How Many Daughters Did The Prophet Have?

[haideriam]

No one was allowed to go to the mosque in a state of impurity except him and Imam Ali [a]. Thus exceptions can be made for more than just him .

(bismillah)

(salam)

this is a good example but not really true

could we not say that the holy prophet (pbuh) and imam ali (as) would never enter the mosque in an impure state

there is also this verse of all impurity being kept away from them

the exceptions i was talking about bro were as an example

more than 4 permanent marriages

salat ul lail being fard for the holy prophet (pbuh)

the holy prophet (pbuh) fasting continuously for 2 days

hope you get my point

(wasalam)

Edited January 8, 2011 by haideriam

[Muhammed Ali]

(bismillah)

(salam)

this is a good example but not really true

could we not say that the holy prophet (pbuh) and imam ali (as) would never enter the mosque in an impure state

there is also this verse of all impurity being kept away from them

the exceptions i was talking about bro were as an example

more than 4 permanent marriages

salat ul lail being fard for the holy prophet (pbuh)

the holy prophet (pbuh) fasting continuously for 2 days

hope you get my point

(wasalam)

(salam)

Interesting response brother. Wasn't salaat ul layl also wajib on Imam Ali [a]?

Also let us not forget that it was prophet Muhammed who was giving Fadak, so it could be said that he was the exception.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

(salam)

Nothing to do with bad marrying good. Its to do with the Prophet's judgement. As it is going to become a sunnah, this is a very important point. Your example of the wife of Lut (as) is therefore irrelevant.

I believe I more than answered this. You cannot precondemn a man. Are you saying the infallible Prophet Lut, aleyhis salam, had bad judgement?

Please stop being emotional. Nader himself admits to using weak hadiths to prove his point. Disagreeing with his conclusions doesn't mean one is rejecting the scholars or the Imams. This is a historical issue and it doesn't necessarily mean that the scholars of fiqh are the best to comment on this issue.

Nader proved the conclusion with his argument on calling adopted children by their real parent's names.

The classical scholars were polymaths in Islam. They were not modern ayatollahs.

Peace.

[ShiaAnswers]

Bismihi Ta'ala,

Salamun Alaikum Brother Perseverance,

My original post was directed to brother Nader who has spent quite a bit of effort and time in writing this article. My post included a critique of some of the methods and the statements made in his article. If you disagree with my opinions, you are welcome to do so but there is no reason to be rude and hostile. We are all here because of our love for AhlulBayt (A) and we should show that love for them by treating their followers with respect. The tone and the way you are talking is unnecessary and simply immature. That being said, I will respond to your points simply to show the flaws in your statements and the bad assumptions you made. However, this will be my last response to you regarding this. I am not here for childish attacks and back and forth arguments. If you have something rational to say, be polite and make your point.

I hope you read my responses carefully and with an open mind. I can tell from your points that you did not read my earlier post or think about it. Brother Nader read it and was not offended nor was he disrespectful.

May Allah guide us all to serve him better inshallah.

1) When the majority of the Ulema, including giants from the classical scholars, say that the correct interpretation of the matter is that the Prophet had four biological daughters, then we should follow the majority of the Ulema, especially when these include giants from the classical scholars. You think you're something compared to thiqat al-Islam ash-shaykh al-Kulayni? You think the words of some random person, regardless of who they are, are higher than the words of the chosen representative of Imam al-Mahdi?

I don't think I am anything compared to these great Ulama. If Shaikh Alkulayni was alive today I would be the first to kiss his feet. The amount of work, time, dedication and sacrifice that these great Ulama have done for our religion is indescribable and we are not denying any of that. That being said they are not infallible and yes they do make mistakes.

The second point is that this issue, as I've explained, is very minor and insignificant in the larger picture of Islam. This is a purely historical discussion and does not warrant that much attention. When the Ulama talk about historical issues such as this, they do not spend time and effort researching it, unless they are specialized in it or are writing a detailed analysis on the topic. All the quotes which brother Nader has provided are simply narrating the same opinion and none of them includes any historical analysis or evidence of the matter. What we are saying is that these Ulama were not trying to give their analysis on the issue, only what they have seen in other books. If there is a detailed study that counters this opinion, we are allowed to hear it.

The third point is that there are a lot of opinions which were popular at one time and today most of our Ulama disagree with them. Just because Altoosi, Alkulayni and Almufeed agreed on something, doesn't mean that no one else can disagree on it. These are some of our great Ulama and our respect for them is great but they are not infallible and they are not giving an analysis only saying what is famous among the people and what has been narrated to them. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this point.

The fourth point is who said anything about a random person? The person I mentioned Ayatollah Sayyid Ja'far Mortadha Alaamili is one of our great scholars who is an expert on the field. He is very respected by most of the Maraji' today and his work has been appreciated by them. If he has an opinion why not here it? Today we have greater ability to combine resources and to look at different things which was not available then.

2) On what basis are you guys disputing this? Almost nothing we Shia consider valid and authorative. The works of a Sunni scholar or a Sunni source have NO authority for the Shia. So if a Sunni scholar says that the Prophet only had one biological daughter, then he is wrong. Why? Because OUR Shia scholars, including classical scholars, said otherwise. So if you believe that the Prophet did not have four daughters based on a Sunni source, then you should be ashamed of yourself for believing this, when our Ulema testify otherwise.

It is not that there is a Sunni source which says “the prophet had one daughter” and we are saying “ oh yes it's in the bukhari we must believe it”. We are not idiots, brother. The fact is Sunnis have greater stake in proving that the Prophet (S) had four daughters because of their claim that Othman was married to two of them. Therefore, when Sunnis themselves say he only had one, that should give you pause. IT IS NOT CERTAIN EVIDENCE. No one is claiming that.

3) Just because a few "scholars" who are in the minority say otherwise, and these scholars are minor in status too, it does not make the vast majority of Ulema, including giants from the classical scholars such as al-Kulayni and at-Tusi others, wrong and misguidance on this issue. For example, let me remind that you at-Tusi has been called "ash-shaykh at-Taa'ifa".

Just a minute ago you said we relied on sunni sources, now you say that there are some “minority” of Shia scholars who believe the one daughter theory, which is it? Anyway the whole point is this: There is one opinion that says he had four and one that says he has one. One has the statements of those great Ulama but no historical analysis, the other goes counter to that and has historical analysis. Which one you choose to believe is up to you, just stop saying that those who believe in the other theory are people of “bid'ah”, “qiyass”, and they are disrespecting or ignoring the value of the great Ulama.

5) ... Remember, we, especially in this day and age, do not know everything in Shia Islam. Our knowledge is low, and we are not even Ulema for crying out loud. We are not worth the shoes that al-Kulayni or al-Mufeed or at-Tusi wore, let alone the dirt under Ameer al-Mu'mineen's feet. These believed that the Prophet had four daughters. ...

First this is a historical matter, not a matter of belief. If this was related to Imamah, Prophethood or some other type of important issue which these scholars would analyze more carefully then the discussion would be different. You are correct of their great position and no argument there, however, as I said it does not mean they are infallible.

6) You can try to argue with Nader's reasoning. But the fact is that the Ulema agreed with the conclusion. It doesn't matter about the reasoning ultimately. It matters about what the Ulema said.

This is probably your biggest mistake. This is not a matter of Fiqh where the Marji's opinion is an authority on you regardless of reasoning. This is a HISTORICAL matter. Historical questions requires analysis and sources. It matters greatly how they got there. The only one who we do not question even in historical matters is the infallible Imam.

Do you even know what bidah means? It means innovation. Therefore it can be used in reference to anything, whether it be an innovation in Salaat or an innovation in belief.

Bid'ah in arabic means inventing something new that was unheard of before. However, it is used in religious discussions to mean: “Adding or subtracting things from the religion without any religious basis to do so” (Alrasa'il, Alshareef Almurtadha, 3:83). This is a HISTORICAL matter. Believing it or not believing it is not a part of the religion. Thus describing those who believe in the one daughter theory as people of Bid'ah is wrong and baseless.

What terrible reasoning. There have been a number of Sunni scholars that have said (or so it is claimed although I would love to see a list of the names with evidence because I doubt this theory of only 1 daughter is that prominent amongst the Sunnis although I could be wrong) the Prophet had only 1 daughter. So al-Mufeed answered this issue. Just like Ulema answered other issues. For example, just because there was a debate over whether the Quran is created or eternal, it does not mean that this debate has some basis in truth! (It is said to be a bidah and forbidden to discuss it, if I remember correctly).

Please bring names of prominent Ulema of the Shia, with respective book and page number, that rejected the Prophet's other daughters when the majority of the Ulema supported the daughters.

I guess you did not understand my point. My point is not that this is PROOF that he only had one daughter but that there is SOME question about it. Again I repeat this is a historical issue not a question of belief. If someone a million people come and ask if god is one or two that doesn't give that position any strength or validity, we are talking about historical issues. The poor reasoning is on your part comparing this to a question of Aqa'id in the matter of creation of the Quran.

As far as your request for Ulama that held the other opinion: The whole point which we are making is that there was no analysis done on the issue from our Ulama so that there would be opinions one way or the other. However, I mentioned that Sayyid Alaamli who is a prominent Shia historian today holds the other opinion and that is sufficient to say that THERE IS ANOTHER OPINION. I am not saying he must be correct. I am just saying it's not absurd to believe in the one daughter theory.

How ironic. Seriously.

I did not claim he was a person of Bid'ah, I don't see the irony.

.....Are you serious?! Who do you think you are?! Let me quote your own words "Please be careful in the words you use. You will be responsible in front of Allah (SWT) for things you have said" You think our Ulema were dumb? You think al-Mufeed was careless? You think he just said any random thing without careful analysis of ahadeeth and other evidence? This is what you are implying! May Allah, azza wa jalla, protect the Imamis from you! How can you trust ANY of this religion (Shia Islam) when it is the classical scholars who preserved it? For example, don't you know that without the three Muhammeds (al-Kulayni, as-Sadooq, and at-Tusi) we would have lost most of the words of the Aimmah?

I am nobody compared to those great scholars. I am not putting my opinion in front of theirs, that would be ignorant. Nor am I claiming that they just gave opinions without thought or checking. However, you misunderstood my point so let me try again:

I will give an example to illustrate my point. When a scholar becomes a Marji' they spend a long time creating their book of Islamic Laws. In it they provide their followers with the important questions of Fiqh that they will face. However, the Maraji' don't go and look up every single mustahab action and verify its validity. If you ask the Marji' if this du'a is mustahab and that du'a is mustahab and this prayer and that action, many of them just simply say that is what is famous amongst the Ulama or that is what has been narrated. They simply don't have the time to go check the hadeeths and the chains of narrations to authenticate every single little prayer and du'a to see if it's actually mustahab with a saheeh sanad. Many of them even say that in their own book of laws “whatever is known to be mustahab, the follower may do with the intention of raja'”.

The point is that the smaller side issues which are not going to affect the person greatly one way or another do not have that much priority in the lives of these great scholars. Some of them write on side issues sometimes and their analysis is respected and considered but if they just simply narrate what is famous, BECAUSE IT'S A HISTORICAL issue, then that's something different. I hope the point is clear.

Firstly, so because some random book was supposedly highly praised by nobodies in comparison to at-Tusi, this makes it good? Harry Potter is more praised than this book. Saheeh al-Bukhari is more praised than this book. Secondly, what are his sources for disagreeing with a giant like ash-shaykh at-Taa'ifa?

Why the rudeness and immaturity? We are talking about a scholar who spent years of his life writing a 35 volume book on the history of our Holy Prophet (S) and defending the Shia beliefs, and you compare it to Harry Potter? You ridicule others for criticizing Nader without reading his article and yet you are poking fun at this scholar and his work without knowing anything about it.

The work of this Sayyid has been praised by at least five of our Maraji': Shaikh Bahjat, Sayyid Mohammad Sa'eed Alhakeem, Sh. Meerza Jawad Altabrizi, Sayyid Ali Alsistani and Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi. Some of them even refer to his work for analysis when asked about historical matters since they don't usually do that. Now all of these Maraji' say that he is an authenticator, a historian and knowledgeable and yet you say he is “random” and a “nobody”, hypocrite much? Please don't speak about things you don't know about.

No no no. Please don't repeat an argument which was refuted two pages ago. As Nader pointed out, there are ahadeeth that support the Prophet having four daughter. And no hadeeth that says otherwise. You cannot randomly do tafseer of a verse according to a personal opinion - an opinion held by a nobody and a personal opinion which contradicts the vast majority of Ulema.

I did not do tafseer. I simply said that the Quran sometimes uses the plural to mean a singular. Obviously the default is to take the plural but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a plural to mean a singular. I said COULD not that it does. I did not give a personal opinion and the Alim which you referred to as nobody, I told you what the Maraji' say about him.

This counts as many ahadeeth. Wait a second, why am I arguing about the muttwaatir status of the Prophet having four daughters? Do you reject authentic ahadeeth from the Aimmah? 2 were saheeh.

Muttawatar means there are many hadeeths with different chains of narrations that are authentic. No one dares calls this Muttawatar.

Two Saheeh Hadeeths only said “bintu Nabiyk”, it is not sufficient evidence to prove the theory if there is other evidence that counters that. They could be using bint here to mean he raised her as we said.

Why? The laws forbidding marrying a kaffir had not been revealed. The Prophet did not given Adhaan before he was 40 years old. Go attack him for that. The Prophet (probably) called Zayd his son before the revelation of the forbidding of this. Go attack him for that by your logic.

What evidence?!

Obviously you did not read the article I provided which is quite hypocritical since you are ridiculing everyone who commented on Nader's theory before reading his article. It is not impossible because he was kaffir, it impossible because they would not have been old enough due to the date Khadeeja married the Prophet.

There is no hadeeth that supports them not being the daughters of the Prophet refuting this ridiculous argument.

As I said many things go into understanding Hadeeths. If you knew anything about Ilm Alusool and how the scholars analyze these things you wouldn't be calling everything you see ridiculous based on your limited knowledge on the subject. Sometimes outside evidence gives us a different understanding of the hadeeth. For example: What do you do when you have two saheeh hadeeths that say completely opposite things? It is not as simple as we have a saheeh hadeeth so that's it. You also have to consider the rest of the evidence. Also these hadeeths are not final on the subject because they are not addressing the subject directly. Their “dalalah” is not direct.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Thiqat al-Islam, as an example, rarely talks himself in al-Kafi. Yet he said that the Prophet had four daughters. What do you think this means? Why do you think he said this?

Stop making assumptions. I know Alkafi very well and I know Alkulayni doesn't talk much in it. I read the statements quoted by Brother Nader. Alkulayni was not trying to study the issue, he was simply given a brief summary of what has been narrated about the Prophet's life. It is not as if he thought “oh this is a very important fact that I need to make”. He was giving a summary about the Prophet's life and mentioned this among many other things.

You are now being insulting to history. Just because an issue doesn't deal with Aqeeda or Fiqh or whatever, it means that history was disregarded?

Questions of history differ in importance. This is not a very important subject compared to the many questions and attacks that we face as Shia. Alkulayni, Almufeed and the other great scholars were much more concerned about preserving Hadeeths, correct Aqa'id, important historical events of AhlulBayt and Fiqh than they were about side issues such as this one. This wouldn't even be an issue if it didn't deal with Othman marrying them.

Do you even know who he is? He is the representative of the Imam. The Imam, and therefore probably GOD, chose him to represent the Imam. He is an official representative. You think he would be allowed to say something incorrect? We should stop here. His words on the matter are all that are needed.

Yes I know who he is. I am not like you calling scholars nobodies without knowing who they are. Him being the representative of the Imam does not make him infallible. You would know that if you know basics of Aqa'id and basics of infallibility. His word is not final unless he says the Imam told me this.

Are you serious?! Based on this, I will not bother responding to the rest of ridiculous and disrespectful post.

Your post contained accusations of scholars being “nobodies” “random” comparing a Shia Scholar's work to Harry Potter and Albukhari, you used descriptions such as “ridiculous” “fictional” and you said people were doing “Bid'ah” for having a different historical belief than you, and yet I am disrespectful? It is funny that Brother Nader was fine with my comments and yet you felt disrespected. The Holy Prophet (S) says in Alkafi: “Allah will not accept the repentance of the people of Bid'ah” and yet you are calling all these brothers and sisters that. Be careful what you say, you will be asked about it by Allah (SWT).

My position on this is that the two theories have their support. People are free to choose whichever they feel is more correct. No one from will be a person of Bid'ah. That is all I am trying to say here. I am not saying Brother Nader is wrong or right.

I pray that Allah (SWT) guide us all to the right path. Inshallah Allah will give brother Nader the support and guidance to continue serving AhlulBayt (A) and reward him based on his intentions.

Allah knows best.

Edited January 9, 2011 by ShiaAnswers

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Wa alaykum assalam wa rahmetu Allahi wa barekato.

If you disagree with my opinions, you are welcome to do so but there is no reason to be rude and hostile. We are all here because of our love for AhlulBayt (A) and we should show that love for them by treating their followers with respect. The tone and the way you are talking is unnecessary and simply immature. That being said, I will respond to your points simply to show the flaws in your statements and the bad assumptions you made. However, this will be my last response to you regarding this. I am not here for childish attacks and back and forth arguments. If you have something rational to say, be polite and make your point.

You are welcome to allege that I was "childish" and whatnot. However, my tone was suitable for the one who makes such stupid allegations about the classical Ulema, and other disrespectful statements.

The second point is that this issue, as I've explained, is very minor and insignificant in the larger picture of Islam. This is a purely historical discussion and does not warrant that much attention.

Thank you for repeating yourself. Too bad for you I responded to this.

When the Ulama talk about historical issues such as this, they do not spend time and effort researching it, unless they are specialized in it or are writing a detailed analysis on the topic.

Thanks again for making a completely unsupported silly statement. Also previously responded to.

The third point is that there are a lot of opinions which were popular at one time and today most of our Ulama disagree with them. Just because Altoosi, Alkulayni and Almufeed agreed on something, doesn't mean that no one else can disagree on it. These are some of our great Ulama and our respect for them is great but they are not infallible and they are not giving an analysis only saying what is famous among the people and what has been narrated to them. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this point.

I don't know how you don't understand that if al-Kulayni and at-Tusi and al-Mufeed all believe in something, and we don't, then there's something serious going on.

The fourth point is who said anything about a random person? The person I mentioned Ayatollah Sayyid Ja'far Mortadha Alaamili is one of our great scholars who is an expert on the field. He is very respected by most of the Maraji' today and his work has been appreciated by them. If he has an opinion why not here it? Today we have greater ability to combine resources and to look at different things which was not available then.

This is not a "great scholar" in comparison to giants like al-Kulayni and at-Tusi.

It is not that there is a Sunni source which says "the prophet had one daughter" and we are saying " oh yes it's in the bukhari we must believe it". We are not idiots, brother. The fact is Sunnis have greater stake in proving that the Prophet (S) had four daughters because of their claim that Othman was married to two of them. Therefore, when Sunnis themselves say he only had one, that should give you pause. IT IS NOT CERTAIN EVIDENCE. No one is claiming that.

Misrepresentation of my point. There are some people basing their stubborness on rejecting the Aimmah's words, the representative of the Imam's words, and the Ulema's words on some Sunni opinions. I was answering this. I also answered the idea that it's good for Uthman. I also pointed out that Sunnis have no authority for us Shia.

Just a minute ago you said we relied on sunni sources, now you say that there are some "minority" of Shia scholars who believe the one daughter theory, which is it?

Silly. It's both.

Anyway the whole point is this: There is one opinion that says he had four and one that says he has one. One has the statements of those great Ulama but no historical analysis, the other goes counter to that and has historical analysis. Which one you choose to believe is up to you, just stop saying that those who believe in the other theory are people of "bid'ah", "qiyass", and they are disrespecting or ignoring the value of the great Ulama.

On the bold part: Pure speculation from you that contradicts how the great Ulema worked.

On the italic bits: Yet not a single decent argument has been in favour of the Prophet only have one daughter. You are full of hot air but no answers, ShiaAnswers! How ironic.

This is probably your biggest mistake. This is not a matter of Fiqh where the Marji's opinion is an authority on you regardless of reasoning. This is a HISTORICAL matter. Historical questions requires analysis and sources. It matters greatly how they got there. The only one who we do not question even in historical matters is the infallible Imam.

Your error is to continue to repeat the speculation that the _great_ Ulema carelessly gave unresearched opinions. Also, the representative of the Imam said the Prophet had four daughters. I have already explained why this is powerful; I won't be repeating myself. See my earlier post.

Bid'ah in arabic means inventing something new that was unheard of before. However, it is used in religious discussions to mean: "Adding or subtracting things from the religion without any religious basis to do so" (Alrasa'il, Alshareef Almurtadha, 3:83). This is a HISTORICAL matter.

Repeating yourself. I answered this.

you did not understand my point. My point is not that this is PROOF that he only had one daughter but that there is SOME question about it.

There is no question about it except your claim that there is question about it. There are strong arguments in favour of there being four daughters, although I notice you did not reply to any of these. I suppose the only way for you to reject the classical Ulema and other Ulema, and the representative of the Imam, and the words of the Aimmah (aleyhum assalam), and the strong arguments made, is to ignore them, and take some random nobody (nobody in comparison to those mentioned in this sentence) who must have made very poor arguments since we no quoting of any decent argument.

I am nobody compared to those great scholars. I am not putting my opinion in front of theirs, that would be ignorant. Nor am I claiming that they just gave opinions without thought or checking.

Please don't contradict yourself.

The point is that the smaller side issues which are not going to affect the person greatly one way or another do not have that much priority in the lives of these great scholars. Some of them write on side issues sometimes and their analysis is respected and considered but if they just simply narrate what is famous, BECAUSE IT'S A HISTORICAL issue, then that's something different. I hope the point is clear.

Your point is irrelevant and already answered. It doesn't matter how important this issue is! It's still a matter which we can discuss and analyse. So I have no idea why you are saying this. No-one is claiming it is of extreme importance.

Why the rudeness and immaturity? We are talking about a scholar who spent years of his life writing a 35 volume book on the history of our Holy Prophet (S) and defending the Shia beliefs, and you compare it to Harry Potter? You ridicule others for criticizing Nader without reading his article and yet you are poking fun at this scholar and his work without knowing anything about it.

Funny how you have yet to quote a single decent argument from this book. This man is a nobody in comparison to the Aimmah, the representative of the Imam, and the classical Ulema. My harry potter thing was in context; please don't quote out of context.

The work of this Sayyid has been praised by at least five of our Maraji': Shaikh Bahjat, Sayyid Mohammad Sa'eed Alhakeem, Sh. Meerza Jawad Altabrizi, Sayyid Ali Alsistani and Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi.

Saheeh Bukhari and Harry Potter have been even more highly praised by the best Sunni scholars and great literary figures (apparently). Therefore they are also true by your logic.

I did not do tafseer. I simply said that the Quran sometimes uses the plural to mean a singular. Obviously the default is to take the plural but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a plural to mean a singular. I said COULD not that it does. I did not give a personal opinion and the Alim which you referred to as nobody, I told you what the Maraji' say about him.

Nader refuted this three pages ago. Please stop repeating claims I answered. As Nader pointed out, there are ahadeeth which support the tafseer of the ayat Mubahila to mean only one daughter, whereas not a single hadeeth to say that the verse which says "daughters" means a single daughter.

Two Saheeh Hadeeths only said "bintu Nabiyk", it is not sufficient evidence to prove the theory if there is other evidence that counters that. They could be using bint here to mean he raised her as we said.

Stupid argument. Do you reject the Aimmah, aleyhum assalam? When they have said in authentic narrations something, you think you know better than this? There is NO evidence against this. Also, I pointed out the very strong argument that it is _wrong_ to call them the daughters of the Prophet if they are not. Nader has explained this and I have also re-explained this.

Obviously you did not read the article I provided which is quite hypocritical since you are ridiculing everyone who commented on Nader's theory before reading his article. It is not impossible because he was kaffir, it impossible because they would not have been old enough due to the date Khadeeja married the Prophet.

Please provide an English translation. Commenting on Nader's article without a clue of what he is talking about is bad. Commenting on what a nobody wrote in opposition to the Aimmah, aleyhum assalam, is acceptable. Get over it. Furthermore, your dates argument is very brief. You'll have to do alot better than that and explain it.

Stop making assumptions. I know Alkafi very well and I know Alkulayni doesn't talk much in it. I read the statements quoted by Brother Nader. Alkulayni was not trying to study the issue, he was simply given a brief summary of what has been narrated about the Prophet's life. It is not as if he thought "oh this is a very important fact that I need to make". He was giving a summary about the Prophet's life and mentioned this among many other things.

You've missed the point. The fact that al-Kulayni actually spoke himself is significant.

Yes I know who he is. I am not like you calling scholars nobodies without knowing who they are. Him being the representative of the Imam does not make him infallible. You would know that if you know basics of Aqa'id and basics of infallibility. His word is not final unless he says the Imam told me this.

So basically you're saying the official chosen representative of the Imam who is ghaybah can say something wrong or say something wrong and not be corrected? Great argument haha!

------

Alot of talk and no action from ShiaAnswers. Alot of speculation and claims.

Please show the evidence that you keep claiming exists. Referring us to a book which we can't read ( that is written by a lesser man in comparison to others) doesn't count. I also noticed how you avoided all the arguments that were made for the four Prophet's. This included some of the analysis you claimed to love.

Let me quote a single argument made which devastates you. Stop avoiding these arguments!

Zayd was not related to the Prophet therefore it was revealed that it is forbidden to call him the Prophet's son. This law applies here to this case. It is wrong to call them the Prophet's daughters, if he adopted them. This is one of the arguments Nader is making which is irrefutable. If you acknowledge that the Imams, aleyhum assalam, have called the 3 other daughters as "daughters of the Prophet" as they did in reliably-authentic ahadeeth, then either 1) they are doing wrong or 2) they were also indirectly implying that the 3 are the daughters of the Prophet through his blood.

May Allah, azza wa jalla, bless our great classical Ulema for their efforts and not their efforts be lessened by those who speak against them.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Perseverance

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

it is first to be established about the authority over adopted son and daughter is the same.?

Difference between ibne and wald?

Diferrence between daughter of rasool Allah saww, daughter of mohammad mustafa saww and ahlulbaythe nabbuwat?

Can someone knowledgeable comment on it.

Ya Ali Madad

Edited January 9, 2011 by siraatoaliyinhaqqun

[Gypsy]

Bismihi Ta'ala,

Salamun Alaikum Brother Perseverance,

My original post was directed to brother Nader who has spent quite a bit of effort and time in writing this article. My post included a critique of some of the methods and the statements made in his article. If you disagree with my opinions, you are welcome to do so but there is no reason to be rude and hostile. We are all here because of our love for AhlulBayt (A) and we should show that love for them by treating their followers with respect. The tone and the way you are talking is unnecessary and simply immature. That being said, I will respond to your points simply to show the flaws in your statements and the bad assumptions you made. However, this will be my last response to you regarding this. I am not here for childish attacks and back and forth arguments. If you have something rational to say, be polite and make your point.

I hope you read my responses carefully and with an open mind. I can tell from your points that you did not read my earlier post or think about it. Brother Nader read it and was not offended nor was he disrespectful.

May Allah guide us all to serve him better inshallah.

I don't think I am anything compared to these great Ulama. If Shaikh Alkulayni was alive today I would be the first to kiss his feet. The amount of work, time, dedication and sacrifice that these great Ulama have done for our religion is indescribable and we are not denying any of that. That being said they are not infallible and yes they do make mistakes.

The second point is that this issue, as I've explained, is very minor and insignificant in the larger picture of Islam. This is a purely historical discussion and does not warrant that much attention. When the Ulama talk about historical issues such as this, they do not spend time and effort researching it, unless they are specialized in it or are writing a detailed analysis on the topic. All the quotes which brother Nader has provided are simply narrating the same opinion and none of them includes any historical analysis or evidence of the matter. What we are saying is that these Ulama were not trying to give their analysis on the issue, only what they have seen in other books. If there is a detailed study that counters this opinion, we are allowed to hear it.

The third point is that there are a lot of opinions which were popular at one time and today most of our Ulama disagree with them. Just because Altoosi, Alkulayni and Almufeed agreed on something, doesn't mean that no one else can disagree on it. These are some of our great Ulama and our respect for them is great but they are not infallible and they are not giving an analysis only saying what is famous among the people and what has been narrated to them. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this point.

The fourth point is who said anything about a random person? The person I mentioned Ayatollah Sayyid Ja'far Mortadha Alaamili is one of our great scholars who is an expert on the field. He is very respected by most of the Maraji' today and his work has been appreciated by them. If he has an opinion why not here it? Today we have greater ability to combine resources and to look at different things which was not available then.

It is not that there is a Sunni source which says “the prophet had one daughter” and we are saying “ oh yes it's in the bukhari we must believe it”. We are not idiots, brother. The fact is Sunnis have greater stake in proving that the Prophet (S) had four daughters because of their claim that Othman was married to two of them. Therefore, when Sunnis themselves say he only had one, that should give you pause. IT IS NOT CERTAIN EVIDENCE. No one is claiming that.

Just a minute ago you said we relied on sunni sources, now you say that there are some “minority” of Shia scholars who believe the one daughter theory, which is it? Anyway the whole point is this: There is one opinion that says he had four and one that says he has one. One has the statements of those great Ulama but no historical analysis, the other goes counter to that and has historical analysis. Which one you choose to believe is up to you, just stop saying that those who believe in the other theory are people of “bid'ah”, “qiyass”, and they are disrespecting or ignoring the value of the great Ulama.

First this is a historical matter, not a matter of belief. If this was related to Imamah, Prophethood or some other type of important issue which these scholars would analyze more carefully then the discussion would be different. You are correct of their great position and no argument there, however, as I said it does not mean they are infallible.

This is probably your biggest mistake. This is not a matter of Fiqh where the Marji's opinion is an authority on you regardless of reasoning. This is a HISTORICAL matter. Historical questions requires analysis and sources. It matters greatly how they got there. The only one who we do not question even in historical matters is the infallible Imam.

Bid'ah in arabic means inventing something new that was unheard of before. However, it is used in religious discussions to mean: “Adding or subtracting things from the religion without any religious basis to do so” (Alrasa'il, Alshareef Almurtadha, 3:83). This is a HISTORICAL matter. Believing it or not believing it is not a part of the religion. Thus describing those who believe in the one daughter theory as people of Bid'ah is wrong and baseless.

I guess you did not understand my point. My point is not that this is PROOF that he only had one daughter but that there is SOME question about it. Again I repeat this is a historical issue not a question of belief. If someone a million people come and ask if god is one or two that doesn't give that position any strength or validity, we are talking about historical issues. The poor reasoning is on your part comparing this to a question of Aqa'id in the matter of creation of the Quran.

As far as your request for Ulama that held the other opinion: The whole point which we are making is that there was no analysis done on the issue from our Ulama so that there would be opinions one way or the other. However, I mentioned that Sayyid Alaamli who is a prominent Shia historian today holds the other opinion and that is sufficient to say that THERE IS ANOTHER OPINION. I am not saying he must be correct. I am just saying it's not absurd to believe in the one daughter theory.

I did not claim he was a person of Bid'ah, I don't see the irony.

I am nobody compared to those great scholars. I am not putting my opinion in front of theirs, that would be ignorant. Nor am I claiming that they just gave opinions without thought or checking. However, you misunderstood my point so let me try again:

I will give an example to illustrate my point. When a scholar becomes a Marji' they spend a long time creating their book of Islamic Laws. In it they provide their followers with the important questions of Fiqh that they will face. However, the Maraji' don't go and look up every single mustahab action and verify its validity. If you ask the Marji' if this du'a is mustahab and that du'a is mustahab and this prayer and that action, many of them just simply say that is what is famous amongst the Ulama or that is what has been narrated. They simply don't have the time to go check the hadeeths and the chains of narrations to authenticate every single little prayer and du'a to see if it's actually mustahab with a saheeh sanad. Many of them even say that in their own book of laws “whatever is known to be mustahab, the follower may do with the intention of raja'”.

The point is that the smaller side issues which are not going to affect the person greatly one way or another do not have that much priority in the lives of these great scholars. Some of them write on side issues sometimes and their analysis is respected and considered but if they just simply narrate what is famous, BECAUSE IT'S A HISTORICAL issue, then that's something different. I hope the point is clear.

Why the rudeness and immaturity? We are talking about a scholar who spent years of his life writing a 35 volume book on the history of our Holy Prophet (S) and defending the Shia beliefs, and you compare it to Harry Potter? You ridicule others for criticizing Nader without reading his article and yet you are poking fun at this scholar and his work without knowing anything about it.

The work of this Sayyid has been praised by at least five of our Maraji': Shaikh Bahjat, Sayyid Mohammad Sa'eed Alhakeem, Sh. Meerza Jawad Altabrizi, Sayyid Ali Alsistani and Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi. Some of them even refer to his work for analysis when asked about historical matters since they don't usually do that. Now all of these Maraji' say that he is an authenticator, a historian and knowledgeable and yet you say he is “random” and a “nobody”, hypocrite much? Please don't speak about things you don't know about.

I did not do tafseer. I simply said that the Quran sometimes uses the plural to mean a singular. Obviously the default is to take the plural but that doesn't mean that it is impossible for a plural to mean a singular. I said COULD not that it does. I did not give a personal opinion and the Alim which you referred to as nobody, I told you what the Maraji' say about him.

Muttawatar means there are many hadeeths with different chains of narrations that are authentic. No one dares calls this Muttawatar.

Two Saheeh Hadeeths only said “bintu Nabiyk”, it is not sufficient evidence to prove the theory if there is other evidence that counters that. They could be using bint here to mean he raised her as we said.

Obviously you did not read the article I provided which is quite hypocritical since you are ridiculing everyone who commented on Nader's theory before reading his article. It is not impossible because he was kaffir, it impossible because they would not have been old enough due to the date Khadeeja married the Prophet.

As I said many things go into understanding Hadeeths. If you knew anything about Ilm Alusool and how the scholars analyze these things you wouldn't be calling everything you see ridiculous based on your limited knowledge on the subject. Sometimes outside evidence gives us a different understanding of the hadeeth. For example: What do you do when you have two saheeh hadeeths that say completely opposite things? It is not as simple as we have a saheeh hadeeth so that's it. You also have to consider the rest of the evidence. Also these hadeeths are not final on the subject because they are not addressing the subject directly. Their “dalalah” is not direct.

Stop making assumptions. I know Alkafi very well and I know Alkulayni doesn't talk much in it. I read the statements quoted by Brother Nader. Alkulayni was not trying to study the issue, he was simply given a brief summary of what has been narrated about the Prophet's life. It is not as if he thought “oh this is a very important fact that I need to make”. He was giving a summary about the Prophet's life and mentioned this among many other things.

Questions of history differ in importance. This is not a very important subject compared to the many questions and attacks that we face as Shia. Alkulayni, Almufeed and the other great scholars were much more concerned about preserving Hadeeths, correct Aqa'id, important historical events of AhlulBayt and Fiqh than they were about side issues such as this one. This wouldn't even be an issue if it didn't deal with Othman marrying them.

Yes I know who he is. I am not like you calling scholars nobodies without knowing who they are. Him being the representative of the Imam does not make him infallible. You would know that if you know basics of Aqa'id and basics of infallibility. His word is not final unless he says the Imam told me this.

Your post contained accusations of scholars being “nobodies” “random” comparing a Shia Scholar's work to Harry Potter and Albukhari, you used descriptions such as “ridiculous” “fictional” and you said people were doing “Bid'ah” for having a different historical belief than you, and yet I am disrespectful? It is funny that Brother Nader was fine with my comments and yet you felt disrespected. The Holy Prophet (S) says in Alkafi: “Allah will not accept the repentance of the people of Bid'ah” and yet you are calling all these brothers and sisters that. Be careful what you say, you will be asked about it by Allah (SWT).

My position on this is that the two theories have their support. People are free to choose whichever they feel is more correct. No one from will be a person of Bid'ah. That is all I am trying to say here. I am not saying Brother Nader is wrong or right.

I pray that Allah (SWT) guide us all to the right path. Inshallah Allah will give brother Nader the support and guidance to continue serving AhlulBayt (A) and reward him based on his intentions.

Allah knows best.

(wasalam)

+1

This is an extremely well written post.

I think I remember asking Brother Nader if he has looked into historical evidences/references/books. The second thing that I asked him was if he looked into all the references that mentioned the Holy Prophet (pbuh) having only one daughter. This would also be interesting because you really want to be thorough in your research.

The third thing I asked him was about the Sunni books. I know that he doesn’t want to go through the Sunni books but I thought it would be interesting to know more about the identity of these two ladies (Prophet daughters) who was supposedly married to Uthman. They is no harm looking into their books, even if we don’t think their (Sunni) books are credible.

I think this is a good start. They have been a number of questions and thoughts that can be expanded and incorporated in the original article or another blog entry.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

Does he seriously think the representative of the Imam will misguide the people with the wrong opinion and not be corrected or make the mistake in the first place?

(wasalam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Perseverance

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

This is an extremely well written post.

I think I remember asking Brother Nader if he has looked into historical evidences/references/books. The second thing that I asked him was if he looked into all the references that mentioned the Holy Prophet (pbuh) having only one daughter. This would also be interesting because you really want to be thorough in your research.

The third thing I asked him was about the Sunni books. I know that he doesn’t want to go through the Sunni books but I thought it would be interesting to know more about the identity of these two ladies (Prophet daughters) who was supposedly married to Uthman. They is no harm looking into their books, even if we don’t think their (Sunni) books are credible.

I think this is a good start. They have been a number of questions and thoughts that can be expanded and incorporated in the original article or another blog entry.

All historical evidences about 1 daughter "theory" either comes from the mukhaalifeen or the Aboo Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee, as I have already proved. Brother InshaAllah also proved my point further by quoting that Indo-Pak scholar quoting from Aboo Al-Qaasim Al-Koofee's book.

You know if I wanted to use "Sunni" history books, the article would be 60+ pages proving the prophet had more than one daughter. But that is not my concern as Shee`ah have become so used to seeing Shee`ah scholars quoting Sunni books that they actually think it holds weight and it is binding upon the Shee`ahs.

P.S. - I just found another source by the great Muqaddis Al-Ardabeelee in his Zabdah Al-Bayaan claiming more than one daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) , but of course Shiaanswers will dismiss this claim because Al-Ardabeelee said this out of his own whims and desires, and didn't research the issue.

Challenge to All the One Daughter Adherents!

Please find me ONE SaHeeH hadeeth from the lips of our Imaams (as) , in any of our major Shee`ah books claiming that there have been only 1 daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) and the other daughters were not from Khadeejah but Haalah. Heck, if you don't know if it is SaHeeH, please still quote it.

(salam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

[Socrates]

(salam)

I believe I more than answered this. You cannot precondemn a man. Are you saying the infallible Prophet Lut, aleyhis salam, had bad judgement?

You're still not getting the point. A wife of a Prophet (pbuh) can be anyone , good or bad. A daughter of a Prophet (pbuh) is a different case. Nothing to do with precondemning. Banu Umayyah were always useless people with no character. It isn't as if they suddenly became bad people after the Prophet (pbuh). Lut (as) marrying a bad woman isn't a big deal because he's in control of his wife. However, marrying your daughter to an oppressor is a big deal because he's in control of her. Marrying her to a kafir and then an oppressor makes no sense.

Nader proved the conclusion with his argument on calling adopted children by their real parent's names.

The classical scholars were polymaths in Islam. They were not modern ayatollahs.

Peace.

You're just making guesses. The classical scholars were all faqihs. I said it is not necessary they are experts in history. If you claim they were, the onus is on you to bring the proof.

(salam)

(bismillah)

All historical evidences about 1 daughter "theory" either comes from the mukhaalifeen

That's because all history was written by the mukhallifeen. Please read about the history of history and then all will become clear to you. If you stopped worshipping rijal and instead read some history then you wouldn't be so arrogant.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Socrates

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

That's because all history was written by the mukhallifeen. Please read about the history of history and then all will become clear to you. If you stopped worshipping rijal and instead read some history then you wouldn't be so arrogant.

Worshiping Rijaal? And yet who is the one worshiping the mukhaalifoon and history?

Majority of the mukhaalifoon's history says 4 daughter, yet you want to take the shaadh historical sources from the mukhaalifoon to prove your shaadh theory.

You don't have to resort to name calling, no one is being "arrogant". If you can't keep an intellectual discussions without getting into ad hominem attacks, then it is best you don't enter that discussion.

My challenge remains, please find a hadeeth from the major books of the shee`ah from the lips of our Imaams that denies these daughters as real daughters.

(salam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

[Socrates]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Worshiping Rijaal? And yet who is the one worshiping the mukhaalifoon and history?

Majority of the mukhaalifoon's history says 4 daughter, yet you want to take the shaadh historical sources from the mukhaalifoon to prove your shaadh theory.

You don't have to resort to name calling, no one is being "arrogant". If you can't keep an intellectual discussions without getting into ad hominem attacks, then it is best you don't enter that discussion.

My challenge remains, please find a hadeeth from the major books of the shee`ah from the lips of our Imaams that denies these daughters as real daughters.

(salam)

The majority of the mukhalifeen sources are contradictory on this issue which prove that these four daughter theory is a later addition in order to try and exonerate Uthman. If you had read the history, you would know this.

Only arrogant and insecure people put out challenges. I have no desire to engage in these petty games since my points remain unanswered. Bring me an adequate explanation of Suratul Kawthar (or admit that you agree to the mukhalifeen intepretation of it) then we'll talk.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Socrates

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Only arrogant and insecure people put out challenges. I have no desire to engage in these petty games since my points remain unanswered. Bring me an adequate explanation of Suratul Kawthar (or admit that you agree to the mukhalifeen intepretation of it) then we'll talk.

Brother, you've said you read in "tafaaseer" that this usage of the verse "abtar" was because he only had faaTimah (sa) , yet when Macisaac and I have called you out to bring the proof of where you've read this from you were unable to provide us with sources from classical Shee`ah tafseer. As I have looked through our major tafaaseer from our classical scholars, they haven't interpreted the verse as your have. Also, I haven't seen any hadeeth from our Imaams (as) saying that this is in reference to FaaTimah (sa). Please provide us with these "tafaaseer"

(salam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

[Maula da Maher]

No need for Shia books, when a surah of Qur'an proves beyond doubt that he only had one [biological] daughter.

Read Suratul Kawthar, read when it was revealed. End of story.

As for 33:59, just look at 3:61 and there's your answer.

Besides, where are the details about the lives of these other women who were supposedly daughters of the Prophet? There's so much about Fatima (as) that you could fill hundreds of volumes, yet next to nothing about the lives of these other daughters? Isn't that strange?

You're right Socrates. I actually had given a speech about this, but with solid proofs that Hazrate Zahra (sa) was the only daughter of Prophet Mohammad (saw).

I'm just trying to find the document with the notes I had made now.

[Socrates]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, you've said you read in "tafaaseer" that this usage of the verse "abtar" was because he only had faaTimah (sa) , yet when Macisaac and I have called you out to bring the proof of where you've read this from you were unable to provide us with sources from classical Shee`ah tafseer. As I have looked through our major tafaaseer from our classical scholars, they haven't interpreted the verse as your have. Also, I haven't seen any hadeeth from our Imaams (as) saying that this is in reference to FaaTimah (sa). Please provide us with these "tafaaseer"

(salam)

So what is Suratul Kawthar about? When was it revealed? Why was the Prophet (pbuh) called abtar? Why did the kuffar stop calling the Prophet (pbuh) abtar?

I don't have some online library to provide you with links. I need to search through books to find it. Once I find it, I will give you the references.

[Maula da Maher]

I can't find the document in any of my archives or anywhere else. How unfortunate. However, I will discuss some of the issues which I had mentioned in the speech.

Some people mention Zainab, Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum as being daughters of the Prophet Mohammad (saw), for various reasons.

Qur'anic Ayah

The Ayah of the Qur'an 33:59 states:

“O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

The Qur'an here uses the plural word for daughters, not the singular form. The Arabic term used is “banaatuka” which means “your daughters.” If it was one daughter only, it would be “bintuka.”

However, this can easily be countered by looking at the Ayah of Mubahila, which calls for (in 'Arabic) at least 3 "sons", at least 3 "women", and at 3 least "selves" from each side in the Mubahila. However, we all know that only Imam Hasan ibn 'Ali and Imam Husain ibn 'Ali represented the "sons" of the Prophet, only Fatima al-Zahra represented the "women", and only 'Ali ibn Abi Talib represented as the "self" or "soul" of the Prophet. This is proving the above claim false by counter-example.

Dhul Nurayni

A further reason these girls were attributed to the Holy Prophet (saw) is that it gives the Ahle Sunnat an excuse to say that Uthman (la) is better than Ali (as). This is because they call Uthman (la) "Dhul Nurayni", or "The keeper of 2 lights", as opposed to Imam Ali (as) who only married 1 daughter of the Prophet (saw), Hazrate Zahra (sa).

The truth is that Imam Ali (as) was the only son in law of Prophet Muhammad (saw) as we read in 'Riyadh al Nadira' Volume 3 page 220, Dhikr Fadail 'Ali:

Rasulullah (saw) said to Imam Ali (as) 'You possess three virtues not possessed by anyone else:

1.You have a father in law like me.

2.You have received my truthful daughter as your wife

3.You have received pious sons such as Hassan (as) and Husayn (as)

This virtue (Rasulullah (saw) being His father in law) would not be exclusive if Rasulullah (saw) also had other son in laws! If Sunnis try to argue that Uthman's marriage may have occurred later then we should point out that according to the Ahl'ul Sunnah, the so-called "other daughters" of Rasulullah (saw) were married long before Sayyida Fatima (sa), and were the wives of two of Abu Jahl's sons. Rasulullah could not have praised 'Ali for this exclusive honour if he had other sons in law. Furthermore, the famed title of Uthman 'Dhul Nurayn' supposedly "coming from the mouth of Muhammad (saw)" (as asserted by sunnis) is not present in any of the six esteemed works of Ahl'ul Sunnah! When the very existence of these daughters cannot be established then how can we accept that Uthman was the possessor of two lights? Also, it is very ironic that the Salafis and some others reject the notion of Muhammad being a Nur (Light), yet when it comes to honouring Uthman (la), suddenly he is deemed Dhul Nurayn or 'the possessor of two lights'. If Prophet Mohammad (saw) is not 'Light' then how can Uthman become the possessor of 'Two Lights'? How can this then be used as an excuse that he married the 'supposed' two daughters of Muhammad?

The Prophet (saw) made it haraam for his daughters to marry anyone other than the Bani Hashim

Based on narrations found even in Sunni sources, Prophet Muhammad (saw) said that daughters of his household could only marry those who were from Banū Hāshim. Sources below:

al-Haythami, Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ibn Hajar (1965)

al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqah

Maktabat al-Qahirah. p. 160

Ibn Qutayba, Abd Allah ibn Muslim (1960)

Kitab al-Ma'arif. p. 70

But if they were really the daughters of Prophet Mohammad (saw), then this argument does not seem to be correct as:

- Zainab was married to Abu al-Aas ibn al-Rabee who belonged to Banu Abd Shams clan of the tribe Quraish.

- Ruqayyah was married to Uthman bin Affan who belonged to Banu Umayya clan of the tribe Quraish.

- After Ruqayyah's death, Umm Kulthum married Uthman bin Affan who belonged to Banu Umayya clan of the tribe Quraish.

No praise for any of the other "daughters"

This is self-explanatory. He praised Hazrate Zahra (sa) many times in Ahadith, but where did he ever praise any of the other "daughters"? The Sunni historical work, Mishkat al Masabeeh, under the Chapter 'Bab Fadail Ahl'ul bayt' has 49 traditions with regard of the relatives of Muhammad including his uncle Abbas and even his adopted son Zaid. Curiously the author of a book that takes traditions from TEN esteemed Sunni works fails to cite even a single Hadeeth on the "other daughters" in this chapter.

So then where did these 3 ladies come from?

Some people say that these 3 young ladied were the daughters of Hazrate Khadijeh (sa) from a previous marriage. Some say that they were the daughters of Hazrate Khadijeh's (sa) widowed sister, Halah, who when she also died, the children were raised by Khadijeh.

Now it's not important where these 3 young ladies came from, rather the fact that in those days, when somebody adopted a child or raised a child, that child would be called "so-and-so bint so-and-so", or in this case, Zainab bint Muhammad (saw), Ruqayyah bint Muhammad (saw) and Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad (saw). This was the culture of the Arabs at the time and continued to be their culture for quite some time, hence the names "Zainab bint Muhammad (saw), Ruqayyah bint Muhammad (saw) and Umm Kulthum bint Muhammad (saw)" were recorded in history books.

I recommend you copy and paste this post into a Word Document and save it on your computers somewhere so that we can defend our intercessor on the day of judgement (insha'Allah) Hazrate Zahra (sa), when the Ahle Sunnat and uninformed Ulama knowlingly or unknowlingly degrade Her status. I am sure that there are other Ahadith from the Masoumeen (as) confirming that Hazrate Zahra (sa) was the only daughter of Prophet Mohammad (saw), as well as Tafseer from well known Shia AND Sunni Alims confirming this, I just can't research it now, however I trust this information will convince all except the sceptics and troublemakers.

So what is Suratul Kawthar about? When was it revealed? Why was the Prophet (pbuh) called abtar? Why did the kuffar stop calling the Prophet (pbuh) abtar?

I don't have some online library to provide you with links. I need to search through books to find it. Once I find it, I will give you the references.

Furthermore, I would like to thank Socrates for defending the exclusive position of the leader of the women of the worlds, Hazrate Zahra (sa). May your reward be with the Ahlulbayt (as).

Edited January 9, 2011 by Maula da Maher

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

^^^Salam bro maher

Nader wants proofs from Shiah books and if rasoolallah saww wanted to change a cultural pattern then aimma a.s wouldn't mention binte mohammad for the three women in question.

I understand that binte could be used for adopted daughters so if someone could find a hadis regarding wilaya of adopted daughter until their marriage then it would be scholarly to the least.

U probably should read his work. My imaan doesn't agree with rasool Allah saww marrying his daughters to son of abu jahal l.a.,Because he was prophet even before he was born however if u could get some proof from our books it would be great.

Ya Ali madad

[Maula da Maher]

if rasoolallah saww wanted to change a cultural pattern then aimma a.s wouldn't mention binte mohammad for the three women in question.

Wa Alaikom Salaam

I am not 100% aware of whether or not the Prophet of Allah (saw) wanted to change this cultural pattern, and hence I have edited that part of my post above.

I can confirm that the rest of my post is 100% correct with proof and evidence.

Please provide for me evidence of the Ahlulbayt (as) calling these 3 women "binte Mohammad (saw)" so that I can look into the matter further.

I shall try and find more Ahadith from the Ahlulbayt (as) in defense of my argument (although I have already given one regarding the Prophet Mohammad (saw) praising Imam Ali (as) on an exclusive quality)

I understand that binte could be used for adopted daughters so if someone could find a hadis regarding wilaya of adopted daughter until their marriage then it would be scholarly to the least.

I didn't understand what hadith you wanted. Can you please make yourself more clear here? Thanks

Edited January 9, 2011 by Maula da Maher

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Salam

Nader has attached a file on page 1 and page 3. He has presented some ahadis as to aimma a.s mentioning names of daughters of rasool Allah saww.

My points are

1Adopted sons and adopted daughters might have different rights similar to children from mutah and children from nikah. Adopted daughters will be called fulan binte mohmmad saww so u should check if adopted daughter's WALI gives permission for marriage and what other rights does the father holds in such matters. Pull up ahadis from chapters on nikah from fiqh books and historical evidence of how they were married and who recited aqd. Furo kafi has aqd of bibi khatija mentioned so check if this thing has been covered too.

2. And calling bint mohammad and binte rasool Allah saww has a huge difference. In nader's post it states that some scholars said they were daughters before nabuwat was given to rasool Allah saww and Fatima s.a was daughter after nabuwat and these daughters were already dead when sura kausar was revealed.

Ali a.s, Fatima s.a Hasan a.s Hussain a.s and rest of the aimma a.s were also called ibne rasool Allah saww and also ahlebaythe nabbuwat(note: not nabi but nabuwat)

imam a.s was asked why is rasool Allah saww called abul khasim. He replied because he had a son named khasim who died. When the narrator asked if imam could shed some more light on it. He replied. Rasool Allah saww is the father of umma and after him Ali a.s is father of ummah. And Ali a.s is khasim ul janna wan Naar so another reason of calling him Abul khasim is that Ali a.s was also among the ummah.

Every masoom has some duties towards the orphans of the ummah and they have right to seperate a woman of ummah who is not well taken care of by her husband.

It is a complex issue so read his attachment and don't deny ahadis rather try to find a schastic answer.

Ya Ali Madad

Edited January 9, 2011 by siraatoaliyinhaqqun

[Maula da Maher]

Wa Alaikom Salaam

I have studied the PDF and came to the following conclusion.

Hadith

1) The Imam (as) is calling them “bint Mohammad (saw)”, however that does not mean they are the biological children of Prophet Mohammad (saw), rather it just be out of respect. Also, the Imam (as) could even be referring to Ruqayyah bint Hussain (sa) and Umm Kulthum bint Ali (sa), we just can’t say for sure!

2) Same as Hadith #1, could be out of respect.

3) Same as Hadith #1, could be out of respect.

4) Same as Hadith #1, could be out of respect.

5) Weak hadith anyway so won’t bother with this.

6) Weak hadith anyway so won’t bother with this.

7) You have not provided information on whether this is strong or weak.

8) You have not provided information on whether this is strong or weak.

9) Weak hadith anyway so won’t bother with this.

10) You have not provided information on whether this is strong or weak.

11) Nahjul Balagha – Imam Ali (as) could just be referring to him like that according to what the people of the time and what Uthman (la) thought of himself.

12) Same as Hadith #1, could be out of respect.

13) You have not provided information on whether this is strong or weak.

14) Again, no information on whether they are strong or weak.

Scholars

1) Again, no information on whether this is strong or weak.

2) Where’s the proof?

3) Where’s the proof?

4) Where’s the proof?

5) Refers to them as Hazrate Khadijeh’s (sa) daughters, not Prophet Mohammad’s (saw) daughters. Also, Where’s the proof?

6) Where’s the proof?

7) Where’s the proof?

8) Could just be out of respect or their customs at the time (i.e. calling adopted children as children)

9) Where’s the proof?

10) Where’s the proof?

11) Where’s the proof?

12) Where’s the proof? (come on, 8! That’s a long shot!)

13) Where’s the proof?

14) Where’s the proof?

15) Where’s the proof?

16) Where’s the proof? (come on, 5! 8! 5! 6! 7!??! Make your minds up then already!)

17) Where’s the proof?

All the rest

- Where’s the proof?

Thanks. I will post further proofs for my argument when I find them insha'Allah.

[Yasoob Al Deen]

*facepalm*

It's so easier to respond and demand evidence, when it has already been given.

I find it dumb that you people are insisting on a ?minority? opinion from the Sunnis, or at least one of many opinions from the Sunnis, in the face of OUR scholars saying otherwise, as well as the representative of the Imam.

It's also so easy to just to dismiss an argument without answering it and without understanding it. For example, take Maula da Maher's words:

The Imam (as) is calling them "bint Mohammad (saw)", however that does not mean they are the biological children of Prophet Mohammad (saw), rather it just be out of respect. Also, the Imam (as) could even be referring to Ruqayyah bint Hussain (sa) and Umm Kulthum bint Ali (sa), we just can't say for sure!

All this shows is that he either didn't bother to read Nader's article or this thread. Or he didn't understand but decided not to ask for clarification but dismiss the argument anyway.

Zayd was not related to the Prophet therefore it was revealed that it is forbidden to call him the Prophet's son. This law applies here to this case. It is wrong to call them the Prophet's daughters, if he adopted them. This is one of the arguments Nader is making which is irrefutable. If you acknowledge that the Imams, aleyhum assalam, have called the 3 other daughters as "daughters of the Prophet" as they did in reliably-authentic ahadeeth, then either 1) they are doing wrong or 2) they were also indirectly implying that the 3 are the daughters of the Prophet through his blood.

(wasalam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Perseverance

[Yasoob Al Deen]

I find it dumb that you people are insisting on a ?minority? opinion from the Sunnis, or at least one of many opinions from the Sunnis, in the face of OUR scholars saying otherwise, as well as the representative of the Imam.

I wonder how many people would even be objecting if Khamenei or Sistani had said the Prophet had four daughters. (Not that I'm saying we know they've expressed an opinion way, and not that I'm saying their opinion is worth anything when they are experts in jurisprudence). Apparently the words of the representative of the Imam are not good enough.

It's amazing how bad an Imam, al-Mahdi, aleyhis salam, is when he lets his representative express an incorrect opinion and then not correct him, and let the greatest scholars, such as Thiqat al-Islam, al-Mufeed, and shaykh at-Taa'ifa all misinform the Shia with this incorrect opinon.

(wasalam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Perseverance

[angel11]

First of all impressive research, well-done! I just want to raise a thought.

Prophet s.a.w

Married 595 AD

Imam Ali a.s is born 600 AD (Before Imam Ali a.s was born The Prophet s.a.w and Bibi Kadeeja had lost two son’s)

Revelation 610 AD

(Al-Kulayni saying this) He )صلى الله عليه وآله وسلن( married Khadeejah when he was twenty and some years old. His children from her before his revelation (as a Prophet) were Al-Qaasim, Ruqayyah, Zaynab and Umm Kulthoom. His children born after his revelation were Al-Tayyib, Al-Taahir and FaaTimah )عليها السلام( . It is also narrated that he had no children after revelation besides FaaTimah )عليها السلام( were born and that al-Tayyib and al-Taahir were born before he revelation.19

In ten years the Prophet s.a.w had three daughters and got two of them married of to the sons Abu Lahab!?!?

Let’s say the two daughters did get married to Abu lahabs sons. Then how did Abu Lahab feel towards the nikah recitations. Since we are using shia books, Ill take a few quotes out them too. In beacons of Light it says Abu Talib read the nikah of the Prophet s.a.w and bibi kadeeja.

“Abu Talib addressed the men of Quraysh, who were present for the marriage ceremony, as follows: “Praise be to Allah Who made us of the seed of Abraham and the pro¬geny of Ishmael. He granted us a Sacred House and a place of pilgrimage. He made us to dwell in a secure sanctuary, to which the fruits of everything are brought”

Edited January 9, 2011 by angel11

[rotten_coconut]

Salam Bro ShiaAnswers,

I'm interested in your point of the early ulama might see this as a minor point so they viewed this issue with hadiths that they knew. There are some points on this that I want to ask:

- Doesn't history also known via hadith? Or does Shia have other sources for history? If yes, how to authenticate the reliability of that historical account? Using the same standards as hadiths (i.e. ilm al-rijal)?

- In this issue, do the proponents of 1-daughter theory have hadith contradicting the hadith that Nader wrote in the article? If no, then isn't the safest position to take (hence also the closest to the truth) to use the hadith that we have & take the literal meaning?

Salam Bro Nader,

I want to say that you've done a great job in producing the article. May Allah rewards you greatly on this!

However, to be thorough, there are some points that I want to ask:

- Was 33:5 revealed before or after the death of the 4 daughters?

- If it was after the death, could it mean that the title of "daughters of the Prophet" or "daughters of Muhammad" (which was not prohibited before the revelation & thus probably used) still preserved, especially for identification purposes?

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

I just received a reply back from the Marja` Saadiq Al-Sheeraazee.

He says that the daughters of the Prophet (pbuh) from khadeejah (sa) were 4: Umm Kulthoom, Ruqayyah, Zaynab, and FaaTimah, may peace be upon all of them. Then he later says the two daughters did indeed marry `Uthmaan, and that they died in the life of the Prophet.

(salam)

Edited January 9, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Depending upon ahadis is always warranted but we have to look deeply in to the ahadees.

Usman was about the age of imam Ali a.s. When the prophet died Fatima s.a was 18 years old. If all daughters died before the age of 63 (rasool Allah saww for argument sake) what would be the age of usman and other daughters when sura kausar was revealed. And the previous marriage to abu jahal's son; who recited aqd e nikah and is there any mention of it.

Bro Nader no offenses but this issue needs some more scrutiny but till then beleiving in ahadis of masoom a.s is what a momin should do.

Ya Ali Madad

[Gypsy]

(salam)

I wonder how many people would even be objecting if Khamenei or Sistani had said the Prophet had four daughters. (Not that I'm saying we know they've expressed an opinion way, and not that I'm saying their opinion is worth anything when they are experts in jurisprudence). Apparently the words of the representative of the Imam are not good enough.

Why should this be a big deal? This is not a matter of Fiqh. You don’t go to hell if you think the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had 1 or 4 daughters. Believing in less number of daughters is neither Usool nor Furoo e Deen. The only thing you cannot reject is Fatima(sa) because she is ahlul bayt. It would make no difference to us if the Prophet (pbuh) had 1 or 4 daughters.

Marjas don’t always agree with each other. Have you not noticed how we have been having Eids on different days? The moon is right in front of you! If we can’t even agree on moon sighting for Eid (which is a matter of Fiqh), then how can you even expect people (marjas, laymen, whatever) to get the historical information correct?

[ShiaAnswers]

Bismihi Ta'ala

Before I post this information I want to remind of a few things:

1- The only claims I'm making about the subject is the possibility of the one daughter theory and it is not “bid'ah”.

2- We know there is evidence for both theories, it is up to each of us to review the evidence and pick what theory is more logical to them.

3- We should not give a historical opinion on a side issue that is debatable and claim that anyone who has a different opinion is inventing something new in the religion.

The Quran Question:

Your argument: The Quran clearly forbids calling adopted children by the name of their adapted father. If the Prophet (S) was not the biological father of these daughters, it would be improper for the Imam to call them “Zainab bint nabyik” and so on.

The answer: If you look at the story related to the verse, the Prophet (S) adopted Zayd when his father was gone. His father came back and wanted to take him and the Prophet allowed him to go. However, Zayd refused to go with his biological father. His father got angry and disowned him. The Prophet said it's okay you are now my son you inherit me and I inherit you.

The problem with calling people with their adopted name comes from the idea of adoption which was popular before Islam. This idea indicated that any child that is adopted gets the same right as the biological son/daughter in term of inheritance, incest and so on.

The verse in question is denying the process under which you call a son yours and give him those rights because that is not up to you to give them. The verse says “He did not make those who you claim as sons your sons”, the idea about claiming the son not about calling him by name. Yes, calling him by name is their way of doing that, but that is not the thing the verse is directly forbidding. The next verse says “Claim them to their fathers” (not call them by their fathers name). It is using the same verb “id'oohum” as “ad'iyakum” (your claimed sons).

As far as the daughters of the Prophet are concerned: The proponents of the one daughter theory say that the Prophet never claimed these girls to be his daughters like he claimed Zayd to be his son, so there is a clear difference between the two. He never said they would inherit him or anything related to that. The Prophet married the wife of Zayd after her divorce partly to prove that there is no family relation between him and the wife of his previously “adopted son”. The kuffar made a big deal of this.

[for the story I reviewed Almeezan fi Tafseer Alquran and he quoted the Hadeeth from Tafseer Alqummi]

One way to look at this is that everyone at the time of the Prophet knew the girls were not his and he never claimed to be their father. They were called “bint Mohammad” because they were raised in his house and nothing more. When the Omawis wanted to praise Othman and fabricate things about him they called him “Thu Alnoorain” to counter Ali's position of being the husband of the Prophet's daughter.

Hadeeths:

Please find me ONE SaHeeH hadeeth from the lips of our Imaams (as) , in any of our major Shee`ah books claiming that there have been only 1 daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) and the other daughters were not from Khadeejah but Haalah. Heck, if you don't know if it is SaHeeH, please still quote it.

Obviously there won't be an explicit Hadeeth which says that, just like none of your saheeh Hadeeths said they were the biological daughters of the Prophet (S).

You keep saying there is no hadeeth evidence from Shia sources, well there are. I will mention these and I hope that puts an end to the argument. I have no interest in arguing which theory is more correct because the evidence is little from both sides and the topic is not very important.

Hadeeth #1:

From “Alkhutba Alfadakiah” the famous speech given by Alssayidah Fatimah (A) when she claimed her right to Fadak. I am quoting from Dala'il Alimamah For Altabari (the Shia scholar) and he provides a sanad that is saheeh according to the evaluation of Ibn Qawlwaih; she said: “ I am Fatimah, daughter of Mohammad … if you know him you will find that he is my father unlike your wives [ or women] and the brother of my cousin [Ali] unlike your men”. (P.114)

ÃäÇ ÝÇØãÉ æÃÈí ãÍãÏ¡ ÃÞæáåÇ ÚæÏÇ Úáì ÈÏÁ¡ æãÇ ÃÞæá ÅÐ ÃÞæá ÓÑÝÇ æáÇ ÔØØÇ * (áÞÏ ÌÇÁßã ÑÓæá ãä ÃäÝÓßã ÚÒíÒ Úáíå ãÇ ÚäÊã ÍÑíÕ Úáíßã ÈÇáãÄãäíä ÑÄæÝ ÑÍíã) * (1) Åä ÊÚÒæå ÊÌÏæå ÃÈí Ïæä äÓÇÆßã¡ æÃÎÇ ÇÈä Úãí Ïæä ÑÌÇáßã¡

If you question the sanad of this speech you can take a look at this list of different sanads and different ways we have gotten the speech: http://www.yahosein.com/vb/showthread.php?t=122618&page=3

The evidence in it is clear. If Othman married TWO of the Prophet's wives, then she would be wrong in claiming he is not the father of any of their women. She is talking about her position as the daughter of the Prophet (S) and she would not say something that was shared by others. Even if they were dead at the time of Fadak, that doesn't make them not Othman's wife. Sayyidah Fatimah is not saying that is something she only has now, but no one had that relation with the Prophet other than her.

Hadeeth #2:

From Oyoon Akhbar Alridha from Alshaikh Alsadooq (2nd volume, Page 48, Hadeeth 188) the Holy Prophet (S) told Imam Ali (A): “ You were given three things that no one has been given before”. Imam said: ..what are they? The Prophet (S) said: “You were given a father in law like me, a wife like yours and sons like Hassan and Hussain”.

For the Sanad on this version:

“ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ÇáÔÇå ÇáÝÞíå ÇáãÑæÒí ÈãÑæÑæÏ Ýí

ÏÇÑå ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÈßÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáäíÓÇÈæÑí ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÇáÞÇÓã ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÇãÑ Èä ÓáíãÇä ÇáØÇÆí ÈÇáÈÕÑÉ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈí Ýí ÓäÉ ÓÊíä æ ãÇÆÊíä ÞÇá ÍÏËäí Úáí Èä ãæÓì ÇáÑÖÇ (Ú) ÓäÉ ÃÑÈÚ æ ÊÓÚíä æ ãÇÆÉ æ ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ãäÕæÑ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ÈßÑ ÇáÎæÑí ÈäíÓÇÈæÑ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÈæ ÅÓÍÇÞ ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä åÇÑæä Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÎæÑí ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÒíÇÏ ÇáÝÞíå ÇáÎæÑí ÈäíÓÇÈæÑ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáåÑæí ÇáÔíÈÇäí Úä ÇáÑÖÇ Úáí Èä ãæÓì (Ú) æ ÍÏËäí ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÍÓíä Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÃÔäÇäí ÇáÑÇÒí ÇáÚÏá ÈÈáÎ ÞÇá ÍÏËäÇ Úáí Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ãåÑæíå ÇáÞÒæíäí Úä ÏÇæÏ Èä ÓáíãÇä ÇáÝÑÇÁ Úä Úáí Èä ãæÓì ÇáÑÖÇ (Ú) ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí Úáí Èä ÇáÍÓíä ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí ÇáÍÓíä Èä Úáí ÞÇá ÍÏËäí ÃÈí Úáí Èä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ (Ú) Úä ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ)”

This Hadeeth has been narrated in many books with different sanad. It was in Bihar Alanwar, Amali Altoosi and a couple of others as well.

This Hadeeth proves that there was not any son in law of the Prophet (S) other than Imam Ali. Since all the theories about the daughter being the biological daughters of the Prophet and Othman's wives, this Hadeeth goes directly against that theory.

Summary of one of Sayyid Ja'far Alaamli's Argument: (I only mention this to show that there is more discussion. I don't have time to translate the whole thing)

Surat Alkawthar was revealed when the sons of the Prophet died. The oldest child of the Prophet (Alqassim) died at age two and his brother Abdullah died a month later. That means that any daughters the Prophet might have had would have to have been born after that time. Since Surat Alkawthar was revealed at least a few years after the Prophethood, all the daughters would have to have been born during Islam.

If that's the case, how can they marry the sons of Abu Lahab before Islam?

For sources and more arguments, review the article I linked to earlier.

Marji's Opinion:

Grand Ayatollah Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi was asked about this in an online Q&A scheduled by his office. Here is the link: http://www.yahosain.net/vb/showthread.php?t=104823

He said: “There are narrations in the books of Muslims Shia and Sunni which indicate that the daughters you mention are the daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) and there are narrations which deny that. In my personal opinion, they were raised by him [not his biological daughters]. The clearest evidence of that is great disparity between the way he treated Sayyidah Fatimah (A) and those that you mentioned. The Prophet (S) has ordered not to differentiate between children in the treatment infront of others because that is oppression that creates hostility and hate in the hearts of the brothers and sisters. If they were his biological daughters, he would not have treated them so differently. Allah is our guide.”

Are you claiming that this Marji' is a person of bid'ah too? Stop trying to force your theory on people and attacking anyone who disagrees with it. A saheeh hadeeth is not the end of the story if there is a number of evidence which goes counter to it.

That is the end of my posts on this topic. There is evidence on both sides and each one of us can pick what they find more logical. Inshallah Allah (SWT) will guide us to what is right.

Salam

Edited January 10, 2011 by ShiaAnswers

[Yahya2004]

(bismillah)

(salam)

As per narration 1:

When was Khutbah Fadak delivered? Were any of the daughters of the Prophet (SAWA) still alive at this point other than Sayyeda Fatima (as)? I am ignorant on that point, so that is a genuine question.

As per narration 2:

It does not establish Sayyeda Fatima (as) was his only daughter, no one disputes her greatness and distinct rank above the rest of the Women of the world.

[ShiaAnswers]

(bismillah)

(salam)

As per narration 1:

When was Khutbah Fadak delivered? Were any of the daughters of the Prophet (SAWA) still alive at this point other than Sayyeda Fatima (as)? I am ignorant on that point, so that is a genuine question.

As per narration 2:

It does not establish Sayyeda Fatima (as) was his only daughter, no one disputes her greatness and distinct rank above the rest of the Women of the world.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

For the first one:

She said he was not the father of any of your women, if Othman married two of the Prophet's daughter even if they have died that would defeat her point.

For the second one, he said father in law like me. If Othman married his biological daughters, the Prophet would be his father in law.

Thank you for pointing that out, I edited the post for more clarity.

Edited January 10, 2011 by ShiaAnswers

[gogiison2]

WA wr wb.

In the link below taken from Answering Ansar, it shows that Muawiyah didn't bring up Uthman's two wives being Rasool's daughters when it would definitely have been to his advantage; plus, a whole plethora of other arguments they bring forward: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/who_really_killed_uthman/en/chap7.php

I am not going to say which stance is the correct one and which is wrong because I may be wrong.

-If Rasool had more than one daughter, it would not discount Fatimah's status at all. Just as it's unanimous that Rasool had a son, Ibrahim, who died young; yet Imam Hasan and Husayn are said to be the leaders of the youths of paradise. I don't recall any teachings saying Ibrahim or the other male children of Rasool that passed away with that title. I'm trying to make sense of this. Who sanctioned the nikah of these daughters to Uthman, regardless of whether they were Rasool's daughters or not?

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

Either way, as someone else was sort of saying, these arguments are more tertiary in nature; not even secondary or primary, as far as I am concerned. I do commend the brother(s) for the time spent on this written piece, but if it was as easy as finding sahih ahadith and taking your religion solely via this method, there would not be any differences in our grand scholars' rulings, would there?

[siraatoaliyinhaqqun]

Great points all u guys, especially the khutba of Fatima zahra s.a stating that he is not the father of any of your women eventgough they were dead; syeda s.a could have said a father like us. So we should rather dig up what Abul khasim kufi said or presented on this issue rather than calling him ghullat.

Imam Ali a.s: look what is being said not who is saying.

Ya Ali Madad

Edited January 10, 2011 by siraatoaliyinhaqqun

[Yasoob Al Deen]

(wasalam)

Why should this be a big deal? This is not a matter of Fiqh. You don't go to hell if you think the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had 1 or 4 daughters. Believing in less number of daughters is neither Usool nor Furoo e Deen. The only thing you cannot reject is Fatima(sa) because she is ahlul bayt. It would make no difference to us if the Prophet (pbuh) had 1 or 4 daughters. Marjas don't always agree with each other. Have you not noticed how we have been having Eids on different days? The moon is right in front of you! If we can't even agree on moon sighting for Eid (which is a matter of Fiqh), then how can you even expect people (marjas, laymen, whatever) to get the historical information correct?

??

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Your argument: The Quran clearly forbids calling adopted children by the name of their adapted father. If the Prophet (S) was not the biological father of these daughters, it would be improper for the Imam to call them "Zainab bint nabyik" and so on.

The answer: If you look at the story related to the verse, the Prophet (S) adopted Zayd when his father was gone. His father came back and wanted to take him and the Prophet allowed him to go. However, Zayd refused to go with his biological father. His father got angry and disowned him. The Prophet said it's okay you are now my son you inherit me and I inherit you.

The problem with calling people with their adopted name comes from the idea of adoption which was popular before Islam. This idea indicated that any child that is adopted gets the same right as the biological son/daughter in term of inheritance, incest and so on.

Please, enough with the dhann/speculation.

The verse in question is denying the process under which you call a son yours and give him those rights because that is not up to you to give them.

No, it isn't. This is what the verse says:

Glorious Quran 33:5 Call them after their fathers. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah. But if you know not their fathers, then they are your brothers in Faith and your friends. And there is no blame on you in respect of any mistake you may unintentionally make in this matter; but you will be called to account for that which your hearts purpose. And Allah is Most Forgiving. Ever Merciful.

The verse clearly says the child must be named after the true father and not after the adopting father. To name the child after the adopting father would be a sin if intentional, and a non-blameworthy mistake if the former.

The verse says "He did not make those who you claim as sons your sons", the idea about claiming the son not about calling him by name. Yes, calling him by name is their way of doing that, but that is not the thing the verse is directly forbidding. The next verse says "Claim them to their fathers" (not call them by their fathers name). It is using the same verb "id'oohum" as "ad'iyakum" (your claimed sons).

Please don't attempt to twist the meaning. It is very clear what it means. You are not allowed to call your adopted child after yourself, but after the child's true father. The word "idoohum" (one of its main meanings is "call") has been used, in the exact same way as "call" can be used in the English language; (example: "you are not allowed to call your adopted child after...". There is no dispute over this, or the verse means something different.

Furthermore, your argument (if it deserves even to be called that) is flawed. You claim that it is not forbidden to call your son by your name, and that something else is forbidden. The problem is it contradicts what the tafaaseer say on this matter. They say that when the verse was revealed, the Prophet stopped calling Zayd his son and stopped calling him "Zayd bin Muhammed". If it wasn't the name-calling that was forbidden, then the Prophet would not have stopped this, but simply stopped whatever it is that you claim is actually haraam instead.

You also never explain what was actually made haraam in your dhann/speculation.

As far as the daughters of the Prophet are concerned: The proponents of the one daughter theory say that the Prophet never claimed these girls to be his daughters like he claimed Zayd to be his son, so there is a clear difference between the two.

It is so easy for you to dismiss an argument, isn't it? There was a member on this board who left Shia Islam. Whenever I put forward some strong evidence for Imamate in the Quran, he would brush off my post, ignore the arguments, and then either demand evidence or claim there was none. You remind me of him for some reason....

As has been stated multiple times and now even the verse has been quoted, it is wrong to call your adopted children by your name. So the Prophet or the Imam cannot call Zaynab the daughter of the Prophet. Nor can the Prophet or the Imam say "Zaynab bint Muhammed". Now let us quote a couple of authentic ahadeeth, which you conveniently dismissed and ignored:

1) "O Allaah send blessing up Al-Qaasim, and Al-Taahir sons of your prophet. O Allaah send blessings upon Ruqayyah, daughter of your Prophet, and curse whoever harmed your prophet through her, O Allaah send blessing upon Umm Kulthoom, daughter of your prophet, and curse whoever harmed your prophet through her. O Allaah send blessing upon the progeny of your prophet..."

2) From Al-Halabee from Abee `Abd Allaah ) (عليه السالم that his father narrated to him that Umaamah, daughter of Abee Al-`AaS bin Al-Rabee`, and her mother Zaynab, daughter of the Messenger of Allaah ) (صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلن that she married after `Alee ) .(عليه السالم

(Apologies for messed up formatting)

Here we have the Imams calling Zaynab the daughter of the Prophet. Now you have a dilemma. You can either stubbornly hold onto your belief that there was only one daughter of the Prophet and thus admit that the Aimmah, aleyhum assalam, were not ma'soomeen; or you can admit that your belief is weak and contradicted by the Aimmah, aleyhum assalam, who are infallible and have great knowledge.

He never said they would inherit him or anything related to that. The Prophet married the wife of Zayd after her divorce partly to prove that there is no family relation between him and the wife of his previously "adopted son". The kuffar made a big deal of this.

Thank for you that irrelevant piece of information.

One way to look at this is that everyone at the time of the Prophet knew the girls were not his and he never claimed to be their father.

Please don't make a strawman argument.

When the Omawis wanted to praise Othman and fabricate things about him they called him "Thu Alnoorain" to counter Ali's position of being the husband of the Prophet's daughter.

This is dhann/speculation. I'd rather believe that my Aimmah, aleyhum assalam, are ma'soomeen than believe that everything that even looks like it might praise one of the first Caliphs is a conspiracy.

Obviously there won't be an explicit Hadeeth which says that, just like none of your saheeh Hadeeths said they were the biological daughters of the Prophet (S).

This is simply untrue.

1) The ahadeeth explicitly call them "bint Rasulullaah".

2) It is haraam to call them this if they are not

3) The Aimmah called them this

You keep saying there is no hadeeth evidence from Shia sources, well there are. I will mention these and I hope that puts an end to the argument.

It's taken you this long?

I have no interest in arguing which theory is more correct because the evidence is little from both sides and the topic is not very important.

If you have no interest in arguing, please stop responding to the thread with flawed points and big claims such as "evidence is little".

Hadeeth #1:

From "Alkhutba Alfadakiah" the famous speech given by Alssayidah Fatimah (A) when she claimed her right to Fadak. I am quoting from Dala'il Alimamah For Altabari (the Shia scholar) and he provides a sanad that is saheeh according to the evaluation of Ibn Qawlwaih; she said: " I am Fatimah, daughter of Mohammad … if you know him you will find that he is my father unlike your wives [ or women] and the brother of my cousin [Ali] unlike your men". (P.114)

When you say evidence, I want you to bring ahadeeth while remembering some ilm: the daughters had all died within the Prophet's lifetime. Therefore, Uthman wasn't married to any of the daughters of the Prophet by this time, and so this whole hadeeth becomes irrelevant.

Even if they were dead at the time of Fadak, that doesn't make them not Othman's wife. Sayyidah Fatimah is not saying that is something she only has now, but no one had that relation with the Prophet other than her.

This is blatantly untrue. Please don't make things up. Fatima, aleyha asasalam, says according to that translation of that hadeeth that "you will find that he is my father unlike your wives". This is all she said. She did not say "no-one else has ever been the daughter except me". Her actual words clearly say that "you will find" - i.e. if you conduct a search right now - "that he is my father unlike your wives".

Hadeeth #2:

From Oyoon Akhbar Alridha from Alshaikh Alsadooq (2nd volume, Page 48, Hadeeth 188) the Holy Prophet (S) told Imam Ali (A): " You were given three things that no one has been given before". Imam said: ..what are they? The Prophet (S) said: "You were given a father in law like me, a wife like yours and sons like Hassan and Hussain".

For the Sanad on this version:

" حدثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن علي بن الشاه الفقيه المروزي بمرورود في

داره قال حدثنا أبو بكر بن محمد بن عبد الله النيسابوري قال حدثنا أبو القاسم عبد الله بن أحمد بن عامر بن سليمان الطائي بالبصرة قال حدثنا أبي في سنة ستين و مائتين قال حدثني علي بن موسى الرضا (ع) سنة أربع و تسعين و مائة و حدثنا أبو منصور أحمد بن إبراهيم بن بكر الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن هارون بن محمد الخوري قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن زياد الفقيه الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الله الهروي الشيباني عن الرضا علي بن موسى (ع) و حدثني أبو عبد الله الحسين بن محمد الأشناني الرازي العدل ببلخ قال حدثنا علي بن محمد بن مهرويه القزويني عن داود بن سليمان الفراء عن علي بن موسى الرضا (ع) قال حدثني أبي موسى بن جعفر قال حدثني أبي جعفر بن محمد قال حدثني أبي محمد بن علي قال حدثني أبي علي بن الحسين قال حدثني أبي الحسين بن علي قال حدثني أبي علي بن أبي طالب (ع) عن رسول الله (ص)"

This Hadeeth has been narrated in many books with different sanad. It was in Bihar Alanwar, Amali Altoosi and a couple of others as well.

"you were given..a wife like yours" does not equal "you were given...the only daughter of the Prophet".

What is almost certain, if not certain, is that it is referring to the greatness of the figures there.

Summary of one of Sayyid Ja'far Alaamli's Argument: (I only mention this to show that there is more discussion. I don't have time to translate the whole thing)

Surat Alkawthar was revealed when the sons of the Prophet died. The oldest child of the Prophet (Alqassim) died at age two and his brother Abdullah died a month later. That means that any daughters the Prophet might have had would have to have been born after that time. Since Surat Alkawthar was revealed at least a few years after the Prophethood, all the daughters would have to have been born during Islam.

If that's the case, how can they marry the sons of Abu Lahab before Islam?

As I said previously:

5) Just because someone thinks up of a question or attempts to raise a (non-existent) issue, it does not make the fact that the Prophet had four daughters wrong. Remember, we, especially in this day and age, do not know everything in Shia Islam. Our knowledge is low, and we are not even Ulema for crying out loud. We are not worth the shoes that al-Kulayni or al-Mufeed or at-Tusi wore, let alone the dirt under Ameer al-Mu'mineen's feet. These believed that the Prophet had four daughters. So just because you say "oh, but what about the inheritance?" - so just because you have a question, that you think pokes a whole in this fact, it makes it wrong? No! Ignorance on an issue does not make the issue wrong. That would be as stupid as saying the Quran has a contradiction because in one verse it says the angel Gabriel visited Maryam, aleyha assalam, and in another verse it says the "Holy Spirit" visited Maryam, aleyha assalam. Saying: "oh but what about one verse saying it was Gabriel and another saying it was the Holy Spirit? This makes the Quran wrong because it's a contradiction". No! Just because you are ignorant on a matter, it does not make the matter wrong. So just because you've wrecked your brains to raise a dumb question such as "why weren't they taken in the event of Mubahila" or "but how come they aren't mentioned much in history", this does not make the majority of the Ulema, including the giants, wrong.

It is said, correct me if I'm wrong, that the Prophet had all the children (regardless of whether they were born to him or he inherited the care of them through marriage to Khadija, aleyha assalam, before Islam. Therefore, one of your initial statements must be false. Maybe the daughters were born first.

In any case, it doesn't matter. It's all nothing compared to the ahadeeth and arguments raised.

For sources and more arguments, review the article I linked to earlier.

Again, most of us can't read and understand Arabic.

Grand Ayatollah Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi was asked about this in an online Q&A scheduled by his office. Here is the link: http://www.yahosain....ad.php?t=104823

He said: "There are narrations in the books of Muslims Shia and Sunni which indicate that the daughters you mention are the daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) and there are narrations which deny that. In my personal opinion, they were raised by him [not his biological daughters]. The clearest evidence of that is great disparity between the way he treated Sayyidah Fatimah (A) and those that you mentioned. The Prophet (S) has ordered not to differentiate between children in the treatment infront of others because that is oppression that creates hostility and hate in the hearts of the brothers and sisters. If they were his biological daughters, he would not have treated them so differently. Allah is our guide."

Since the majority of Ulema believe that they are his daughters, the burden of proof is on him. All he has said to support his lame position is a supposed claim (that the Prophet treated his other daughters less well) that I have never heard before in my life, and that needs authentic ahadeeth to prove it. This is actually an insult to the Prophet. Even if they were not from his flesh and blood, he probably would have treated them the same, because this was the greatest man who was full of kindness and mercy.

(bismillah)

(salam)

As per narration 1:

When was Khutbah Fadak delivered? Were any of the daughters of the Prophet (SAWA) still alive at this point other than Sayyeda Fatima (as)? I am ignorant on that point, so that is a genuine question.

The scholar Tabarsi says that the three daughters died within the Prophet's lifetime*. The sermon of Fadak was delivered after the Prophet's death (since the usurption of Fadak occurred after his death).

*=Read: http://www.al-islam.org/beacons/7.htm

(wasalam)

Edited January 10, 2011 by Perseverance

[Nader Zaveri]

(salam)

(bismillah)

Before I attempt to answer this argument. I would like everyone to make an observation.

Whenever you narrate a Hadeeth, and you have to add "interpretation" to the hadeeth to "drive" your point home, then you know something is wrong. The hadeeth should be clear and explicit, as our Ahl Al-Bayt (as) were eloquent speakers, and they could very easily express what they wanted to say.

Hadeeth #1:

From “Alkhutba Alfadakiah” the famous speech given by Alssayidah Fatimah (A) when she claimed her right to Fadak. I am quoting from Dala'il Alimamah For Altabari (the Shia scholar) and he provides a sanad that is saheeh according to the evaluation of Ibn Qawlwaih; she said: “ I am Fatimah, daughter of Mohammad … if you know him you will find that he is my father unlike your wives [ or women] and the brother of my cousin [Ali] unlike your men”. (P.114)

أنا فاطمة وأبي محمد، أقولها عودا على بدء، وما أقول إذ أقول سرفا ولا شططا * (لقد جاءكم رسول من أنفسكم عزيز عليه ما عنتم حريص عليكم بالمؤمنين رؤوف رحيم) * (1) إن تعزوه تجدوه أبي دون نسائكم، وأخا ابن عمي دون رجالكم،

If you question the sanad of this speech you can take a look at this list of different sanads and different ways we have gotten the speech: http://www.yahosein.com/vb/showthread.php?t=122618&page=3

The evidence in it is clear. If Othman married TWO of the Prophet's wives, then she would be wrong in claiming he is not the father of any of their women. She is talking about her position as the daughter of the Prophet (S) and she would not say something that was shared by others. Even if they were dead at the time of Fadak, that doesn't make them not Othman's wife. Sayyidah Fatimah is not saying that is something she only has now, but no one had that relation with the Prophet other than her.

Your citation is wrong, it is in the book Dalaa'il Al-A'immah, but wrong page. Many things are wrong with this hadeeth.

The hadeeth is long, but I will quote your your section.

ثم قالت أنا فاطمة و أبي محمد أقولها عودا على بدء و ما أقولها إذ أقول سرفا و لا شططا لَقَدْ جاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ عَزِيزٌ عَلَيْهِ ما عَنِتُّمْ حَرِيصٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَؤُفٌ رَحِيمٌ إن تعزوه تجدوه أبي دون نسائكم و أخا ابن عمي دون رجالكم

• Source:
  
• Al-Tabari, Dalaa'il Al-A'immah, pg. 32

Your main point is in red, and there are no other aHaadeeth with an isnaad (all other citations are mursal) that has this particular phrase, so looking at other asaneed would be useless since your point of emphasis isn't found in the other aHaadeeth.

1.) Here is the chain taken from pg. 31 of Dalaa'il Al-A'immah:

قال الصفواني و حدثني محمد بن محمد بن يزيد مولى بني هاشم قال حدثني عبد الله بن محمد بن سليمان بن عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن عن عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن عن جماعة من أهله و ذكر الحديث قال الصفواني و حدثني أبي عن عثمان قال حدثنا نائل بن نجيح عن عمرو بن شمر عن جابر الجعفي عن أبي جعفر عن آبائه و ذكر الحديث قال الصفواني و حدثنا عبد الله بن ضحاك قال حدثنا هشام بن محمد عن أبيه ابن وعوانة قال الصفواني و حدثنا ابن عائشة ببعضه و حدثنا العباس بن بكار قال حدثنا حرب بن ميمون عن زيد بن علي عن آبائه ع قالوا

Since there are too many weaknesses int he isnaad, I had to color code it.

BLUE = Name isnt' even found in rijaal books (hardcore majhool)

Red = Da`eef Jiddan liar by EVERY classical rijaal scholar.

Orange = Ikhtilaaf regarding him, but majority of classical scholars have weakened him

Green = Majhool (but at least found in Rijaal books)

So using this as your argument is weak, and VERY VERY weak at that. The rest of the chain is so majhool, attempting to find names would be pretty useless. Very weak hadeeth. Maybe rijaal isn't your strongest suit, but to use a hadeeth who is a known liar and some who has heavy ikhtilaaf, as well as many majhool people many of whom aren't even mentions in our rijaal books.

2.) This is a very ambiguous statement, FaaTimah (sa) never says, "I am the ONLY daughter", as she could've very well said that if she truly was. This statement is so vague, I am surprised it was used as an attempt, as we have other SaHeeH hadeeth and scholarly opinion talking about "akhtihaa" -> "her sister" when talking about FaaTimah (sa) and her other sisters.

3.) We should always follow clear and explicit saheeh hadeeth over vague and ambiguous da`eef hadeeth.

Hadeeth #2:

From Oyoon Akhbar Alridha from Alshaikh Alsadooq (2nd volume, Page 48, Hadeeth 188) the Holy Prophet (S) told Imam Ali (A): “ You were given three things that no one has been given before”. Imam said: ..what are they? The Prophet (S) said: “You were given a father in law like me, a wife like yours and sons like Hassan and Hussain”.

For the Sanad on this version:

“ حدثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن علي بن الشاه الفقيه المروزي بمرورود في

داره قال حدثنا أبو بكر بن محمد بن عبد الله النيسابوري قال حدثنا أبو القاسم عبد الله بن أحمد بن عامر بن سليمان الطائي بالبصرة قال حدثنا أبي في سنة ستين و مائتين قال حدثني علي بن موسى الرضا (ع) سنة أربع و تسعين و مائة و حدثنا أبو منصور أحمد بن إبراهيم بن بكر الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن هارون بن محمد الخوري قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن زياد الفقيه الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الله الهروي الشيباني عن الرضا علي بن موسى (ع) و حدثني أبو عبد الله الحسين بن محمد الأشناني الرازي العدل ببلخ قال حدثنا علي بن محمد بن مهرويه القزويني عن داود بن سليمان الفراء عن علي بن موسى الرضا (ع) قال حدثني أبي موسى بن جعفر قال حدثني أبي جعفر بن محمد قال حدثني أبي محمد بن علي قال حدثني أبي علي بن الحسين قال حدثني أبي الحسين بن علي قال حدثني أبي علي بن أبي طالب (ع) عن رسول الله (ص)”

This Hadeeth has been narrated in many books with different sanad. It was in Bihar Alanwar, Amali Altoosi and a couple of others as well.

This Hadeeth proves that there was not any son in law of the Prophet (S) other than Imam Ali. Since all the theories about the daughter being the biological daughters of the Prophet and Othman's wives, this Hadeeth goes directly against that theory.

Summary of one of Sayyid Ja'far Alaamli's Argument: (I only mention this to show that there is more discussion. I don't have time to translate the whole thing)

Surat Alkawthar was revealed when the sons of the Prophet died. The oldest child of the Prophet (Alqassim) died at age two and his brother Abdullah died a month later. That means that any daughters the Prophet might have had would have to have been born after that time. Since Surat Alkawthar was revealed at least a few years after the Prophethood, all the daughters would have to have been born during Islam.

If that's the case, how can they marry the sons of Abu Lahab before Islam?

For sources and more arguments, review the article I linked to earlier.

Many things wrong with this hadeeth also. Your main point is in in red, here is the hadeeth.

و بهذا الإسناد قال قال رسول الله ص يا علي إنك أعطيت ثلاثا لم يعطها أحد من قبلك قلت فداك أبي و أمي و ما أعطيت قال أعطيت صهرا مثلي و أعطيت مثل زوجتك و أعطيت مثل ولديك الحسن و الحسين

1.) Chain is again weak. The chain is found in `Uyoon Al-akhbaar, vol. 2, pg. 24 - 25:

4- حدثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن علي بن الشاه الفقيه المروزي بمرورود في داره قال حدثنا أبو بكر بن محمد بن عبد الله النيسابوري قال حدثنا أبو القاسم عبد الله بن أحمد بن عامر بن سليمان الطائي بالبصرة قال حدثنا أبي في سنة ستين و مائتين قال حدثني علي بن موسى الرضا ع سنة أربع و تسعين و مائة و حدثنا أبو منصور أحمد بن إبراهيم بن بكر الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أبو إسحاق إبراهيم بن هارون بن محمد الخوري قال حدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن زياد الفقيه الخوري بنيسابور قال حدثنا أحمد بن عبد الله الهروي الشيباني عن الرضا علي بن موسى ع

محمد بن علي بن الشاه = majhool (unknown). He doesn't even have tarahhum / taraDee on him, if he did you point about him would be stronger, but he doesn't have anything after his name.

أبو بكر بن محمد بن عبد الله النيسابوري = majhool (unknown).

أبو القاسم عبد الله بن أحمد بن عامر بن سليمان الطائي بالبصرة = majhool (unknown).

أبي = أحمد بن عامر بن سليمان الطائي بالبصرة = majhool (unknwon).

Beautiful chain, basically everyone leading up to the Imaam is unknown, we don't know if they were liars, ghulat, or good people. Beautiful.

2.) Even if we wear to take this horrible weak hadeeth as hujjah there are still things wrong. When the Prophet (pbuh) speaks to `Alee (as) we must scrutinze every word, because the the Ahl Al-bayt (as) were very eloquent. Notice when he (pbuh) is talking to Imaam `Alee (as), he mentions three qualities, and in between these three qualities he uses the word "و" -> "and", now if he were to use the word "أَوْ" -> "or" your case would've been much stronger.

--> If he would've used the word "or" this would mean that NO ONE holds ANY of these qualities, not even a single one of the three. But instead he uses the word "and" which would mean that NO ONE holds these three qualities TOGETHER, which is of course true.

3.) I have quoted Nahj Al-Balaagha about Imaam `Alee (as) saying himself to `Uthmaan that you are the Prophet's (as) son-in-law, which Aboo Bakr and `Umar were not his son-in-law.

Marji's Opinion:

Grand Ayatollah Shaikh Basheer Alnajafi was asked about this in an online Q&A scheduled by his office. Here is the link: http://www.yahosain.net/vb/showthread.php?t=104823

He said: “There are narrations in the books of Muslims Shia and Sunni which indicate that the daughters you mention are the daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) and there are narrations which deny that. In my personal opinion, they were raised by him [not his biological daughters]. The clearest evidence of that is great disparity between the way he treated Sayyidah Fatimah (A) and those that you mentioned. The Prophet (S) has ordered not to differentiate between children in the treatment infront of others because that is oppression that creates hostility and hate in the hearts of the brothers and sisters. If they were his biological daughters, he would not have treated them so differently. Allah is our guide.”

Are you claiming that this Marji' is a person of bid'ah too? Stop trying to force your theory on people and attacking anyone who disagrees with it. A saheeh hadeeth is not the end of the story if there is a number of evidence which goes counter to it.

That is the end of my posts on this topic. There is evidence on both sides and each one of us can pick what they find more logical. Inshallah Allah (SWT) will guide us to what is right.

One marja` vs. the many many many top scholars who I have already quoted. Hmm.

You brought out two hadeeth that are vague and ambiguous and da`eef, while I brought out 10-15 hadeeth that are clear-cut and straight to the point, many of which are saheeh.

Please tell me there has to be a stronger counter argument than this.

And about Surah Al-Kawthar, I have yet to see hadeeth from the A'immah or classical scholars that interpret this surah as you do. Please provide.

(salam)

Edited January 10, 2011 by Nader Zaveri

[Maula da Maher]

Salaam Alaikom

I just wanted to thank shiaanswers for their very good response.

May your reward be with Hazrate Zahra (sa).