'Thadheeb Al-Kamal' as well."

Mawlana Abdul Hai lakhnawi (a great Sunni Scholar of Indian Sub-Continent) wrote about 'Ikramah:

While Imam Bukhari narrated from 'Ikramah, therefore other Muhaditheen also accepted his traditions and did not researched about him and his traditions
(Reference: ÇáÑÝ Ç Çáʘãیá¡ ØÈÚ ÞÏیã ᘪäÄ )

Now this Nasibi 'Ikramah (who is Khariji too) is the total asset of well-wisher (anti-shia) to prove his claim.

So Mr. Well-Wisher, are you not ashamed to prefer this Ikramah over the Authentic Traditions from Aisha binte Abi Bakr herself?

'Ikramah Cursing 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr by declaring her a Lair

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This was revealed
solely
concerning the wives of the Prophet.
Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him
and pray and invoke the curse of
Allah
upon those who are lying.
'
''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

No, by Allah the crime of this 'Ikramah is not stopping here, but he is also making the same allegations against the Holy Prophet Rasool Allah (saw), who used to go to the house of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib and used to recite this verse at his door for the 6 months.

No wonder that People like Well Wisher and Nasibies Generation who loved 'Ikramah, are so much misguided.

'Ikramah was only a TABA'I (i.e. no where present when this verse was revealed)

More interesting fact is this that this 'Ikramah is not even a Sahabi, but he is a Taba'i. This means he was even no where present when this verse was revealed.

Now Mr. Well Wisher may tell us about their these "Munafiq Standards" where they start demolishing all the Rules for Nasibies like 'Ikramah and still keep on kissing his Tradition and giving him preference to all those who were present at that moment and the Practice of Rasool (saw) where he for 6 months went to the door of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and greeted them by reciting this verse.

This tradition of Khariji 'Ikramah is ÔÇÐ while it is contradicting all other Sunni Authentic Traditions, but if you see any one still clinging to this Tradition of Kharji 'Ikramah, then you must know that person is going to be raised with this same 'Ikramah on day of judgement.

The Continuous Mistake by Shia brothers (not differentiating between "Normal Ahlebait" and "Ahlebait-e-Taharah")

Brother theContentself, you really didn't read my Post and made the same mistake when you wrote:

by Contentself:

...and of course, there is NOT ONE hadith by the WIVES themselves that claim they WERE part of the household......

And Mr. Well-Wisher took full advantage of this mistake and immediately replied:

by Well-Wisher:

Hazrat Aisha(ra) did consider herself among Ahlal Bayt

35 – (1995) æÍÏËäÇ ÒåíÑ Èä ÍÑÈ æÅÓÍÇÞ Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã. ßáÇåãÇ Úä ÌÑíÑ. ÞÇá ÒåíÑ: ÍÏËäÇ ÌÑíÑ Úä ãäÕæÑ¡ Úä ÅÈÑÇåíã. ÞÇá:

ÞáÊ ááÃÓæÏ: åá ÓÃáÊ Ãã ÇáãÄãäíä ÚãÇ íßÑå Ãä íäÊÈÐ Ýíå¿ ÞÇá: äÚã. ÞáÊ: íÇ Ãã ÇáãÄãäíä! ÃÎÈÑíäí ÚãÇ äåì Úäå ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ãä íäÊÈÐ Ýíå. ÞÇáÊ: äåÇäÇ¡ Ãåá ÇáÈíÊ¡ Ãä ääÊÈÐ Ýí ÇáÏÈÇÁ æÇáãÒÝÊ

http://hadith.al-isl...?Doc=1&Rec=4760

Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah's Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat 'A'isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

I wish our Shia bothers/sisters come out of this mistake, while question is not about "Normal Ahlebait of Muhammad", but here is the question of "Ahlebait-e-Taharah" (also known as Ahlebait-e-Nabuwah). And it is a CHALLANGE to bring any Sahih Sunni Tradition (which is not ÔÇÐ) where wives of Rasool (saw) claimed that they are were made "Perfectly Purified" as this verse was revealed for them.

Let us if Mr. Well Wisher this time replies to this challenge or not.

My message again to Shias:

1. Please differentiate between Normal Ahlebait of Muhammad and "Ahlebait-e-Taharah", as only these 5 were made Perfectly Purified by
Allah
.

2. Also you need not to bring the Grammatical discussion as it could be used in this way or that way.

3. But you have to concentrate upon the Authentic Sunni Ahadith which are very very clear that verse 33:33 have two parts and both of these two parts were revealed at "DIFFERENT" times and about TWO Different incidents.

So, either the Opponents should deny their TOTAL Hadith System, or to reject their CONJECTURE that wives are included in Kisa as first part of this verse is talking about wives.

Edited by zainabia
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Continuous Mistake by Shia brothers (not differentiating between "Normal Ahlebait" and "Ahlebait-e-Taharah")

My message again to Shias:

1. Please differentiate between Normal Ahlebait of Muhammad and
"Ahlebait-e-Taharah", as only these 5 were made Perfectly Purified by
Allah
.

2. Also you need not to bring the Grammatical discussion as it could be used in this way or that way.

3. But you have to concentrate upon the Authentic Sunni Ahadith which are very very clear that verse 33:33 have two parts and both of these two parts were revealed at "DIFFERENT" times and about TWO Different incidents.

So, either the Opponents should deny their TOTAL Hadith System, or to reject their CONJECTURE that wives are included in Kisa as first part of this verse is talking about wives.

1. i am searching the authentic hadith (both shia/sunni) which clearly signifies two personalities of ahle-bayt i.e. Normal Ahlebayt and Ahlebayt-e-Taharah.

2. After that: Why ahle-bayt-e-taharah don't include 9 imams?

Edited by serious-sam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
What well-wisher (anti-shia) concealed here is this:

- Mizan Al-Itidal by Ath-Thahabi (summarized from a lengthy paragraph):

Ikrimah was from the
Khawarej
, he declared all people in the Masjid of the Prophet as Kuffar,
when he died no one prayed on his Janazah, in addition to attributing him with lies as Abbad said, etc..

"As for Ikrimah, he was accused of lying and attributing his lies to Ibn Abbas. Al-Hafeth ibn Hajar said in (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb):
"Saieed bin al-Musayyib said to his servant Burd: "O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikramah lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas"
. Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas chained him(ikrimah) and when he was asked why, he replied: 'He forges and attributes to my father'. Sa'eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sayreen and others considered him a "liar". For more information: look at 'Thadheeb Al-Kamal' as well."

Mawlana Abdul Hai lakhnawi (a great Sunni Scholar of Indian Sub-Continent) wrote about 'Ikramah:

While Imam Bukhari narrated from 'Ikramah, therefore other Muhaditheen also accepted his traditions and did not researched about him and his traditions
(Reference: ÇáÑÝ Ç Çáʘãíá¡ ØÈÚ ÞÏíã ᘪäÄ )

Now this Nasibi 'Ikramah (who is Khariji too) is the total asset of well-wisher (anti-shia) to prove his claim.

Kalam on Ikrimah is of following types

1. Jarh mubham (unexplained) : This include accusation of lying by Ibn Musayyib etc. This is unexplained and is rejected when countered by lots of tawtheeq. Ibn Hajar said all these takdheeb was actually takdheeb of his views, not his reports. A famous example could be given of Harith Al-A'awar a companion of Ali (ra) . Shu'bi declared him liar, but later scholars rejected this jarh because it was falsification of Harith's views not his reports.

2. He was a Khariji: Ibn Hajar said he was not a khariji rather he just held some of the khariji views. He further states, accusation of Ikrima being a khariji is not proven from any solid proof, then he qoutes Al-Ijli who said that this accusation of ikrima being a Haruri is not proven.

In any case this is not a jarh. we accept the report of Ahlul Bid'ah, as far as it is not in support of his Bid'ah (near a group of scholars).

So Mr. Well-Wisher, are you not ashamed to prefer this Ikramah over the Authentic Traditions from Aisha binte Abi Bakr herself?

There is no contradiction at all.

'Ikramah Cursing 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr by declaring her a Lair

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This was revealed
solely
concerning the wives of the Prophet.
Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him
and pray and invoke the curse of
Allah
upon those who are lying.
'
''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

For your info:

1. The same report came through Ibn Abbas, who said that the verse was revealed regarding the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) .

2. there is no contradiction between Ikrima's and Umm Salama's statements.

No, by Allah the crime of this 'Ikramah is not stopping here, but he is also making the same allegations against the Holy Prophet Rasool Allah (saw), who used to go to the house of 'Ali Ibn Abi Talib and used to recite this verse at his door for the 6 months.

Comprehension problem

'Ikramah was only a TABA'I (i.e. no where present when this verse was revealed)

More interesting fact is this that this 'Ikramah is not even a Sahabi, but he is a Taba'i. This means he was even no where present when this verse was revealed.

same could be said regarding your Imams

Now Mr. Well Wisher may tell us about their these "Munafiq Standards" where they start demolishing all the Rules for Nasibies like 'Ikramah and still keep on kissing his Tradition and giving him preference to all those who were present at that moment and the Practice of Rasool (saw) where he for 6 months went to the door of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and greeted them by reciting this verse.

This tradition of Khariji 'Ikramah is ÔÇÐ while it is contradicting all other Sunni Authentic Traditions, but if you see any one still clinging to this Tradition of Kharji 'Ikramah, then you must know that person is going to be raised with this same 'Ikramah on day of judgement.

trash talk

would like to know your definition of 'shaadh'

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ibn tamymiyyah

jazakallah khairan brother ,actually i was least bothered to answer the unacademic arguments raised by the OP as it was apparent that the OP didnt even knew some basic things which even present in their own madhab... And which even a shia with some knowlege and unbaisedness could have refuted them easily.

As for the main arguments against ikrima, then adding to what you already said, The famous Khutba ash-shiqshiqiya" from ibn Abbas(ra) was only reported authenically by ikrima... And the shias considered to absolutely auhthentic even if he was a nasibi/khwariji as they claim.. So this fact present in them should shut off the OP. And the OP should ask to him/herself that who now on the seat of munafiq standards, which he/she said about others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Assalam alaikum

I just missed this one...

Mawlana Abdul Hai lakhnawi (a great Sunni Scholar of Indian Sub-Continent) wrote about 'Ikramah:

While Imam Bukhari narrated from 'Ikramah, therefore other Muhaditheen also accepted his traditions and did not researched about him and his traditions (Reference: ÇáÑÝ Ç Çáʘãیá¡ ØÈÚ ÞÏیã ᘪäÄ )

I couldn't find any such thing in that book. Probably following is what you were qouting...

Allamah Lucknavi first mentioned different approach of scholars in accepting Jarh. After it he qoutes Ibn Sallaah from his "Muqaddima" (p.107)

Abdul Hayy Al-Lacknavi said (p.34), qouting Ibn Sallaah,:

ÐßÑ ÇáÎØíÈ ÇáÍÇÝÙ Çäå ãÐåÈ ÇáÃÆãÉ ãä ÍÝÇÙ ÇáÍÏíË æäÞÇÏå ãËá ÇáÈÎÇÑí æãÓáã æáÐáß ÇÍÊÌ ÇáÈÎÇÑí ÈÌãÇÚÉ ÓÈÞ ãä ÛíÑå ÇáÌÑÍ ÝíåÇ ßÚßÑãÉ ãæáì ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ æßÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÃÈí ÇæíÓ æÚÇÕã Èä Úáí æÚãÑæ Èä ãÑÒæÞ æÛíÑåã æÇÍÊÌ ãÓáã ÓæíÏ Èä ÓÚíÏ æÌãÇÚÉ ÇÔÊåÑ ÇáØÚä Ýíåã æåßÐÇ ÝÚá ÃÈæ ÏÇæÏ ÇáÓÌÓÊÇäí æÐáß ÏÇá Úáì Çäåã

ÐåÈæÇ Åáì Çä ÇáÌÑÍ áÇ íËÈÊ ÅáÇ ÅÐÇ ÝÓÑ ÓÈÈå

Khatib mentioned that it (the first view, which is to accept explained Jarh, and reject unexplained Jarh) was the view of hadith scholars like Bukhari and Muslim, and that is why Bukhari accepted narrators, which had been criticized previously, like Ikrima, Isma'eel ibn Abi Awais, Aasim b. ALi and Amr bin Marzuq etc.....

WAllahu A'lam

This tradition of Khariji 'Ikramah is ÔÇÐ while it is contradicting all other Sunni Authentic Traditions, but if you see any one still clinging to this Tradition of Kharji 'Ikramah, then you must know that person is going to be raised with this same 'Ikramah on day of judgement.

I am really waiting...

1. What is the definition of Shaadh?

2. How the statement of Ikrima contradicts other sunni tradition?

3. From where you get that sunnis stuck with Ikrima's statement, while main sunni argument is the verse of quran?

4. Don't you know that the same view is reported from Ibn Abbas, Sa'eed bin Jubayr etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Asalaam alaikum

Ibn Taymiyyah:

Kalam on Ikrimah is of following types

1. Jarh mubham (unexplained) : This include accusation of lying by Ibn Musayyib etc...

Firstly, the Jarh (criticism) against Ikramah is NOT mubham...since there are statements from recognised Tabi's that Ikramah was a "LIAR" and yes which includes ibn Musayyib...

This is unexplained and is rejected when countered by lots of tawtheeq...

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the principle of al-Jarh Muqaddam 'ala al-Ta'dil, meaning that a jarh takes precendece over ta'dil...

Your scholars claim that a mu'addil (critic who makes ta'dil) generally tends to emphasise something on a plain view (dhâhir), while a jârih (i.e. the critic who disparages ) tends to stress a hidden profile of a narrator....

And basing it upon the above assumtion, the JARH takes the lead...

And yes ibn Hajar did try weakening the arguments against Ikramah...let us suppose the that the reports against are actually weak, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, but what would Ibn hajar say today if he was live, when questioned:

"O ibn Hajar! Is it not your view that multiple weak chains can raise a report to up the level of hasan li ghairihi? Then under such a belief why have you ignored this principle with regards to Ikramah?"

There are reports from (disparaging the personality of Ikrimah):

Ibn Umar

Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas

Sa’eed ibn Jubayr

Muhammad ibn sireen

Saieed bin al-Musayyib

Etc...

The following is a BLATANT lie from Ikrimah:

حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن قتادة عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله وسلم :

رايت ربى عزوجل شاب امرد جعد قطط عليه حلة خضراء

The Messenger if Allah said: "I saw my Lord in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden"

And guess what Ibn Taymiyyah? The Shaykh of your nick, considers this narrative be Sahih...

2. He was a Khariji: Ibn Hajar said he was not a khariji rather he just held some of the khariji views. He further states, accusation of Ikrima being a khariji is not proven from any solid proof...

The truth about him is that:

(1) He belonged to the Kharijites who were famous for showing their enmity and trickery towards Imam Ali...

al-Dhahabi wrote in his work: The very first reason to reject the tradition(s) of Akrama is based on the fact that he was Kharijite. Secondly his being a Kharijite, he even justified the killings of the fellow Muslim(s)

- al-Kashaf, by al-Dhahabi, v2, p272

(2) He was an opponent of many Islamic rules...(listened to songs, played blackgammon...etc)

(3) Mocked the Holy Quran...(إنمّا أنزل الله متشابه القرآن ليضل به)

(4) Called the Muslims Kaffirs!

وقال علي بن المديني حكي عن يعقوب الحضرمي عن جده قال وقف عكرمة على باب المسجد فقال ما فيه إلا كافر قال وكان عكرمة يرى رأي الأباضية (تهذيب الكمال ج: 20 ص: 277)

(5) Imam Ahmad, etc: In the season of Hajj Ikrima came to Africa, and said: It would be very dear to me if I were at Hajj at this moment, I would have had swords in both my hands, and I would massacre the Muslims. After these statements by Akrama, the people of Africa avoided him. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib)

(6) The Muslims disregarded him, turned away from, and avoided him. They hated him very much, that none prayed over him when he died...

The list goes on...

then he qoutes Al-Ijli who said that this accusation of ikrima being a Haruri is not proven.

How about the following:

Mus'ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubairi said: 'Akrama (slave of ibn abbas) embraced the beliefs of Khawarij and he claimed that Ibn Abbas too embraced the beliefs of Khawarij'

Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 20 No. 4009

In any case this is not a jarh. we accept the report of Ahlul Bid'ah, as far as it is not in support of his Bid'ah (near a group of scholars).

I agree reports from Ahlul-Bida could be accepted but NOT FROM LIARS...

wasalaam.

Edited by Truth_Seeker_786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
What well-wisher (anti-shia) concealed here is this:

- Mizan Al-Itidal by Ath-Thahabi (summarized from a lengthy paragraph):

Ikrimah was from the Khawarej, he declared all people in the Masjid of the Prophet as Kuffar, when he died no one prayed on his Janazah, in addition to attributing him with lies as Abbad said, etc..

"As for Ikrimah, he was accused of lying and attributing his lies to Ibn Abbas. Al-Hafeth ibn Hajar said in (Tahtheeb Al-Tahtheeb): "Saieed bin al-Musayyib said to his servant Burd: "O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikramah lied and attributed to Ibn Abbas". Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas chained him(ikrimah) and when he was asked why, he replied: 'He forges and attributes to my father'. Sa'eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sayreen and others considered him a "liar". For more information: look at 'Thadheeb Al-Kamal' as well."

Mawlana Abdul Hai lakhnawi (a great Sunni Scholar of Indian Sub-Continent) wrote about 'Ikramah:

While Imam Bukhari narrated from 'Ikramah, therefore other Muhaditheen also accepted his traditions and did not researched about him and his traditions (Reference: ÇáÑÝ Ç Çáʘãíá¡ ØÈÚ ÞÏíã ᘪäÄ )

Now this Nasibi 'Ikramah (who is Khariji too) is the total asset of well-wisher (anti-shia) to prove his claim.

Kalam on Ikrimah is of following types

1. Jarh mubham (unexplained) : This include accusation of lying by Ibn Musayyib etc. This is unexplained and is rejected when countered by lots of tawtheeq. Ibn Hajar said all these takdheeb was actually takdheeb of his views, not his reports. A famous example could be given of Harith Al-A'awar a companion of Ali (ra) . Shu'bi declared him liar, but later scholars rejected this jarh because it was falsification of Harith's views not his reports.

2. He was a Khariji: Ibn Hajar said he was not a khariji rather he just held some of the khariji views. He further states, accusation of Ikrima being a khariji is not proven from any solid proof, then he qoutes Al-Ijli who said that this accusation of ikrima being a Haruri is not proven.

Brother Truth_Seeker_786 (may Allah bless him) has already made the things very much clear. The traditions of 'Ikramah are found in Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Hajar (as Commentator of Sahih Bukhari) tried his best to remove the weaknesses in Traditions of Buakhri. While in Tehzib-ul-Kamal you would not find this behaviour nor does Imam Dhahabi took this route.

It is same Ibn Hajar, who while commenting upon the Tradition of "First Naval War" and "First attack upon Caesar's City" didn't mention the enmity and hatred of Thawr Ibn Yazid against Imam Ali (as).

Any how, let us examine a little more about the lame excuses presented above by Ibn Taymiyyah (or by Ibn Hajjar).

Ibn Taymiyyah:

1. Jarh mubham (unexplained) : This include accusation of lying by Ibn Musayyib etc. This is unexplained and is rejected when countered by lots of tawtheeq. Ibn Hajar said all these takdheeb was actually takdheeb of his views, not his reports.

Very Ridiculous argument. Just watch once again if the Authorities are criticizing (making Takzeeb) or 'Ikramah or of his reports:

  1. "Saieed bin al-Musayyib said to his servant Burd: "O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikramah lied and attributed (those Lies) to Ibn Abbas".
  2. Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas chained him(ikrimah) and when he was asked why, he replied: 'He forges (reports) and attributes to my father'.
  3. Sa'eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sayreen and others considered him a "liar".

So, 'Ikramah FORGES, this same 'Ikramah "Falsly Attribute", this same 'Ikramah is a "Lair (both Person and his Reports)".

Even a BLIND person could also see that here talk is not about 'Ikramah's Views (Aqaid), but crystal clearly about his "Forgering", "Fabricating Lies" and then "Falsely Attributing to Ibn Abbas".

And if Ibn Taymiyyah (or Ibn Hajar) are not able to see this crystal clear thing, then it means Allah has made their hearts BLIND enough and put a seal upon their hearts and only due to this they are not able to see such crystal clear facts.

********************

Regarding Views ('Aqaid) of 'Ikramah, then once again brother Truth_Seeker has already given detailed account above and therefore we move further.

********************

by Ibn Taymiyyah:

There is no contradiction at all. (i.e. No Contradiction between statements of 'Ikramah and 'Aisha)

Once again it is the "Peak of Blindness", and only Allah (swt) could take people like Ibn Taymiyyah out of this blindness.

'Aisha binte Abi Bakr was very very clear that Rasool (saw) called those 5 under the Blanket and then that verse was revealed. Almost all Sunni Scholars too agree that this verse was revealed for these 5. But 'Ikramah was such big Nasibi and hater of Ahlebait, that he clearly denied it and challenged to pray and invoke the Curse of Allah if some one does not agree that ONLY and ONLY Wives are included in this verse. Here is the tradition of 'Ikramah once again:

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

Now this is "Limitless Blindness" by Ibn_Taymiyyah, when he is not able to see the Contradiction in statements of 'Ikramah and 'Aisha.

Mr. Ibn_Taymiyyah:

If you still claim there is no contradiction, then Are you ready to pray and invoke curse of Allah upon ALL THOSE who don't agree with you that this verse is revealed only and only for wives, and otherwise you agree that this Curse of Allah returns upon you?

May we get your answer in "Yes" or "No" without any running away?

*************************

The Clear Example of Munafiq Standards

The Standards of Hadith of Ahle-Sunnah (about which they are Boasting every time that it is very strict blah blah blah), one very simple Standard is this that a Taba'i has to directly heard from a Sahabi and that Sahabi has to hear from Rasool (saw).

But now look at the Perfect Example of Munafiq Standards.

by Ibn Taymiyyah:
by zainabia:

'Ikramah was only a TABA'I (i.e. no where present when this verse was revealed)

More interesting fact is this that this 'Ikramah is not even a Sahabi, but he is a Taba'i. This means he was even no where present when this verse was revealed.

same could be said regarding your Imams

Here we not even taling about Aima of Ahlebait (as) and Shias, but sole argument was about Sunni Hadith System, according to which 'Ikramah did not recieve the WAHI (revelation), so he was not present when this Verse was revealed. Now according to so-called Sunni Hadith Standards, this claim of 'Ikramah should be Directly denied, but in this case there comes the Munafiq Standards and although 'Ikramah didn't recieve any revelation, but still his lies are blindly taken without any Jarh.

Need I to comment any more upon this Munafiq Standards?

by Ibn Taymiyyah:

would like to know your definition of 'shaadh'

Sorry don't have any time to play teacher for you. If you claim I am wrong, then bring your definitions and prove that I am wrong about tradition of 'Ikramah and Tradition of 'Aisha and others too.

Also bring that tradition of Ibn Abbas (with it's authentication) that you are crying here.... but also tell us this thread went for many pages and why didn't you present it up till now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Asalaam Alaikum.

Quote

by Ibn Taymiyyah:

would like to know your definition of 'shaadh'

Zainabia:

Sorry don't have any time to play teacher for you. ..

Brother/Sister Zainabia may not have the time...but I do have some spare minutes to give away...

lets us destroy the argument of the khawarij Ikrimah by using the principle of Shaadh and Munkaar...

The Shaadh narration is that which contains a trusted reporter but reports something contradictory to another more reliable reporter...

and

Munkaar narration is that which contains a weak narrator who reports something contradictory in comparison to a reliable reporter...

Hence under such a definition, what would you say if I was you ask you that:

Since Ikrimah is not reliable... the question of his narration being shaadh is out of question... with regards to him being weak and therefore his narration being termed as munkar...this cannot be accepted also since he is accused of being a LIAR....and not just weak...According to your scholars, a narration from the mouth of a LIAR which CANNOT be verified through other means is rejected outright...let alone being termed munkar...so under the light of such an actuality, how can anyone who is familiar with the rules and the principle of Jarh wal-Ta'dil really try to use arguments in defence of Ikrimah which do do carry any weight?

I say that Ikirmah cannot be defended...

I could be wrong...

So prove me wrong....

Coz if you cant....

Then you should know that Ikrimah is weak...

I leave you with a quote: "Get hold of a theory and try to defend it, if you cant then you will know that it is false"

Edited by Truth_Seeker_786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Man, stick to one point first then discuss another one.

I swear by Allah Aisha is the most pure person on the anal of this earth more than your women and our women.

If you want I am ready for Mubahila?

Aisha is pure which is my claim then May Allah destroy you and your family.

Aisha is impure which is your claim then May Allah destroy me and my family.

These are verse from Quran about the purity of Aisha and Allah ordered us not to repeat it again.

إِلَوْلَا إِذْ سَمِعْتُمُوهُ ظَنَّ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ خَيْرًا وَقَالُوا هَٰذَا إِفْكٌ مُبِينٌ

Had you heard it, and the believing men and women, thought good thoughts about one another said: 'This is a clear falsehood! [11:12]

وَلَوْلَا إِذْ سَمِعْتُمُوهُ قُلْتُمْ مَا يَكُونُ لَنَا أَنْ نَتَكَلَّمَ بِهَٰذَا سُبْحَانَكَ هَٰذَا بُهْتَانٌ عَظِيمٌ

When you heard it, why did you not say: 'It is not right for us to speak of this. Exaltations to You! This is a mighty slander! [11:16]

يَعِظُكُمُ اللَّهُ أَنْ تَعُودُوا لِمِثْلِهِ أَبَدًا إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ

Allah exhorts you never again to repeat the like, if you are believers.[11:18]

Funny you mention Mubahila, since the event of Mubahlia further confirms the ahl-e-bayt as defined in the hadith e kisa.

This verse was revealed for the event of mubahila

"But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."(3:61)

During the event of Mubahila, when Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) challenged the Monks of the Christians of Najran that they invoke the curse of God on each other and their family to see whom Allah favors. When the Cheif Monk saw the Prophet (pbuh) accompanied by Fatima, Ali , Hassan and Hussain (as) he called out to his people

By God, I see the faces which, if they pray to God for mountains to move from their places, the mountains will immediately move!

O believers in the Jesus of Nazareth, I will tell you the truth that should ye fail to enter into some agreement with Muhammad and if these souls whom Muhammad has brought with him, curse you, ye will be wiped out of existence to the last day of the life of the earth!

- Al Tabari, Commentary of the Quran, v 2 p 192 - 193

On the basis of the mubahalah verse, Sunni interpreters such as Zamakhshari, Baydawi, Imam Fakhr Razi and others regard `Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn (as) superior to all other people and argue that Hassan and Husayn are the sons of the Messenger (pbuh&hp) of Allah.

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Firstly, the Jarh (criticism) against Ikramah is NOT mubham...since there are statements from recognised Tabi's that Ikramah was a "LIAR" and yes which includes ibn Musayyib...

It is mubham. Calling some one a liar could be because of many reasons.

As for criticism of Ibn Musayyib then it was regarding a particular report.

ÚØÇÁ ÇáÎÑÇÓÇäí ÞáÊ áÓÚíÏ Èä ÇáãÓíÈ Åä ÚßÑãÉ íÒÚã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÊÒæÌ ãíãæäÉ æåæ ãÍÑã ÝÞÇá ßÐÈ

Ataa Al-Khurasani said: I said to Sa'eed bin Musayyib, "Ikrima thinks that Prophet (pbuh) married Maymoona (ra) while he was in ihraam". So Sa'eed replied, he lied.

Ibn Hajar then said: actually Ibn Masayyib did zulm on Ikrima by calling him liar, when actually that particular report has come through many routes. (i.e. Ikrima was not alone in reporting it).

I think you need to acquaint yourself with the principle of al-Jarh Muqaddam 'ala al-Ta'dil, meaning that a jarh takes precendece over ta'dil...

Actually Jarh mafassar takes precedence over T'adeel, and that is when there is no other reason to reject those Tajreeh.

But here in the case of Ikrima:

1. We have unexplained Jarh

2. Scholars studied this case very in-depthly and they almost everyone concluded that Ikrima was Thiqah, Hujjah, Thabat ect. Those who compiled in defence of Ikrima includes Ibn Jareer At-Tabari, Ibn Nasr Al-Marwadhi, Ibn Mandah, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Abdul Barr and recently i've read a small risala by Imam Al-Mundhiri in his defence. And those who defended him also includes Imam Bukhari, Imam Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and many mores.

3. Most of those who did tajreeh on him they did narrate from Ikrima.

Ibn Sireen, Malik, Ibn Qittan, they all narrates from him. It was reported that every narrations in which Ibn Sireen says "i was told, from Ibn Abbas", then actually he heard it from Ikrima. Malik wouldn't record any weak narration in Muwatta and he was strict in this regard but still he has recorded narrations of Ikrima, in one he named him in others he didn't. All these things shows that these scholars were against Ikrima's view not his narrations.

Your scholars claim that a mu'addil (critic who makes ta'dil) generally tends to emphasise something on a plain view (dhâhir), while a jârih (i.e. the critic who disparages ) tends to stress a hidden profile of a narrator....

The case changes when other ma'ddals expose the weakness of Jarh made on particular narrator.

And yes ibn Hajar did try weakening the arguments against Ikramah...let us suppose the that the reports against are actually weak, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, but what would Ibn hajar say today if he was live, when questioned:

"O ibn Hajar! Is it not your view that multiple weak chains can raise a report to up the level of hasan li ghairihi? Then under such a belief why have you ignored this principle with regards to Ikramah?"

1. Ibn Hajar was not alone in defending Ikrima. Scholars are defending him from the time the Jarh were made, and some names i told you just above.

2. No one said the reports are weak (except some reports), infact the claims are weak and invalid. And i don't know which multiple chain are you talking about.

There are reports from (disparaging the personality of Ikrimah):

Ibn Umar

Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas

Sa’eed ibn Jubayr

Muhammad ibn sireen

Saieed bin al-Musayyib

Etc...

Report of Ibn Umar is weak because it was narrated by Yahya Al-Bakka and he was matrook, as said by Ibn Hajar.

Report of Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas is also weak, as it was reported by Yazeed bin Abi Ziyaad. Ibn Hibban said 'he is not to be taken as proof' (Ath-Thiqaat 5/230). This was also qouted by Ibn Hajar in muqaddama of Fath.

I am not aware of Jarh of Ibn Jubayr at the moment.

Regarding Jarh of Ibn Sireen, i already dealt with it.

Also what Ibn Musayyib said was incorrect, because the report for which he called Ikrima a liar, was actually reported from other ways also as i said above

The following is a BLATANT lie from Ikrimah:

ÍÏËäÇ ÍãÇÏ Èä ÓáãÉ Úä ÞÊÇÏÉ Úä ÚßÑãÉ Úä ÇÈä ÚÈÇÓ ÞÇá : ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÇáå æÓáã :

ÑÇíÊ ÑÈì ÚÒæÌá ÔÇÈ ÇãÑÏ ÌÚÏ ÞØØ Úáíå ÍáÉ ÎÖÑÇÁ

The Messenger if Allah said: "I saw my Lord in image of beardless (man), with long curly hair in a green garden"

And guess what Ibn Taymiyyah? The Shaykh of your nick, considers this narrative be Sahih...

If this is weak then its because of Hammad bin Salama, as he is weak when he narrates from Qatadah.

As far as the authenticity is concerned, then many declared it munkar or fabricated based on matan, while some other consider it authentic. Those who concider it authentic they took it as a description of dream not that Prophet (pbuh) saw his Lord physically in this world.

Further read here..

The truth about him is that:

(1) He belonged to the Kharijites who were famous for showing their enmity and trickery towards Imam Ali...

al-Dhahabi wrote in his work: The very first reason to reject the tradition(s) of Akrama is based on the fact that he was Kharijite. Secondly his being a Kharijite, he even justified the killings of the fellow Muslim(s)

- al-Kashaf, by al-Dhahabi, v2, p272

(2) He was an opponent of many Islamic rules...(listened to songs, played blackgammon...etc)

(3) Mocked the Holy Quran...(ÅäãøÇ ÃäÒá Çááå ãÊÔÇÈå ÇáÞÑÂä áíÖá Èå)

(4) Called the Muslims Kaffirs!

æÞÇá Úáí Èä ÇáãÏíäí Íßí Úä íÚÞæÈ ÇáÍÖÑãí Úä ÌÏå ÞÇá æÞÝ ÚßÑãÉ Úáì ÈÇÈ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÝÞÇá ãÇ Ýíå ÅáÇ ßÇÝÑ ÞÇá æßÇä ÚßÑãÉ íÑì ÑÃí ÇáÃÈÇÖíÉ (ÊåÐíÈ ÇáßãÇá Ì: 20 Õ: 277)

(5) Imam Ahmad, etc: In the season of Hajj Ikrima came to Africa, and said: It would be very dear to me if I were at Hajj at this moment, I would have had swords in both my hands, and I would massacre the Muslims. After these statements by Akrama, the people of Africa avoided him. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib)

(6) The Muslims disregarded him, turned away from, and avoided him. They hated him very much, that none prayed over him when he died...

The list goes on...

then he qoutes Al-Ijli who said that this accusation of ikrima being a Haruri is not proven.

How about the following:

Mus'ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubairi said: 'Akrama (slave of ibn abbas) embraced the beliefs of Khawarij and he claimed that Ibn Abbas too embraced the beliefs of Khawarij'

Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 20 No. 4009

I agree reports from Ahlul-Bida could be accepted but NOT FROM LIARS...

I wouldn't be discussing regarding his views/bid'ah further as you accepted the main point.

As for him being a liar then i replied it above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ibn Taymiyyah:

3. Most of those who did tajreeh on him they did narrate from Ikrima.

Ibn Sireen, Malik, Ibn Qittan, they all narrates from him. It was reported that every narrations in which Ibn Sireen says "i was told, from Ibn Abbas", then actually he heard it from Ikrima. Malik wouldn't record any weak narration in Muwatta and he was strict in this regard but still he has recorded narrations of Ikrima, in one he named him in others he didn't. All these things shows that these scholars were against Ikrima's view not his narrations

.

Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd also narrates from the Tabi'een that Ikramahs narrations cant be used as proof (which is why Imam Malik and Imam Muslim would only use his narrations as back up and never on their own).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Assalamu'alaikum

Although i hav replied to almost every point related to Ikrima raised by truthseeker and zainabia (indirectly), but i will notify to zainabia seperately as it seems she has some some comprehension problem. After it i'll be replying to Hadith kisa issue.

Very Ridiculous argument. Just watch once again if the Authorities are criticizing (making Takzeeb) or 'Ikramah or of his reports:

  1. "Saieed bin al-Musayyib said to his servant Burd: "O Burd, do not lie and attribute to me like Ikramah lied and attributed (those Lies) to Ibn Abbas".
Ibn Masayyib said so becuase of a particular report of Ikrima which according to Ibn Musayyib was a lie. But actually the report of ikrima was authentic as it also comes through other students of Ibn Abbas.
ÇÐÇ ÌÇÁ ÇáÓÈÈ ÈØá ÇáÚÌÈ
Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas chained him(ikrimah) and when he was asked why, he replied: 'He forges (reports) and attributes to my father'.
This report is weak
Sa'eed ibn Jubayr and Ibn Sayreen and others considered him a "liar".

So, 'Ikramah FORGES, this same 'Ikramah "Falsly Attribute", this same 'Ikramah is a "Lair (both Person and his Reports)".

Ibn Sireen's statement has been dealt with. As for Ibn Jubayr, i'll chekc it after locating it.

Even a BLIND person could also see that here talk is not about 'Ikramah's Views (Aqaid), but crystal clearly about his "Forgering", "Fabricating Lies" and then "Falsely Attributing to Ibn Abbas".

ÇÐÇ ÌÇÁ ÇáÓÈÈ ÈØá ÇáÚÌÈ

All those jarh are not accepted because of valid reasons as explained earlier.

And if Ibn Taymiyyah (or Ibn Hajar) are not able to see this crystal clear thing, then it means Allah has made their hearts BLIND enough and put a seal upon their hearts and only due to this they are not able to see such crystal clear facts.

.......

Once again it is the "Peak of Blindness", and only Allah (swt) could take people like Ibn Taymiyyah out of this blindness.

Actually only these types of comments suits you.

'Aisha binte Abi Bakr was very very clear that Rasool (saw) called those 5 under the Blanket and then that verse was revealed. Almost all Sunni Scholars too agree that this verse was revealed for these 5.

1. The hadith doesn't state that the verse was revealed for those five. Hadith only mention that the Prophet (pbuh) recited the verse on them.

2. Most of the sunni scholars said that it was revealed for Prophet's (pbuh) wives, but other Ahlul Bayt are also included specially Ahlul Kisa.

Here is the Hadith of A'isha (ra) from Sahih Muslim,

ÍóÏóøËóäóÇ ÃóÈõæ ÈóßúÑö Èúäõ ÃóÈöì ÔóíúÈóÉó æóãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ ÚóÈúÏö Çááóøåö Èúäö äõãóíúÑò - æóÇááóøÝúÙõ áÃóÈöì ÈóßúÑò - ÞóÇáÇó ÍóÏóøËóäóÇ ãõÍóãóøÏõ Èúäõ ÈöÔúÑò Úóäú ÒóßóÑöíóøÇÁó Úóäú ãõÕúÚóÈö Èúäö ÔóíúÈóÉó Úóäú ÕóÝöíóøÉó ÈöäúÊö ÔóíúÈóÉó ÞóÇáóÊú ÞóÇáóÊú ÚóÇÆöÔóÉõ ÎóÑóÌó ÇáäóøÈöìõø -Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã- ÛóÏóÇÉð æóÚóáóíúåö ãöÑúØñ ãõÑóÍóøáñ ãöäú ÔóÚúÑò ÃóÓúæóÏó ÝóÌóÇÁó ÇáúÍóÓóäõ Èúäõ Úóáöìòø ÝóÃóÏúÎóáóåõ Ëõãóø ÌóÇÁó ÇáúÍõÓóíúäõ ÝóÏóÎóáó ãóÚóåõ Ëõãóø ÌóÇÁóÊú ÝóÇØöãóÉõ ÝóÃóÏúÎóáóåóÇ Ëõãóø ÌóÇÁó Úóáöìñø ÝóÃóÏúÎóáóåõ Ëõãóø ÞóÇáó (ÅöäóøãóÇ íõÑöíÏõ Çááóøåõ áöíõÐúåöÈó Úóäúßõãõ ÇáÑöøÌúÓó Ãóåúáó ÇáúÈóíúÊö æóíõØóåöøÑóßõãú ÊóØúåöíÑðÇ

Safiyah, the daughter of Shayba, has narrated `Aishah, the wife of the Holy Prophet (s), as saying: "One morning, the Messenger of Allah left the house with a cloak made of black material and bearing the design of a camel's saddle. Hasan ibn `Ali entered the place, and the Prophet (s) covered him with the cloak. Then came Husayn, Fatimah, and `Ali one after another, and all of them were also covered by the cloak. The Prophet (s) then stated: "... Allah only desires to keep away uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying."

But 'Ikramah was such big Nasibi and hater of Ahlebait, that he clearly denied it and challenged to pray and invoke the Curse of Allah if some one does not agree that ONLY and ONLY Wives are included in this verse. Here is the tradition of 'Ikramah once again:

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

As i said there is no contradiction. You misunderstood the narration of Aisha and Um Salama. Hadith Kisa is not speaking regarding the revelation of 33:33. So don't put the words in Ikrima's mouth that he was declaring Ummul Mumineen a liar.

Mr. Ibn_Taymiyyah:

If you still claim there is no contradiction, then Are you ready to pray and invoke curse of Allah upon ALL THOSE who don't agree with you that this verse is revealed only and only for wives, and otherwise you agree that this Curse of Allah returns upon you?

May we get your answer in "Yes" or "No" without any running away?

No,

I am not that bothered in such a small issue. I am not Ikrima.

*************************

The Clear Example of Munafiq Standards

The Standards of Hadith of Ahle-Sunnah (about which they are Boasting every time that it is very strict blah blah blah), one very simple Standard is this that a Taba'i has to directly heard from a Sahabi and that Sahabi has to hear from Rasool (saw).

But now look at the Perfect Example of Munafiq Standards.

Here we not even taling about Aima of Ahlebait (as) and Shias, but sole argument was about Sunni Hadith System, according to which 'Ikramah did not recieve the WAHI (revelation), so he was not present when this Verse was revealed. Now according to so-called Sunni Hadith Standards, this claim of 'Ikramah should be Directly denied, but in this case there comes the Munafiq Standards and although 'Ikramah didn't recieve any revelation, but still his lies are blindly taken without any Jarh.

Need I to comment any more upon this Munafiq Standards?

well the point is, Ikrima's statement is not a hujjah for us, and no sunni claimed such thing as far as i know.

Secondly, we took into consideration every statemnt of mufassirs. Ikrima was among mufassirs. So we took his statement as a scholar's view not something like Hujjah report. so from where the heck this ilmul rijal issue has entered in this.

Sorry don't have any time to play teacher for you. If you claim I am wrong, then bring your definitions and prove that I am wrong about tradition of 'Ikramah and Tradition of 'Aisha and others too.

Also bring that tradition of Ibn Abbas (with it's authentication) that you are crying here.... but also tell us this thread went for many pages and why didn't you present it up till now?

Because i wasn't here.

Asalaam Alaikum.

Brother/Sister Zainabia may not have the time...but I do have some spare minutes to give away...

lets us destroy the argument of the khawarij Ikrimah by using the principle of Shaadh and Munkaar...

The Shaadh narration is that which contains a trusted reporter but reports something contradictory to another more reliable reporter...

and

Munkaar narration is that which contains a weak narrator who reports something contradictory in comparison to a reliable reporter...

Hence under such a definition, what would you say if I was you ask you that:

Since Ikrimah is not reliable... the question of his narration being shaadh is out of question... with regards to him being weak and therefore his narration being termed as munkar...this cannot be accepted also since he is accused of being a LIAR....and not just weak...According to your scholars, a narration from the mouth of a LIAR which CANNOT be verified through other means is rejected outright...let alone being termed munkar...so under the light of such an actuality, how can anyone who is familiar with the rules and the principle of Jarh wal-Ta'dil really try to use arguments in defence of Ikrimah which do do carry any weight?

I say that Ikirmah cannot be defended...

I could be wrong...

So prove me wrong....

Coz if you cant....

Then you should know that Ikrimah is weak...

I leave you with a quote: "Get hold of a theory and try to defend it, if you cant then you will know that it is false"

Thanks for proving that this has nothing to do with shudhudh of report as it is proven FROM IKRIMA.

You can do only one thing in this regard, prove that THE VIEW OF IKRIMA was shaadh. And for this you need to prove that what he said was incorrect. And if you do it then think only to prove the shudhudh of Ikrima's view NOT sunni view as it is proven from Quran and there is no better report to prove quran shaadh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Truth_Seeker_786, on 06 June 2010 - 10:09 PM, said:

Firstly, the Jarh (criticism) against Ikramah is NOT mubham...since there are statements from recognised Tabi's that Ikramah was a "LIAR" and yes which includes ibn Musayyib...

It is mubham. Calling some one a liar could be because of many reasons.

I is Mubham? Please find me just ONE example of any scholars who has stated that the accusation of a lie falls under general criticism and not explained jarh?

Jarh is muffasar is usually is levelled against the memorization/preservation or the Adaalah (i.e. trustworthiness, uprightness) of the narrator...

Hence calling someone a liar is a statement of Jarh Muffasar, the following three examples are of its (jarh) kind:

Fulan Fasiq, i.e. so-and-so is unrighteous; Fulan mutahham bi'l-kidhb, i.e. so-and-so is accused of lying;

As for criticism of Ibn Musayyib then it was regarding a particular report.

ÚØÇÁ ÇáÎÑÇÓÇäí ÞáÊ áÓÚíÏ Èä ÇáãÓíÈ Åä ÚßÑãÉ íÒÚã Ãä ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã ÊÒæÌ ãíãæäÉ æåæ ãÍÑã ÝÞÇá ßÐÈ

Ataa Al-Khurasani said: I said to Sa'eed bin Musayyib, "Ikrima thinks that Prophet married Maymoona while he was in ihraam". So Sa'eed replied, he lied.

Ibn Hajar then said: actually Ibn Masayyib did zulm on Ikrima by calling him liar, when actually that particular report has come through many routes. (i.e. Ikrima was not alone in reporting it).

Pls ponder over the statement: "Ataa Al-Khurasani said: I said to Sa'eed bin Musayyib, "Ikrima thinks that Prophet married Maymoona while he was in ihraam"

While " RELYING" upon the statement of Ataa Al-Khurasani, Sa'eed replied, he lied...Hence Ibn Hajar had actually made another blunder in trying to save the Khawarij...

Bedsides do you actually know what position Sa'eed ibn Musayyib holds amongst the Tabi'een as seen my the Ahlul-Sunnah?

Could he then have gone against Ikrimah on the basis of a SINGLE incident...?

What do to do is to take into consideration of all other accusations upon this person with regards to his LYING conciously or unconciously... EVEN this one too:

Mus'ab ibn Abdullah al-Zubairi said: 'Akrama (slave of ibn abbas) embraced the beliefs of Khawarij and he claimed that Ibn Abbas too embraced the beliefs of Khawarij'

Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 20 No. 4009

Actually Jarh mafassar takes precedence over T'adeel, and that is when there is no other reason to reject those Tajreeh.

No I would disagree here, according to your scholars, if a person has both jarh and tad'il for him (general) then the jarh takes precedence...

In a case where the jarh is unexplained and the ta'dil is "estabslihed" then that is where the latter rides over the former....

However with Ikrimah, the verdicts against him fall under : JARH MUFFASSAR.

But here in the case of Ikrima:

1. We have unexplained Jarh

2. Scholars studied this case very in-depthly and they almost everyone concluded that Ikrima was Thiqah, Hujjah, Thabat ect. ...

Again the case with Ikrimah is explained JARH.... (Waiting for your example from just one Alim who approves that the "accusation of a lie" falls under general jarh...(Your gonna like stuying this)

Those who compiled in defence of Ikrima includes Ibn Jareer At-Tabari, Ibn Nasr Al-Marwadhi, Ibn Mandah, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Abdul Barr and recently i've read a small risala by Imam Al-Mundhiri in his defence. And those who defended him also includes Imam Bukhari, Imam Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and many mores.

Defence of someone is not the criteria of judging a person's "credibility" in the science of JARH WAL-TA'DIL.... We know that scholars also defend YAZID IBN MUAWIYA in many cases, does that mean that become "approved" in such cases? And the contrary the Shiah defend many of those who are seen as LIAR'S BY YOUR SCOLARS...

Most of those who did tajreeh on him they did narrate from Ikrima.

This is not a valid argument to prove his INNOCENCE.... Please consider the following points:

* Scholars have accepted certain reports while knowing that the isnaad is defective (contains a disparaged narrator)...Why? Because they believe that as long as MATN (TEXT) does not contradict the established facts then that wont be a problem...

* Look into Tafsir ibn kathir for such example...

* According to your hadith collections, did the Prophet not take the NEWS of the JEWS with regards to the FAST OF ASHURA?

* Look into the the book of JARH AND TA'DIL...you will see a list of GIANTS quoting al-Kalbi (known as a liar by your scholars)...

* As long as Ahllul-Bidah (Ikrinah) narrate what which does not support their Bid'ah...on such a basis reports are accept from them by your scholars...

No one said the reports are weak (except some reports), infact the claims are weak and invalid. And i don't know which multiple chain are you talking about.

When there are MULITIPLE claims that Ikrimah is a liar, then that should carry some weight, since each news strengthens each other, please look into the concept of Hasan li Ghayri hi...

Report of Ibn Umar is weak because it was narrated by Yahya Al-Bakka and he was matrook, as said by Ibn Hajar.

Report of Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas is also weak, as it was reported by Yazeed bin Abi Ziyaad. Ibn Hibban said 'he is not to be taken as proof' (Ath-Thiqaat 5/230). This was also qouted by Ibn Hajar in muqaddama of Fath.

I am not aware of Jarh of Ibn Jubayr at the moment.

Regarding Jarh of Ibn Sireen, i already dealt with it.

Also what Ibn Musayyib said was incorrect, because the report for which he called Ikrima a liar, was actually reported from other ways also as i said above

All the above and "OTHERS" strengthen one another...(multiple weak chains can raise a report up to the level of Hasan)

With regards to the description of Allah in the narration of IKRIMAH:

As far as the authenticity is concerned, then many declared it munkar or fabricated based on matan...

If it is CLAIMED that such a NEWS is fabricated, then only person who is ACCUSED of being a "LIAR" or a "FABRICATOR" in the chain is Ikrimah! Hence the lie should be directed to him and his reality should be made known...

And if it NOT accepted as a LIE then that would imply that what the texts states is TRUE...then this would tantamount to SHIRK! However with regards to your saying:

Those who concider it authentic they took it as a description of dream not that Prophet saw his Lord physically in this world.

This is a lame excuse! It cannot be justified...Whether the Prophet (s) saw Allah in a dream or in reality...is a different case all-togther...what we are DISPUTING first is the description of Allah, a BEARDLESS MAN, WITH CURLY HAIR WANDERING ABOUT IN A GREEN GARDEN...

Is it not weird that Allah commands his Prophets, the believers to keep a beard and yet Allah refrains from keeping one himself and further contradicts his own command:"Why do you say that which yourselves not act upon? "

You quoted me:

I agree reports from Ahlul-Bida could be accepted but NOT FROM LIARS...

Then said:

I wouldn't be discussing regarding his views/bid'ah further as you accepted the main point.

Pls ponder over my statement, reports from Ahlul-Bida could be accepted but not from liars, I made it CONDITIONAL by using he term "liars" ...This includes the ahlul-bida too... if they are lie, their news would not be accepted...hence what would taken from them are the fact since Ahlul-Bida at times do speak of truth....So study the wisdom of my statement under your words:

In any case this is not a jarh. we accept the report of Ahlul Bid'ah, as far as it is not in support of his Bid'ah (near a group of scholars).

Secondly, the following arguments against Ikrimah cannot be ignored...for they EXPOSE him as someone who is considered a FASIQ and do you know the ruling upon a FASIQ in the light of JARH AND TA'DIL...? (The FISQ of a person falls under "EXPLAINED JARH") SO therefore in both ways, being a LIAR and a FASIQ, Ikrimah's RELIABLITY is RUINED...

I'll wait for your response with regards to him being a liar as reported in multiple ways, hence the concept of Hasan li-ghairihi...but how would you DEFEND HIM IN HIS FISQ?

Since the RELIABLITY of a FAQSIQ cannot ACCEPTED...then what method would you use, to save him from the FISQ?

(1) According to the source of al-Dhahabi...Ikrimah justified the killings of the fellow Muslim(s)

- al-Kashaf, by al-Dhahabi, v2, p272

(2) He was an opponent of many Islamic rules...(listened to songs, played blackgammon...etc)

(3) Mocked the Holy Quran...(ÅäãøÇ ÃäÒá Çááå ãÊÔÇÈå ÇáÞÑÂä áíÖá Èå)

(4) Called the Muslims Kaffirs!

æÞÇá Úáí Èä ÇáãÏíäí Íßí Úä íÚÞæÈ ÇáÍÖÑãí Úä ÌÏå ÞÇá æÞÝ ÚßÑãÉ Úáì ÈÇÈ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÝÞÇá ãÇ Ýíå ÅáÇ ßÇÝÑ ÞÇá æßÇä ÚßÑãÉ íÑì ÑÃí ÇáÃÈÇÖíÉ (ÊåÐíÈ ÇáßãÇá Ì: 20 Õ: 277)

(5) Imam Ahmad, etc: In the season of Hajj Ikrima came to Africa, and said: It would be very dear to me if I were at Hajj at this moment, I would have had swords in both my hands, and I would massacre the Muslims. After these statements by Akrama, the people of Africa avoided him. (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib)

(6) The Muslims disregarded him, turned away from, and avoided him. They hated him very much, that none prayed over him when he died...

ALL THIS COUNTS TOWARDS HIS FISQ...

What would you say....

waslaam.

[

Edited by Truth_Seeker_786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks for proving that this has nothing to do with shudhudh of report as it is proven FROM IKRIMA.

You can do only one thing in this regard, prove that THE VIEW OF IKRIMA was shaadh. And for this you need to prove that what he said was incorrect.

Hang on bro, your confusing the matter here...

The case of Shaadh or Munkar does not APPLY to Ikrimah...

Let me make it clear:

In the case of Shaadh - The contradicting person needs to be realible, which is NOT PROVEN for Ikrimah....

In the case of Munkar - The contradiciting person needs to be weak and again this does not apply also to Ikrimah, since he is ACCUSED OF BEING A LIAR...

And the news of of a LIAR is rejected outright (unless there is support for what he says through factual/authentic means)....

And if you do it then think only to prove the shudhudh of Ikrima's view NOT sunni view as it is proven from Quran and there is no better report to prove quran shaadh.

The Sunni view is also contradictory to the ESTABLISHED FACTS, since I do not accuse them of being LIARS but rather confused...hence their claim wouldl rest under "shaadh" and set aside....

-----------------------------------------------------

Zainabia said:

But 'Ikramah was such big Nasibi and hater of Ahlebait, that he clearly denied it and challenged to pray and invoke the Curse of Allah if some one does not agree that ONLY and ONLY Wives are included in this verse. Here is the tradition of 'Ikramah once again:

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

Then you said:

As i said there is no contradiction. You misunderstood the narration of Aisha and Um Salama. Hadith Kisa is not speaking regarding the revelation of 33:33. So don't put the words in Ikrima's mouth that he was declaring Ummul Mumineen a liar.

Firsly, the contradiction does exist, ponder over the words of Ikirmah:

This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet ,

Let me ask you, if the verse was revealed ONLY for the wives, then how would cover the issue of masculine gender in the word "Ankum" and after that?

That should be enough to prove that the LIAR HAS LIED AGAIN....

YOur statement:"...You misunderstood the narration of Aisha and Um Salama. Hadith Kisa is not speaking regarding the revelation of 33:33.///" is falsified...

Look at the following narration:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) 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."

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Why was it revealed in the house of Umm Salmah? What was so SPECIAL about her house? What does the history say that TOOK PLACE in her house that CAUSED the revelation of the Ayah in question?

By pondering over such questions, an uncorrupted mind would easily accept the fact that the verse under view, was revealed for the mentioned personalties in the as seen in narration of Umm Salmah (ra)..

Besides, the statement of the Prophet (s) himself: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "This verse has been revealed about five individuals: Myself, Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husain, and Fatimah."

Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, p5, under the verse 33:33

I leave you with a quote:

"Just to save their beloved, they have distorted the truth, not knowing that it should have been the truth itself as their beloved and not otherwise"

Thanks for proving that this has nothing to do with shudhudh of report as it is proven FROM IKRIMA.

You can do only one thing in this regard, prove that THE VIEW OF IKRIMA was shaadh. And for this you need to prove that what he said was incorrect.

Hang on bro, your confusing the matter here...

The case of Shaadh or Munkar does not APPLY to Ikrimah...

Let me make it clear:

In the case of Shaadh - The contradicting person needs to be realible, which is NOT PROVEN for Ikrimah....

In the case of Munkar - The contradiciting person needs to be weak and again this does not apply also to Ikrimah, since he is ACCUSED OF BEING A LIAR...

And the news of of a LIAR is rejected outright (unless there is support for what he says through factual/authentic means)....

And if you do it then think only to prove the shudhudh of Ikrima's view NOT sunni view as it is proven from Quran and there is no better report to prove quran shaadh.

The Sunni view is also contradictory to the ESTABLISHED FACTS, since I do not accuse them of being LIARS but rather confused...hence their claim wouldl rest under "shaadh" and set aside....

-----------------------------------------------------

Zainabia said:

But 'Ikramah was such big Nasibi and hater of Ahlebait, that he clearly denied it and challenged to pray and invoke the Curse of Allah if some one does not agree that ONLY and ONLY Wives are included in this verse. Here is the tradition of 'Ikramah once again:

Now see how this lair 'Ikramah is denying the witness of 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr, when he is claiming:

'Ikramah said: "This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet , I am prepared to meet with him and pray and invoke the curse of Allah upon those who are lying.'''

Here 'Ikramah is actually not only declaring 'Aisha binte Abi Bakr to be a Lair and cursed one, but claiming the same thing about Umm Salama (salam Allah alaiha) as she was also witness that this verse was revealed for the 5 excluding the wives......

Then you said:

As i said there is no contradiction. You misunderstood the narration of Aisha and Um Salama. Hadith Kisa is not speaking regarding the revelation of 33:33. So don't put the words in Ikrima's mouth that he was declaring Ummul Mumineen a liar.

Firsly, the contradiction does exist, ponder over the words of Ikirmah:

This (verse) was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet. Whoever disagrees with me that it was revealed solely concerning the wives of the Prophet ,

Let me ask you, if the verse was revealed ONLY for the wives, then how would cover the issue of masculine gender in the word "Ankum" and after that?

That should be enough to prove that the LIAR HAS LIED AGAIN....

YOur statement:"...You misunderstood the narration of Aisha and Um Salama. Hadith Kisa is not speaking regarding the revelation of 33:33.///" is falsified...

Look at the following narration:

The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) 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."

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Why was it revealed in the house of Umm Salmah? What was so SPECIAL about her house? What does the history say that TOOK PLACE in her house that CAUSED the revelation of the Ayah in question?

By pondering over such questions, an uncorrupted mind would easily accept the fact that the verse under view, was revealed for the mentioned personalties in the as seen in narration of Umm Salmah (ra)..

Besides, the statement of the Prophet (s) himself: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "This verse has been revealed about five individuals: Myself, Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husain, and Fatimah."

Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, p5, under the verse 33:33

I leave you with a quote:

"Just to save their beloved, they have distorted the truth, not knowing that it should have been the truth itself as their beloved and not otherwise"

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.


×
×
  • Create New...