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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

This thread is only a friendly invitation to Farid. Generally, the Salafiyyah (and the Ahl al-Sunnah generally) rush to claim that they too love the Ahl al-Bayt (as). Farid, naturally, makes a similar claim. In fact, in recent days, I have seen him adding (as) after the names of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) to the exclusion of the other Sahābah. Though I find this very strange, coming from a Salafī, I deem it a very positive sign (not that I expect him to ever leave his religion).

My concern, however, is that Farid still loves and follows the Nawāsib who hated, cursed and fought the Ahl al-Bayt (as). This is where the main problem lies. These Nāsibī Sahābah were hypocrites. In Islām, loving hypocrites is harām, and a horrible bid’ah, as Allāh has CURSED them:

æóÚóÏó Çááøóåõ ÇáúãõäóÇÝöÞöíäó æóÇáúãõäóÇÝöÞóÇÊö æóÇáúßõÝøóÇÑó äóÇÑó Ìóåóäøóãó ÎóÇáöÏöíäó ÝöíåóÇ åöíó ÍóÓúÈõåõãú æóáóÚóäóåõãõ Çááøóåõ æóáóåõãú ÚóÐóÇÈñ ãõÞöíãñ

Allāh has promised the hypocrites, men and women, and the disbelievers, the Fire of Hell, therein shall they abide forever. It will suffice them. Allāh has CURSED them and for them is the lasting torment.

Qur’ān 9:68

Now, to make myself clearer, let me quote these words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah:

ÇáÑÇÈÚ Ãä Çááå ÞÏ ÇÎÈÑ Çäå ÓíÌÚá ááÐíä ÂãäæÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕÇáÍÇÊ æÏÇ æåÐÇ æÚÏ ãäå ÕÇÏÞ æãÚáæã Ãä Çááå ÞÏ ÌÚá ááÕÍÇÈÉ ãæÏÉ Ýí ÞáÈ ßá ãÓáã áÇ ÓíãÇ ÇáÎáÝÇÁ ÑÖí Çááå Úäåã áóÇ ÓöíøóãóÇ ÃóÈõæ ÈóßúÑò æóÚõãóÑõº ÝóÅöäøó ÚóÇãøóÉó ÇáÕøóÍóÇÈóÉö æóÇáÊøóÇÈöÚöíäó ßóÇäõæÇ íóæóÏøõæäóåõãóÇ¡ æóßóÇäõæÇ ÎóíúÑó ÇáúÞõÑõæäö. æóáóãú íóßõäú ßóÐóáößó Úóáöíøñ¡ ÝóÅöäøó ßóËöíÑðÇ ãöäó ÇáÕøóÍóÇÈóÉö æóÇáÊøóÇÈöÚöíäó ßóÇäõæÇ íõÈúÛöÖõæäóåõ æóíóÓõÈøõæäóåõ æóíõÞóÇÊöáõæäóåõ.

The fourth issue is that Allāh had informed him (the Prophet) that He would create love for those who believe and do righteous deeds. This promise from Him was true, and it is well-known that Allāh has created love for the Sahābah in the heart of every Muslim, especially the Khalīfahs, may Allāh be pleased with them, especially Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. This is because the generality of the Sahābah and Tābi’īn loved both of them (i.e. Abū Bakr and ‘Umar), and these were the best of generations. This was not the case for ‘Alī. This is because the MAJORITY of the Sahābah and Tābi’īn HATED, CURSED and FOUGHT him.

Abū al-‘Abbās Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halīm b. Taymiyyah al-Harrānī, Minhāj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat al-Qurtbah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashād Sālim], vol. 7, p. 137-138

NOTE: The word kathīr above may mean “a lot of” or “majority of”. It has been used in the second sense at several places in the Qur’ān, like 2:109, 4:114, 5:32, 5:49, 5:64, 5:66, 5:68, 5:71, 5:80, 7:179, 9:34, 10:92, 14:36, 38:24, 57:16, 57:26, and 57:27. It is equally apparent that Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah intends this second meaning in his words. If it does not mean “majority of”, then his purpose fails. He seeks to prove that the “believers” did not love Imām ‘Alī (as). If it was only the minority of them, and the majority loved him, then he has no point! Therefore, the only way his words could have meaning is when the majority of the Salaf (i.e. Sahābah and Tābi’īn) hated him, as he has argued.

Nāsibism is apparent from these words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah:

1. Allāh promised to create love for those who believe and do righteous deeds in the hearts of the Muslims.

2. Allāh has created love for the Sahābah in the heart of every Muslim, thus proving that they were righteous believers.

3. The Sahābah and Tābi’īn are the best of Muslims and they loved Abū Bakr and ‘Umar. This proves that Abū Bakr and ‘Umar were absolutely righteous believers.

4. However, these same Sahābah and Tābi’īn, the majority of them, hated, cursed and fought ‘Alī (as). In other words, Allāh did not create love for ‘Alī (as) in their hearts, meaning that he was not a believer or did not do good deeds!

Particular attention should be paid to these points:

1. Allāh promised to create love in the hearts of the Muslims for those who believe and do righteous deeds.

2. The promise of Allāh is true.

3. But, He did not create love for ‘Alī (as) in the hearts of the bests of Muslims.

4. Therefore, ‘Alī (as) could not have been one of those who believed and did righteous deeds because Allāh always fulfills His Promises.

5. If ‘Alī (as) had been one of those who believed and did righteous deeds, then the Promise of Allāh would be false – an absolute impossibility.

This is the outline of the ideology of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah! Farid, if this does not make him a Nāsibī, then nothing does!

And, please tell: do you agree with this reasoning of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah?

Now, here comes the question: what is your view of those Sahābah and Tābi’īn who hated, cursed and fought Imām ‘Alī (as)?

The Messenger of Allāh (pbuh) called them all hypocrites. Imām Muslim records:

قال علي : والذي فلق الحبة وبرأ النسمة إنه لعهد النبي الأمي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى أن لا يحبني إلا مؤمن ولا يبغضني إلا منافق

Narrated ‘Alī:

By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, verily the al-Ummī Prophet (i.e. Muhammad), peace be upon him, gave me a covenant that NONE loves me except a believer and NONE hates me except a hypocrite.

Abū al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjāj al-Naysābūrī al- al-Qushayrī, Sahīh (Beirut: Dār Ihyā al-Turāth al-‘Arabī) [annotator: Muhammad Fuād ‘Abd al-Bāqī], vol. 1, p. 86, # 78

Do you agree that all those Nāsibī Sahābah and Tābi’īn were hypocrites? Do you agree with the Messenger of Allāh (pbuh)? Or, do you reject his words?

Moreover, Shaykh al-Albānī records that the Prophet said:

من أحب عليا فقد احبني ومن أحبني فقد أحب الله عز وجل ومن أبغض عليا فقد أبغضني ومن أبغضني فقد أبغض الله عز وجل. (صحيح)

Whosoever loves ‘Alī verily loves me, and whosoever loves me verily loves Allāh the Almighty. WHOSOEVER hates ‘Alī verily hates me, and WHOSOEVER hates me verily hates Allāh the Almighty. (Sahīh)

Muhammad Nāsir al-Dīn al-Albānī, al-Silsilah al-Ahādīth al-Sahīhah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’ārif), vol. 3, p. 288, # 1299

Farid, do you agree that those Nāsibī Sahābah hated Allāh and His Messenger ?

If you do, this will testify in favour of your love of the Ahl al-Bayt . If you do not? Well, the implications are obvious.

So, I invite you, Farid, and as I said, this is only a friendly invitation: I invite you to state your opinion, in this thread, about those Nāsibī Sahābah and Tābi’īn.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Al Muhammadee

In our coversation at HCY site, Farid stated that the common belief is that Mu'awiya cursed/abused Imam Ali a.s, when I asked him a similar question has yours that obviously cursing/abusing is not out of love so do you believe but pure hatred that He had for Imam Ali a.s, now if you put this in all prespective isn't this hatred towards the Holy Prophet pbuh&hf due to narrations in Sahih Muslim etc?

He said not at all, then he referred me to a thread where it a had a quote from Ibn Hajar:

Taken from Tahzib at-Tahzib:

ثم ظهر لي في الجواب عن ذلك أن البغض ها هنا مقيد بسبب وهو كونه نصر النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم لأن من الطبع البشري بغض من وقعت منه إساءة في حق المبغض والحب بعكسه وذلك ما يرجع إلى أمور الدنيا غالبا والخبر في حب علي وبغضه ليس على العموم فقد أحبه من أفرط فيه حتى ادعى أنه نبي أو أنه إله تعالى الله عن إفكهم والذي ورد في حق علي من ذلك قد ورد مثله في حق الأنصار وأجاب عنه العلماء أن بغضهم لأجل النصر كان ذلك علامة نفاقه وبالعكس فكذا يقال في حق علي وأيضا فأكثر من يوصف بالنصب يكون مشهورا بصدق اللهجة والتمسك بأمور الديانة بخلاف من يوصف بالرفض فإن غالبهم كاذب ولا يتورع في الإخبار والأصل فيه أن الناصبة اعتقدوا أن عليا رضي الله عنه قتل عثمان أو كان أعان عليه فكان بغضهم له ديانة بزعمهم ثم انضاف إلى ذلك أن منهم من قتلت أقاربه في حروب علي

Then it appeared to me that the answer is that hatred is tied with a reason and that it is his support of the prophet SAWS, because the human nature is that hatred is directed towards he who wronged the one who hates, and love is the opposite and this matter is because of worldly issues. As for the narration about loving 'Ali then it is not to be taken in general because some loved him to the extent of making him a prophet or a god, this same Hadith was also directed towards al-Ansars but the scholars have replied that it is tied to hating them because of their support of the prophet SAWS and the same applies to 'Ali and we see that most of those accused of Nasb are faous for their honesty and they are attached to the religion as opposed to those who are accused of Rafd because most of them are liars who fabricate stories. the origin of the Nawasib is that they believed that 'Ali killed 'Uthman or helped in this so they claimed that his hatred was like worship, add to it that some of them had their relatives killed in the wars with 'Ali.

I hope this helps bro in Farid's understanding of this.

Edited by muslimunity1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother,

The problem for Farid, with that argument, is that hatred of Imaam ‘Alee (as) is PART of hatred of Allaah and His Messenger (pbuh). In cases like this, the only way hatred of Imaam ‘Alee (as) can be excused under ANY circumstance is if hatred of Allaah and His Messenger (pbuh) can be excused under ANY circumstance. So, Farid has to convincingly prove first that there are circumstances when one can hate Allaah and His Messenger with excuse. If he does that successfully, then we can examine the specific cases of the Naasibi Sahaabah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

ibn hajar is trying to justify something that can never be justified.

the hadith is explicit.

whom is hajar and botha trying to kid?

pathetic.

have they taken leave of their senses.

this is the reason truth does not spring forth

and then one can never change for the better

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last day i saw a man who was trying to boat on two boats at the same time. He had one foot in one boat and the second in the other boat. But unfortunately he fell in the river because he was boating two boats at the same time. The people of the area saved him but he is still sick. He has promised that now he will never boat two boats at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, brother. ALL Sunnees actually see no problem with hatred of Imaam ‘Alee (as). Otherwise, they would not be following and defending Naasibi Sahaabah like Aboo Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan, ‘Aaishah, Mu‘aawiyah, Talha and al-Zubayr.

You may say: well, most Sunnees are not aware of the Naasibism of these individuals. But, that doesn‘t help either, since even AFTER knowing of it, they still stick to their old views. A classical example is ibrahim786 or whatever he calls himself. Even after knowing that Mu‘aawiyah was a caller to hellfire according to the explicit words of the Prophet (pbuh), he still defends him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, brother. ALL Sunnees actually see no problem with hatred of Imaam ‘Alee (as). Otherwise, they would not be following and defending Naasibi Sahaabah like Aboo Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan, ‘Aaishah, Mu‘aawiyah, Talha and al-Zubayr.

You may say: well, most Sunnees are not aware of the Naasibism of these individuals. But, that doesn‘t help either, since even AFTER knowing of it, they still stick to their old views. A classical example is ibrahim786 or whatever he calls himself. Even after knowing that Mu‘aawiyah was a caller to hellfire according to the explicit words of the Prophet (pbuh), he still defends him.

do you deny that umar ra married umme kulsoon binte ali ra?? otherwise how can he be a nasbi??

do you deny that from imam jafar ra onwards the shia imams are desendents of abu bakr ra aswell??

no sahabi hated ali ra even including muawiyah - its funny how much venom you have for the sahabah when the real haters were the khawarij.

which hadith says that muawiyah is a caller to hellfire?

all your accusations are on thin grounds, my friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Ibrahim786

do you deny that umar ra married umme kulsoon binte ali ra?? otherwise how can he be a nasbi??

It was Umme Khulthum binte Abu Bakr not the daughter of Imam Ali a.s, get your facts right.

do you deny that from imam jafar ra onwards the shia imams are desendents of abu bakr ra aswell??

That's irrelevant as Muhammed bin Abu Bakr r.a was a true follower of the Imam and not the father (Abu Bakr).

no sahabi hated ali ra even including muawiyah - its funny how much venom you have for the sahabah when the real haters were the khawarij.

which hadith says that muawiyah is a caller to hellfire?

How quickly you forgot this post Ibrahim by brother Al Muhammadee

Well, thank Allaah that you have at least admitted that Mu'aawiyah and his gang were rebels. That is good for you. The question now is: can their rebellion be excused or not? If it can be excused, then we the Imaamiyyah will have no problem with you on Mu’aawiyah and his rebellious gang. However, according to Allaah and His Messenger, the rebellion of Mu’aawiyah and his gang CANNOT be excused!

This is my proof.

Imaam al-Bukhaaree records:

ÍÏËäÇ : ‏ ‏ãÓÏÏ ‏ ‏ÞÇá : ¡ ÍÏËäÇ : ‏ ‏ÚÈÏ ÇáÚÒíÒ Èä ãÎÊÇÑ ‏ ‏ÞÇá : ¡ ÍÏËäÇ : ‏ ‏ÎÇáÏ ÇáÍÐÇÁ ‏ ‏¡ Úä ‏ ‏ÚßÑãÉ ‏ ÞÇá áí ‏ ‏ÅÈä ÚÈÇÓ ‏ ‏æáÅÈäå ‏ ‏Úáí ‏ ‏ÅäØáÞÇ Åáì ‏ ‏ÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ÝÅÓãÚÇ ãä ÍÏíËå ÝÅäØáÞäÇ ¡ ÝÅÐÇ åæ Ýí ÍÇÆØ íÕáÍå ÝÃÎÐ ÑÏÇÁå ‏ ‏ÝÅÍÊÈì ¡‏ ‏Ëã ÃäÔà íÍÏËäÇ ÍÊì ÃÊì ÐßÑ ÈäÇÁ ÇáãÓÌÏ ¡ ÝÞÇá : ßäÇ äÍãá áÈäÉ áÈäÉ ‏ ‏æÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏áÈäÊíä áÈäÊíä ÝÑÂå ÇáäÈí ‏ (Õ) ‏ ‏ÝíäÝÖ ÇáÊÑÇÈ Úäå æíÞæá ‏ ‏æíÍ ‏ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏ÊÞÊáå ÇáÝÆÉ ‏ ‏ÇáÈÇÛíÉ ‏ ‏íÏÚæåã Åáì ÇáÌäÉ æíÏÚæäå Åáì ÇáäÇÑ ÞÇá : íÞæá ‏ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏ÃÚæÐ ÈÇááå ãä ÇáÝÊä.

Narrated by 'Ikrima

Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious,aggressive group. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438

And:

ÍÏËäÇ : ‏ ‏ÅÈÑÇåíã Èä ãæÓì ¡ ÃÎÈÑäÇ : ‏ ‏ÚÈÏ ÇáæåÇÈ ‏ ¡ ÍÏËäÇ : ‏ÎÇáÏ ‏ ‏¡ Úä ‏ ‏ÚßÑãÉ ‏ ‏Ãä ‏‏ÅÈä ÚÈÇÓ ‏‏ÞÇá áå ‏‏æáÚáí Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ‏ ‏ÅÆÊíÇ ‏ ‏ÃÈÇ ÓÚíÏ ‏ ‏ÝÅÓãÚÇ ãä ÍÏíËå ¡ ÝÃÊíäÇå æåæ æÃÎæå Ýí ‏ ‏ÍÇÆØ ‏ ‏áåãÇ íÓÞíÇäå ÝáãÇ ÑÂäÇ ÌÇÁ ÝÅÍÊÈì æÌáÓ ‏¡ ‏ÝÞÇá : ßäÇ ääÞá ‏ ‏áÈä ‏ ‏ÇáãÓÌÏ ‏ ‏áÈäÉ ‏ ‏áÈäÉ ‏ ‏æßÇä ‏ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏íäÞá ‏ ‏áÈäÊíä ‏ ‏áÈäÊíä ‏ ‏ÝãÑ Èå ÇáäÈí ‏ (Õ) ‏ ‏æãÓÍ ¡ Úä ÑÃÓå ÇáÛÈÇÑ ¡ æÞÇá : ‏‏æíÍ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏‏ÊÞÊáå ÇáÝÆÉ ‏ ‏ÇáÈÇÛíÉ ‏ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏íÏÚæåã Åáì Çááå æíÏÚæäå Åáì ÇáäÇÑ.

Narrated by 'Ikrima

That Ibn 'Abbas told him and 'Ali bin 'Abdullah to go to Abu Said and listen to some of his narrations; So they both went (and saw) Abu Said and his brother irrigating a garden belonging to them. When he saw them, he came up to them and sat down with his legs drawn up and wrapped in his garment and said, "(During the construction of the mosque of the Prophet) we carried the adobe of the mosque, one brick at a time while 'Ammar used to carry two at a time. The Prophet passed by 'Ammar and removed the dust off his head and said, "May Allah be merciful to 'Ammar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group. 'Ammar will invite them to (obey) Allah and they will invite him to the (Hell) fire."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 67

Of course, our master, 'Ammaar (ra), was murdered by Mu'aawiyah and his army at Siffeen. He (‘Ammaar) was fighting under Imaam ‘Alee’s (as) command against Mu’aawiyah and his gang on that day.

Two phrases have been used by the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) to describe Mu’aawiyah and his gang. The first is:

æíÍ ‏ ‏ÚãÇÑ ‏ ‏ÊÞÊáå ÇáÝÆÉ ‏ ‏ÇáÈÇÛíÉ

May Allaah be merciful to ‘Ammaar. He will be killed by a rebellious aggressive group.

Therefore, the responsibility for the murder of Sayyidinaa ‘Ammaar falls on the neck of the ENTIRE group, led by and including Mu’aawiyah. Ibrahim, there is simply no way for you to deny this reality. The WHOLE rebellious gang was jointly responsible for the murder of Sayyidinaa ‘Ammaar.

Secondly, Mu’aawiyah and his army were called:

ÇáÈÇÛíÉ

The Salafee translator of Saheeh al-Bukhaaree has rendered it as “rebellious, aggressive”. So, Mu’aawiyah and his gang were both rebelsand aggressors, and they were guilty of the murder of Sayyidinaa ‘Ammaar and thousands of other believers. These points are very crucial. If you deny any of them, you have called Allaah and His Messenger liars!

Ibrahim, so far, I have seen you calling Imaam ‘Alee (as) the aggressor, and excusing the murder and rebellion of Mu’aawiyah and his gangs! Better repent to Allaah, and correct your eemaan!

One of your scholars, al-Manaawee, in his Fayd al-Qadeer, vol. 4, p. 474, # 5607 states about the above hadeeths:

ÚãÇÑ ÊÞÊáå ÇáÝÆÉ ÇáÈÇÛíÉ‏ ‏Ãí ÇáÙÇáãÉ ÇáÎÇÑÌÉ Úä ØÇÚÉ ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÍÞ ¡ æÒÇÏ ÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÑæÇíÉ ÇáäÇßÈÉ ¡ Úä ÇáÍÞ æÇáãÑÇÏ ÈåÐå ÇáÝÆÉ ÝÆÉ ãÚÇæíÉ ßãÇ ÌÇÁ ãæÖÍÇð Ýí ÑæÇíÉ ÇáØÈÑÇäí æÛíÑå ¡ æåÐÇ ãä ãÚÌÒÇÊå áÃäå ÃÎÈÇÑ Úä ÛíÈ æÞÏ æÞÚ‏.

“Ammaar will be murdered by a rebellious, aggressive group”, meaning AN UNJUST, OPPRESIVE GROUP THAT ABANDONED OBEDIENCE TO THE IMAAM OF THE TRUTH. Al-Tabaraanee added in the report of al-Naakibah, “(they deviated) from the Truth”. Those intended by this (rebellious, aggressive, oppressive, unjust) group are the group of Mu’aawiyah, as it has been explicitly reported in the narration of al-Tabaraanee and others. And this is one of his (i.e. the Prophet’s) miracles, because he predicted and it came true.

So, Ibrahim, to be on the side of the Prophet, you MUST agree that Mu’aawiyah and his gang were rebels, aggressors, deviants, unjustand oppressive. Unless you do this, you are indirectly accusing the Prophet of ignorance, misguidance and lying!

The next phrase used by the Prophet to describe Mu’aawiyah and his gang is:

íÏÚæåã Åáì ÇáÌäÉ æíÏÚæäå Åáì ÇáäÇÑ

He (‘Ammaar) will be calling them (i.e. Mu’aawiyah and his gang) to Paradise while they (Mu’aawiyah and his group) will be calling him to Hellfire!

He also states:

íÏÚæåã Åáì Çááå æíÏÚæäå Åáì ÇáäÇÑ. ‏

He (‘Ammaar) will be calling them (i.e. Mu’aawiyah and his gang) to Allaah while they (Mu’aawiyah and his group) will be calling him to Hellfire!

So, I ask you, Ibrahim: were Mu’aawiyah and his gang calling to Allaah and Paradise, or were they calling to Hellfire? I am certain that to retain your Islaam, you must accept that Mu’aawiyah and his gang were calling to Hellfire.

Now, the next question is: were Mu’aawiyah and his gang believers or not? The reason for this question is that Sayydinaa ‘Ammaar was calling them TO ALLAAH, and to Paradise! How can anyone call a believer to Allaah? And, how can a believer call to Hellfire?!

Interestingly, the Prophet deliberately borrowed those phrases from the Qur’aan! Allaah says in (2:221):

æóáóÚóÈúÏñ ãõÄúãöäñ ÎóíúÑñ ãöäú ãõÔúÑößò æóáóæú ÃóÚúÌóÈóßõãú ÃõæáóٰÆößó íóÏúÚõæäó Åöáóì ÇáäóøÇÑ æóÇááóøåõ íóÏúÚõæ Åöáóì ÇáúÌóäóøÉö æóÇáúãóÛúÝöÑóÉö ÈöÅöÐúäöåö

And certainly a believing servant is better than an idolater, even though he (the idolater) should please you; these (i.e. idolaters) call to the Fire, and Allaah calls to the Paradise and to forgiveness by His will.

In simple terms, only disbelievers in Allaah can be described as calling to Hellfire! This is why they are invited to Allaah in the first place! Even though they may identify themselves as Muslims, they are in reality DISBELIEVERS in Allaah, that must be called to Him.

Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says in al-Isti’aab fee Ma’rifah al-Sahaabah (Beirut: Daar al-Jayl; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: ‘Alee b. Muhammad al-Bajaawee], vol. 3, p. 1117:

æáåÐå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ØÑÞ ÕÍÇÍ ÞÏ ÐßÑäÇåÇ Ýì ãæÖÚåÇ æÑæì ãä ÍÏíË Úáì æãä ÍÏíË ÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãä ÍÏíË ÃÈì ÃíæÈ ÇáÃäÕÇÑì Ãäå ÃãÑ ÈÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

For these reports are saheeh chains, which we have mentioned at their places. It is narrated in the hadeeth of ‘Alee, and the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood, and the hadeeth of Aboo Ayoob al-Ansaaree that he (‘Alee) was commanded (by the Prophet) to fight the oath-breakers, and the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Imaam al-Bazzaar in his Musnad al-Bazzaar (Beirut: Muasassat ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan; 1st edition, 1409 H) [annotator: Dr. Mahfooz al-Rahmaan Zayn Allaah], vol. 3, pp. 26-27, #774, also records this saheeh hadeeth of Imaam ‘Alee:

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÇÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ ÞÇá äÇ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ÞÇá äÇ ÓÚíÏ Èä ÚÈíÏ Úä Úáí Èä ÑÈíÚÉ Úä Úáí ÞÇá ÚåÏ Åáíø ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí ÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

Narrated ‘Alee:

The Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him, made a covenant to me to fight the oath-breakers, the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Commenting upon the authenticity of this report, Imaam al-Haythamee states in Majma’ al-Zawaaid (Beirut: Daar al-Kitaab al-‘Arabī; 1407 H), vol. 7, p. 238:

ÑæÇå ÇáÈÒÇÑ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáÃæÓØ æÃÍÏ ÅÓäÇÏí ÇáÈÒÇÑ ÑÌÇáå ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ææËÞå ÇÈä ÍÈÇä.

Al-Bazzaar recorded it, as well as al-Tabaraanee in al-Awsaat. One of the chains of al-Bazzaar contains narrators of theSaheeh, with the exception of al-Rabee’ b. Sa’eed, and Ibn Hibbaan declared him trustworthy.

Imaam al-‘Asqalaanee explains this hadeeth in Talkhees al-Habeer (Madīnah al-Munawwara; 1384 H) [annotator: Sayyid ‘Abd Allaah Haashim al-Yamaanee al-Madanee], vol. 4, p. 44:

æóíóÏõáõø Úáíå ÍóÏöíËõ Úóáöíòø ÃõãöÑúÊ ÈöÞöÊóÇáö ÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáäóøÓóÇÆöíõø Ýí ÇáúÎóÕóÇÆöÕö æóÇáúÈóÒóøÇÑõ æóÇáØóøÈóÑóÇäöíõø æóÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáúÌóãóáö áöÃóäóøåõãú äóßóËõæÇ ÈóíúÚóÊóåõ æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáÔóøÇãö áöÃóäóøåõãú ÌóÇÑõæÇ Úä ÇáúÍóÞöø Ýí ÚóÏóãö ãõÈóÇíóÚóÊöåö æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáäóøåúÑóæóÇäö

What further proves this is the hadeeth of ‘Alee in which he says “I was COMMANDED to fight the oath-breakers,theQaasiteen and the apostates”. Al-Nisaaee recorded it in al-Khasaais, as well as al-Bazzaar and al-Tabaraanee. The people of al-Jamal (under ‘Aa’ishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bay’ah to him (i.e. ‘Alee), and theQaasiteen were the people of Syria (under Mu’aawiyah) because they left the haqq (truth) in their refusal to give himbay’ah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawaan (i.e. the Khawaarij)

The Prophet called Mu’aawiyah and his gang “Qaasiteen”. The implications of this are very severe. Of course, the Messenger of Allaah was not joking in what he said. Mu’aawiyah and his army were Qaasiteen! This was a clearcut takfeer from the Prophet upon them. For the avoidance of doubt, Qaasiteen (also called or spelt Qasitun) are not Muslims and are fuel for Hellfire, as the Qur’aan has differentiated between both groups:

æóÃóäóøÇ ãöäóøÇ ÇáúãõÓúáöãõæäó æóãöäóøÇ ÇáúÞóÇÓöØõæäó Ýóãóäú ÃóÓúáóãó ÝóÃõæáóÜٰÆößó ÊóÍóÑóøæúÇ ÑóÔóÏðÇ æóÃóãóøÇ ÇáúÞóÇÓöØõæäó ÝóßóÇäõæÇ áöÌóåóäóøãó ÍóØóÈðÇ

[Mohsin Khan Qur’an 72:14-15] And of us some are Muslims (who have submitted to Allah, after listening to this Qur'an),and of us some are Al-Qasitun (DISBELIEVERS - those who have deviated from the Right Path)'. And whosoever has embraced Islam (i.e. has become a Muslim by submitting to Allah), then such have sought the Right Path. And as for theQasitun (DISBELIEVERS who deviated from the Right Path), they shall be firewood for Hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not remember calling muawiyah a rebel lol !!! which thread is this from??

I may have forgot but I would say that muawiyah was not a rebel but differed with ali ra on qisaas

that is your nasb talking

how can someone argue against the "rightly guided caliph"? or is Ali (as) not a khalifa-e-rashid?

you cannot have it both ways....decide

besides Muwaiya was from the Tulqa and no one can honestly deny the fact that he cursed Imam Ali (as) and tradition persisted throughout the Ummayad period barring Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is your nasb talking

how can someone argue against the "rightly guided caliph"? or is Ali (as) not a khalifa-e-rashid?

you cannot have it both ways....decide

besides Muwaiya was from the Tulqa and no one can honestly deny the fact that he cursed Imam Ali (as) and tradition persisted throughout the Ummayad period barring Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

why ist hard for some accept that there is a view that muawiyah and ali ra differed on an ijtehadi issue rather than this idea of a tussle for leadership and one side hating the other??

if muawiyah hated ali ra - why not abuse him and degrade him during the reigns of umar ra and uthman ra? when you have shias like al muhamdee stating that they i.e. umar ra and uthman ra were also nawasib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did Muawiya (la) say - that he did ijtihad?

_____________

P.S

Ibrahim786 please stop with your ignorance - Sahih Sunni hadith testifies - Muawiya (la) cursed Imam Ali (as)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did Muawiya (la) say - that he did ijtihad?

_____________

P.S

Ibrahim786 please stop with your ignorance - Sahih Sunni hadith testifies - Muawiya (la) cursed Imam Ali (as)

Prove to me from sahih sunni hadiths that muawiyah cursed ali ra then I will accept that muawiyah cursed ali ra.

How about that then??......best way to go about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr says in al-Isti’aab fee Ma’rifah al-Sahaabah (Beirut: Daar al-Jayl; 1st edition, 1412 H) [annotator: ‘Alee b. Muhammad al-Bajaawee], vol. 3, p. 1117:

æáåÐå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ØÑÞ ÕÍÇÍ ÞÏ ÐßÑäÇåÇ Ýì ãæÖÚåÇ æÑæì ãä ÍÏíË Úáì æãä ÍÏíË ÇÈä ãÓÚæÏ æãä ÍÏíË ÃÈì ÃíæÈ ÇáÃäÕÇÑì Ãäå ÃãÑ ÈÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

For these reports are saheeh chains, which we have mentioned at their places. It is narrated in the hadeeth of ‘Alee, and the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood, and the hadeeth of Aboo Ayoob al-Ansaaree that he (‘Alee) was commanded (by the Prophet) to fight the oath-breakers, and the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Imaam al-Bazzaar in his Musnad al-Bazzaar (Beirut: Muasassat ‘Uloom al-Qur’aan; 1st edition, 1409 H) [annotator: Dr. Mahfooz al-Rahmaan Zayn Allaah], vol. 3, pp. 26-27, #774, also records this saheeh hadeeth of Imaam ‘Alee:

ÍÏËäÇ ÚÈÇÏ Èä íÚÞæÈ ÞÇá äÇ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ÞÇá äÇ ÓÚíÏ Èä ÚÈíÏ Úä Úáí Èä ÑÈíÚÉ Úä Úáí ÞÇá ÚåÏ Åáíø ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã Ýí ÞÊÇá ÇáäÇßËíä æÇáÞÇÓØíä æÇáãÇÑÞíä.

Narrated ‘Alee:

The Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him, made a covenant to me to fight the oath-breakers, the Qaasiteen and the apostates.

Commenting upon the authenticity of this report, Imaam al-Haythamee states in Majma’ al-Zawaaid (Beirut: Daar al-Kitaab al-‘Arabī; 1407 H), vol. 7, p. 238:

ÑæÇå ÇáÈÒÇÑ æÇáØÈÑÇäí Ýí ÇáÃæÓØ æÃÍÏ ÅÓäÇÏí ÇáÈÒÇÑ ÑÌÇáå ÑÌÇá ÇáÕÍíÍ ÛíÑ ÇáÑÈíÚ Èä ÓÚíÏ ææËÞå ÇÈä ÍÈÇä.

Al-Bazzaar recorded it, as well as al-Tabaraanee in al-Awsaat. One of the chains of al-Bazzaar contains narrators of theSaheeh, with the exception of al-Rabee’ b. Sa’eed, and Ibn Hibbaan declared him trustworthy.

Imaam al-‘Asqalaanee explains this hadeeth in Talkhees al-Habeer (Madīnah al-Munawwara; 1384 H) [annotator: Sayyid ‘Abd Allaah Haashim al-Yamaanee al-Madanee], vol. 4, p. 44:

æóíóÏõáõø Úáíå ÍóÏöíËõ Úóáöíòø ÃõãöÑúÊ ÈöÞöÊóÇáö ÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó ÑóæóÇåõ ÇáäóøÓóÇÆöíõø Ýí ÇáúÎóÕóÇÆöÕö æóÇáúÈóÒóøÇÑõ æóÇáØóøÈóÑóÇäöíõø æóÇáäóøÇßöËöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáúÌóãóáö áöÃóäóøåõãú äóßóËõæÇ ÈóíúÚóÊóåõ æóÇáúÞóÇÓöØöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáÔóøÇãö áöÃóäóøåõãú ÌóÇÑõæÇ Úä ÇáúÍóÞöø Ýí ÚóÏóãö ãõÈóÇíóÚóÊöåö æóÇáúãóÇÑöÞöíäó Ãóåúáõ ÇáäóøåúÑóæóÇäö

What further proves this is the hadeeth of ‘Alee in which he says “I was COMMANDED to fight the oath-breakers,theQaasiteen and the apostates”. Al-Nisaaee recorded it in al-Khasaais, as well as al-Bazzaar and al-Tabaraanee. The people of al-Jamal (under ‘Aa’ishah) were the oath-breakers because they broke their bay’ah to him (i.e. ‘Alee), and theQaasiteen were the people of Syria (under Mu’aawiyah) because they left the haqq (truth) in their refusal to give himbay’ah. The apostates were the people of al-Nahrawaan (i.e. the Khawaarij)

The Prophet called Mu’aawiyah and his gang “Qaasiteen”. The implications of this are very severe. Of course, the Messenger of Allaah was not joking in what he said. Mu’aawiyah and his army were Qaasiteen! This was a clearcut takfeer from the Prophet upon them. For the avoidance of doubt, Qaasiteen (also called or spelt Qasitun) are not Muslims and are fuel for Hellfire, as the Qur’aan has differentiated between both groups:

æóÃóäóøÇ ãöäóøÇ ÇáúãõÓúáöãõæäó æóãöäóøÇ ÇáúÞóÇÓöØõæäó Ýóãóäú ÃóÓúáóãó ÝóÃõæáóÜٰÆößó ÊóÍóÑóøæúÇ ÑóÔóÏðÇ æóÃóãóøÇ ÇáúÞóÇÓöØõæäó ÝóßóÇäõæÇ áöÌóåóäóøãó ÍóØóÈðÇ

[Mohsin Khan Qur’an 72:14-15] And of us some are Muslims (who have submitted to Allah, after listening to this Qur'an),and of us some are Al-Qasitun (DISBELIEVERS - those who have deviated from the Right Path)'. And whosoever has embraced Islam (i.e. has become a Muslim by submitting to Allah), then such have sought the Right Path. And as for theQasitun (DISBELIEVERS who deviated from the Right Path), they shall be firewood for Hell.

I haven't yet seen any Sahih hadith for the hadith of qasiteen , naqiseen etc, ou presented one hadith with sanad, and its first narrator Ibad ibn Yaqoob is Shia Muhaddith,

Ibn Adi says : He narrates munkar narrations in the fazail and mathalib, he further said that this person is extremist in tashayyu.

Ibn Khuzaima declared him thiqah in hadith, and condemned in his beliefs.

Dhahabi declared him Saduq and Shia muhaddith and an innovator.

And it is a rule of science of hadith that if an innovator narrates a narration which is supportive of his beliefs and ideologies, such of his narrations are not accepted.

In the Holy Quran, we read explicit verses in the virtues of the companions of the Prophet (S)

ãÍãÏ ÑÓæá Çááå æÇáÐíä ãÚå ÇÔÏÇÁ Úáì ÇáßÝÇÑ ÑÍãÇÁ Èíäåã ÊÑÇåã ÑßÚÇ ÓÌÏÇ íÈÊÛæä ÝÖáÇ ãä Çááå æÑÖæÇäÇ ÓíãÇåã Ýí æÌæååã ãä ÇËÑ ÇáÓÌæÏ Ðáß ãËáåã Ýí ÇáÊæÑÇÉ æãËáåã Ýí ÇáÇäÌíá ßÒÑÚ ÇÎÑÌ ÔØÃå ÝÇÒÑå ÝÇÓÊÛáÙ ÝÇÓÊæì Úáì ÓæÞå íÚÌÈ ÇáÒÑÇÚ áíÛíÙ Èåã ÇáßÝÇÑ æÚÏ Çááå ÇáÐíä ÇãäæÇ æÚãáæÇ ÇáÕÇáÍÇÊ ãäåã ãÛÝÑÉ æÇÌÑÇ ÚÙíãÇ

[048:029] Muhammad, (SAW), is the messenger of Allah. He and his followers are tough on the unbelievers; but they are kind to each other. You see them bowing, and falling down prostrate (before Allah) seeking His favors and His acceptance. The distinctive effect of prostrating (before their Creator) is apparent on their faces. Such is their description in the Torah. About them, the Gospel quotes the parable, “It is as if the seed is sown in the field. In time it sprouts and sends up a tiny green shoot. Then, it becomes strong and stout, and stands on its stalk. It delights the sower and enrages the unbelievers.” Allah promises forgiveness and a tremendous reward to those of the believers who perform the righteous deeds.

The Shia commentary by Pooya Ali says regarding this verse

Books of history written by well-known Muslim scholars record that immediately after the departure of the Holy Prophet from this world, the companions of the Holy Prophet began to harass and persecute the Ahl ul Bayt. Refer to the issue of Fadak in the commentary of Bani Israil: 26; Naml :15, 16; Nahl: 90 and Maryam: 2 to 15. After depriving the daughter of the Holy Prophet from her lawful inheritance, they set her house on fire. A door fell on her and proved to be the cause of her death.

I say this is totally against the Quranic verse, where the characteristic of the companions of the Prophet (s) is given as “kind to each other”, while you are trying to give a completely opposite meaning because of the history books. Even we have proved from the history books that the companions of the Prophet (s) were kind to eachother.

Let us expend on the parable, which completely refutes the thinking that this verse relates to Ali and the ahlelbayt only.

About them, the Gospel quotes the parable, “It is as if the seed is sown in the field. In time it sprouts and sends up a tiny green shoot. Then, it becomes strong and stout, and stands on its stalk. It delights the sower and enrages the unbelievers.

This parable refers to the companions of the Prophet (s). Allah made them strong after being weak and multiplied them into large numbers after being small in numbers. Seeing the growth and expansion of Islam and Muslims, the unbelievers became furious and angry towards them, burning in fire of jealousy. This is what the parable means.

We read in the Holy Quran

áÇíÓÊæí ãäßã ãä ÇäÝÞ ãä ÞÈá ÇáÝÊÍ æÞÇÊá ÇæáÆß ÇÚÙã ÏÑÌÉ ãä ÇáÐíä ÇäÝÞæÇ ãä ÈÚÏ æÞÇÊáæÇ æßáÇ æÚÏ Çááå ÇáÍÓäí æÇááå ÈãÇ ÊÚãáæä ÎÈíÑ

Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has God promised a goodly (reward). And God is well acquainted with all that ye do.

Surely the address is towards the companions of the Prophet (s). It is clearly mentioned that those who embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca are superior to those who embraced Islam afterwards, effectively giving such companions of the Prophet (s) a higher rank than the nine imams of Shiites. But what is important is the promise of goodly reward for all the companions from God, whether they embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca, or afterwards. The nine Imams of the Shiites are clearly not included in this verse of great virtue for the companions of the Prophet (s).

Than we read in Surah Fatah

áÞÏ ÑÖí Çááå Úä ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÐ íÈÇíÚæäß ÊÍÊ ÇáÔÌÑÉ ÝÚáã ãÇÝí ÞáæÈåã ÝÇäÒá ÇáÓßíäÉ Úáíåã æÇËÇÈåã ÝÊÍÇ ÞÑíÈÇ

[048:018] God’s Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

Think about ‘He knew what was in their hearts’, it is very clear from this verse that they had good intentions and that is why God’s Good pleasure was on the companions who swore allegiance under the tree.

Again we read in the Holy Quran

ááÝÞÑÇÁ ÇáãåÇÌÑíä ÇáÐíä ÇÎÑÌæÇ ãä ÏíÇÑåã æÇãæÇáåã íÈÊÛæä ÝÖáÇ ãä Çááå æÑÖæÇäÇ æíäÕÑæä Çááå æÑÓæáå ÇæáÆß åã ÇáÕÇÏÞæä

[059:008] (Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding God and His Apostle: such are indeed the sincere ones:-

Abu Bakr (ra) , Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) are definitely the ones who come under this verse. For they were expelled from their homes and property, and they were the ones who aided the Prophet in the way of Allah, they not only aided the Prophet (s) but they aided Ali (ra) in his marriage also. Read http://shiacult.word…ali-and-fatima/

We read in Surah Hajj

ÇáÐíä ÇÎÑÌæÇ ãä ÏíÇÑåã ÈÛíÑ ÍÞ ÇáÇ Çä íÞæáæÇ ÑÈäÇ Çááå æáæáÇÏÝÚ Çááå ÇáäÇÓ ÈÚÖåã ÈÈÚÖ áåÏãÊ ÕæÇãÚ æÈíÚ æÕáæÇÊ æãÓÇÌÏ íÐßÑ ÝíåÇ ÇÓã Çááå ßËíÑÇ æáíäÕÑä Çááå ãä íäÕÑå Çä Çááå áÞæí ÚÒíÒ

[022:040] (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God”. Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

From this verse of Quran, we come to know that the only reason for which Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were expelled from their homes in Mecca were that they said “Our Lord is Allah”.

In the next verse, we read

ÇáÐíä Çä ãßäÇåã Ýí ÇáÇÑÖ ÇÞÇãæÇ ÇáÕáÇÉ æÇÊæÇ ÇáÒßÇÉ æÇãÑæÇ ÈÇáãÚÑæÝ æäåæÇ Úä ÇáãäßÑ æááå ÚÇÞÈÉ ÇáÇãæÑ

[022:041] (They are) those who, if We establish them in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: with God rests the end (and decision) of (all) affairs.

Establishing them in the land means giving them power. So from Quran we learn that if Allah give Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman some power, they will enjoin the right and forbid wrong, while Shiites say that they enjoined the wrong and forbid the right. Of course, this is totally against Quran.

A Shia may say, why are you saying Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman only? This verse is about all the migrants. I say, so I don’t disagree with it, if we say all the migrants, it still doesn’t exclude Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.

We read in the Holy Quran

ÝÇÓÊÌÇÈ áåã ÑÈåã Çäí áÇÇÖíÚ Úãá ÚÇãá ãäßã ãä ÐßÑ Çæ ÇäËì ÈÚÖßã ãä ÈÚÖ ÝÇáÐíä åÇÌÑæÇ æÇÎÑÌæÇ ãä ÏíÇÑåã æÇæÐæÇ Ýí ÓÈíáí æÞÇÊáæÇ æÞÊáæÇ áÇßÝÑä Úäåã ÓíÆÇÊåã æáÇÏÎáäåã ÌäÇÊ ÊÌÑí ãä ÊÍÊåÇ ÇáÇäåÇÑ ËæÇÈÇ ãä ÚäÏ Çááå æÇááå ÚäÏå ÍÓä ÇáËæÇÈ

[003:195] And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: “Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of God, and from His presence is the best of rewards.”

From this verse of the Holy Quran , we come to know that the companions of the Prophet (s) may have some bad deeds, but Allah promised them that their bad deeds, their inequities will be blotted out, and they will be admitted into Heaven. So we shouldn’t find errors in them, Allah has promised to forgive them.

And we read in the Holy Quran

Ëã Çä ÑÈß ááÐíä åÇÌÑæÇ ãä ÈÚÏ ãÇÝÊäæÇ Ëã ÌÇåÏæÇ æÕÈÑæÇ Çä ÑÈß ãä ÈÚÏåÇ áÛÝæÑ ÑÍíã

[016:110] But verily thy Lord,- to those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter strive and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Thy Lord, after all this is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

When Allah Almighty is merciful to them, how can someone reduce to the low level of finding errors in them? Allah is forgiveable but you don’t want to be forgiveable towards them? This is actually a huge error on your part.

We read in Surah Hashr

æÇáÐíä ÊÈæÄæÇ ÇáÏÇÑ æÇáÇíãÇä ãä ÞÈáåã íÍÈæä ãä åÇÌÑ Çáíåã æáÇíÌÏæä Ýí ÕÏæÑåã ÍÇÌÉ ããÇ ÇæÊæÇ æíÄËÑæä Úáì ÇäÝÓåã æáæ ßÇä Èåã ÎÕÇÕÉ æãä íæÞ ÔÍ äÝÓå ÝÇæáÆß åã ÇáãÝáÍæä

[059:009] But those who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith,- show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls,- they are the ones that achieve prosperity.

In this verse, the same characteristic as mentioned in Quran 48:29 is repeated for the Ansar of the Madinah, that when the Muhajireen came to them, both of them were kind to eachother and they had no distaste for each other.

But the next verse shows the characteristic of the ummah , the third category after Muhajireen and Ansar. And what is their characteristic? Their main characteristic is that they don’t have any rancour against the companions of the Prophet (s).

æÇáÐíä ÌÇÄæÇ ãä ÈÚÏåã íÞæáæä ÑÈäÇ ÇÛÝÑ áäÇ æáÇÎæÇääÇ ÇáÐíä ÓÈÞæäÇ ÈÇáÇíãÇä æáÇÊÌÚá Ýí ÞáæÈäÇ ÛáÇ ááÐíä ÇãäæÇ ÑÈäÇ Çäß ÑÄæÝ ÑÍíã

[059:010] And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful.”

Again we read in Quran

áÇíÓÊæí ãäßã ãä ÇäÝÞ ãä ÞÈá ÇáÝÊÍ æÞÇÊá ÇæáÆß ÇÚÙã ÏÑÌÉ ãä ÇáÐíä ÇäÝÞæÇ ãä ÈÚÏ æÞÇÊáæÇ æßáÇ æÚÏ Çááå ÇáÍÓäí æÇááå ÈãÇ ÊÚãáæä ÎÈíÑ

[057:010] … Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has God promised a goodly (reward). And God is well acquainted with all that ye do.

Again, we are told that those who embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca are superior to those who embraced Islam after the conquest of Mecca, clearly giving those who embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca superiority over nine Imams of the Shiites.

Again we read in the Holy Quran

íÇÇíåÇ ÇáÐíä ÇãäæÇ ÊæÈæÇ Çáì Çááå ÊæÈÉ äÕæÍÇ ÚÓì ÑÈßã Çä íßÝÑ Úäßã ÓíÆÇÊßã æíÏÎáßã ÌäÇÊ ÊÌÑí ãä ÊÍÊåÇ ÇáÇäåÇÑ íæã áÇíÎÒí Çááå ÇáäÈí æÇáÐíä ÇãäæÇ ãÚå äæÑåã íÓÚì Èíä ÇíÏíåã æÈÇíãÇäåã

[066:008] O ye who believe! Turn to God with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove from you your ills and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow,- the Day that God will not permit to be humiliated the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their Light will run forward before them and by their right hands

We again read in the Holy Quran

ÇÐ ÌÚá ÇáÐíä ßÝÑæÇ Ýí ÞáæÈåã ÇáÍãíÉ ÍãíÉ ÇáÌÇåáíÉ ÝÇäÒá Çááå ÓßíäÊå Úáì ÑÓæáå æÚáì ÇáãÄãäíä æÇáÒãåã ßáãÉ ÇáÊÞæì æßÇäæÇ ÇÍÞ ÈåÇ æÇåáåÇ æßÇä Çááå Èßá ÔÆ ÚáíãÇ

[048:026] While the Unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant – the heat and cant of ignorance,- God sent down His Tranquillity to his Apostle and to the Believers, and made them stick close to the command of self-restraint; and well were they entitled to it and worthy of it. And God has full knowledge of all things.

So it was Allah Almighty who made the companions of the Prophet (s) stick to the command of taqwa, because they were worthy of it and entitled to it.

We read in the Holy Quran

áßä ÇáÑÓæá æÇáÐíä ÇãäæÇ ãÚå ÌÇåÏæÇ ÈÇãæÇáåã æÇäÝÓåã æÇæáÆß áåã ÇáÎíÑÇÊ æÇæáÆß åã ÇáãÝáÍæä

[009:088] But the Apostle, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.

But the Shiites say those who believed with him later fought for the wealth of others also, and tried to snatch fadak.

We read in the Holy Quran

ãä ÇáãÄãäíä ÑÌÇá ÕÏÞæÇ ãÇÚÇåÏæÇ Çááå Úáíå Ýãäåã ãä ÞÖì äÍÈå æãäåã ãä íäÊÙÑ æãÇÈÏáæÇ ÊÈÏíáÇ

[033:023] Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with God: of them some have completed their vow (to the extreme), and some (still) wait: but they have never changed (their determination) in the least:

We read in the Holy Quran

æÇÚÊÕãæÇ ÈÍÈá Çááå ÌãíÚÇ æáÇÊÝÑÞæÇ æÇÐßÑæÇ äÚãÉ Çááå Úáíßã ÇÐ ßäÊã ÇÚÏÇÁ ÝÇáÝ Èíä ÞáæÈßã ÝÇÕÈÍÊã ÈäÚãÊå ÇÎæÇäÇ æßäÊã Úáì ÔÝÇ ÍÝÑÉ ãä ÇáäÇÑ ÝÇäÞÐßã ãäåÇ ßÐáß íÈíä Çááå áßã ÇíÇÊå áÚáßã ÊåÊÏæä

[003:103] And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God’s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

So Allah joined the hearts of the companions in love, and by His grace, they became brothers, and Shiites say they had hatred for eachother? If any Shiite say that it refers to Ali and ahlelbayt, we ask, was their enemies of eachother in the beginning? If the answer is no, and surely the answer is no, than we come to know that it refers to the whole companions of the Prophet (s), now we ask, do you deny that Allah put love between them? And if you agree, than you must accept that when Allah put love between them, no one can put hatred amongst them.

Again we read in the Holy Quran

æãä íÔÇÞÞ ÇáÑÓæá ãä ÈÚÏ ãÇÊÈíä áå ÇáåÏì æíÊÈÚ ÛíÑ ÓÈíá ÇáãÄãäíä äæáå ãÇÊæáì æäÕáå Ìåäã æÓÇÁÊ ãÕíÑÇ

[004:115] If anyone contends with the Apostle even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge!

We read in the Holy Quran

æÇÐÇ Þíá áåã ÇãäæÇ ßãÇ Çãä ÇáäÇÓ ÞÇáæÇ ÇäÄãä ßãÇ Çãä ÇáÓÝåÇÁ ÇáÇÇäåã åã ÇáÓÝåÇÁ æáßä áÇíÚáãæä

[002:013] When it is said to them: “Believe as the others believe:” They say: “Shall we believe as the fools believe?” Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

The Shiites of today are doing exactly the same thing. We tell them to believe as the companions of the Prophet (s) believed. They say, should we believe as those fools believe?

Edited by kalaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

We read in the Holy Quran

áÇíÓÊæí ãäßã ãä ÇäÝÞ ãä ÞÈá ÇáÝÊÍ æÞÇÊá ÇæáÆß ÇÚÙã ÏÑÌÉ ãä ÇáÐíä ÇäÝÞæÇ ãä ÈÚÏ æÞÇÊáæÇ æßáÇ æÚÏ Çááå ÇáÍÓäí æÇááå ÈãÇ ÊÚãáæä ÎÈíÑ

Not equal among you are those who spent (freely) and fought, before the Victory, (with those who did so later). Those are higher in rank than those who spent (freely) and fought afterwards. But to all has God promised a goodly (reward). And God is well acquainted with all that ye do.

Surely the address is towards the companions of the Prophet (s). It is clearly mentioned that those who embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca are superior to those who embraced Islam afterwards, effectively giving such companions of the Prophet (s) a higher rank than the nine imams of Shiites. But what is important is the promise of goodly reward for all the companions from God, whether they embraced Islam before the conquest of Mecca, or afterwards. The nine Imams of the Shiites are clearly not included in this verse of great virtue for the companions of the Prophet (s).

All of the Imams,(as) were not born in that time, and Ayat is making comparison between those who converted, and were present there as grown ups. Aren't Imam Hasan,(as) and Hussain,(as) chief of youth in Paradise ? Did Prophet,(saww) exclude anyone except their Father declaring Him as their superior. They are among the recipients of Ayah e Tatheer. How can a sahaabi be their superior?

Prophet,(saww) contracted many Nikaah in Madinah, so those ummhat ul momineen were on lesser degree than muhajireen, and not their mothers? So conclusion is the comparison is only among companions not with Ahlulbayt,(as), or wives(ra).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Masha'Allah brother Kalaam it's good to see you having such a calm demeanor and good akhlaq on this forum in these discussions.

As to your post, without a doubt, the virtues of the righetous Companions (ra) are extolled in the Quran, but the question is, where (either in the Quran or the Sunnah) does it say that Allah(swt) was talking about every single person who 'saw the Prophet (pbuh) and died believing in his message' in these ayahs?

And Allah(swt) knows best.

Edited by ImamAliLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

æÇÚÊÕãæÇ ÈÍÈá Çááå ÌãíÚÇ æáÇÊÝÑÞæÇ æÇÐßÑæÇ äÚãÉ Çááå Úáíßã ÇÐ ßäÊã ÇÚÏÇÁ ÝÇáÝ Èíä ÞáæÈßã ÝÇÕÈÍÊã ÈäÚãÊå ÇÎæÇäÇ æßäÊã Úáì ÔÝÇ ÍÝÑÉ ãä ÇáäÇÑ ÝÇäÞÐßã ãäåÇ ßÐáß íÈíä Çááå áßã ÇíÇÊå áÚáßã ÊåÊÏæä

[003:103] And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God’s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

So Allah joined the hearts of the companions in love, and by His grace, they became brothers, and Shiites say they had hatred for eachother? If any Shiite say that it refers to Ali and ahlelbayt, we ask, was their enemies of eachother in the beginning? If the answer is no, and surely the answer is no, than we come to know that it refers to the whole companions of the Prophet (s), now we ask, do you deny that Allah put love between them? And if you agree, than you must accept that when Allah put love between them, no one can put hatred amongst them.

Again we read in the Holy Quran

æÇÐÇ Þíá áåã ÇãäæÇ ßãÇ Çãä ÇáäÇÓ ÞÇáæÇ ÇäÄãä ßãÇ Çãä ÇáÓÝåÇÁ ÇáÇÇäåã åã ÇáÓÝåÇÁ æáßä áÇíÚáãæä

[002:013] When it is said to them: “Believe as the others believe:” They say: “Shall we believe as the fools believe?” Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know.

The Shiites of today are doing exactly the same thing. We tell them to believe as the companions of the Prophet (s) believed. They say, should we believe as those fools believe?

We say the Rope is Ali,(as), and Ahlulbayt,(as) , not those who are being addressed ,and asked to hold it fast. And the enmity here means the hatred before conversion to Islam, which was eliminated

, as it says .'you were enemies before', so not future is being talked about here, neither Jamal, sifeen, could be alluded.

Those who were calling Muslims fools to stay away from Islam, were those who had enmity towards Allah, and His Messenger,(saww),as it says when ''they are asked to believe''. Believe in what? Tauheed ,and Risalaah. None of the Shia can be meant here, but those who were refraining to embrace Islam, by considering it's acceptance as foolishness.

And brother, Fazeelah was given to Bani Israel even, Quran says we made them superior to the Universe, but were they able to sustain the honor? Certainly not, in fact they were given more luxuries, and blessings than Sahaaba. They were given food from Jannah while living on Earth in form of Maida, and Man o Salwa, clouds were there to give them shadow, their every wish was being granted. Yet they disobeyed 'certain commands' ,and all of this turn into eternal misery for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the Imams, (as) were not born in that time, and Ayat is making comparison between those who converted, and were present there as grown ups. Aren't Imam Hasan, (as) and Hussain, (as) chief of youth in Paradise ? Did Prophet,(saww) exclude anyone except their Father declaring Him as their superior. They are among the recipients of Ayah e Tatheer. How can a sahaabi be their superior?

Prophet,(saww) contracted many Nikaah in Madinah, so those ummhat ul momineen were on lesser degree than muhajireen, and not their mothers? So conclusion is the comparison is only among companions not with Ahlulbayt, (as), or wives(ra).

Sister I had said

The nine Imams of the Shiites are clearly not included in this verse of great virtue for the companions of the Prophet (s).

I meant the Imams after Hussain (ra). And the verse tells about the conquest of makkah. Not about the migration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Kalaam

I haven't yet seen any Sahih hadith for the hadith of qasiteen , naqiseen etc, ou presented one hadith with sanad, and its first narrator Ibad ibn Yaqoob is Shia Muhaddith,

Ibn Adi says : He narrates munkar narrations in the fazail and mathalib, he further said that this person is extremist in tashayyu.

Ibn Khuzaima declared him thiqah in hadith, and condemned in his beliefs.

Dhahabi declared him Saduq and Shia muhaddith and an innovator.

And it is a rule of science of hadith that if an innovator narrates a narration which is supportive of his beliefs and ideologies, such of his narrations are not accepted.

I've already answered the above here

http://www.shiachat....-bin-yassir-ra/

As regards to verses that you quoted for companions like brother Imam Ali Lover stated:

"As to your post, without a doubt, the virtues of the righetous Companions (ra) are extolled in the Quran" but not all as sunnis portray them.

The best thing is let's discuss one verse at a time if you want, we shall start with the most obvious and the most propagated by the sunnis in my opinion is the following verse:

We read in Surah Fatah

áÞÏ ÑÖí Çááå Úä ÇáãÄãäíä ÇÐ íÈÇíÚæäß ÊÍÊ ÇáÔÌÑÉ ÝÚáã ãÇÝí ÞáæÈåã ÝÇäÒá ÇáÓßíäÉ Úáíåã æÇËÇÈåã ÝÊÍÇ ÞÑíÈÇ

[048:018] God’s Good Pleasure was on the Believers when they swore Fealty to thee under the Tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down Tranquillity to them; and He rewarded them with a speedy Victory;

Think about ‘He knew what was in their hearts’, it is very clear from this verse that they had good intentions and that is why God’s Good pleasure was on the companions who swore allegiance under the tree.

Here Allah swt was pleased with them when they give bayah underneath the tree, there is no doubt because the companions done a good act but there were also conditions attached to the allegiance as we can see from the following verse a covenant was made in the same chapter verse 10:

"Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah. the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward."

One of the conditions stated in sahih muslim is not to flee from battlefield but did the companions keep that covenant? No they did not as explained when they ranaway again after the allegiance underneath the tree.

Also is Allah swt still pleased with them all? we see a statement of an companion in Bukhari:

I met al-Bara bin 'Azib and said (to him). "May you live prosperously!

You enjoyed the company of the Prophet and gave him the Pledge of

allegiance (of al-Hudaibiya) under the Tree (of al-Hudaybiyah)." On

that, al-Bara' said, "O my nephew! You do not know what we have done

after him (i.e. his death)."

The companion didn't seem to convinced?

My point was what kind of companions were these that if they can leave the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w to die, don't be suprised if they turn against the wilaya of Amir ul Momineen Ali ibn Abu Talib a.s

Just a reminder those who made covenant one of the conditions was not to flee, which they did again in the battle of Hunain etc as it's clear from Quran & narrations. Some narrations mention 12 remained 80 remained, 100 remained. Those of you that do not know more than 10,000 participated in this battle & that's a minimum number I'm talking about.

These companions left the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w in the clutches of death & ran as they did in Uhud (this just goes to show you that how dear the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w was to majority of the companions).

Edited by muslimunity1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masha'Allah brother Kalaam it's good to see you having such a calm demeanor and good akhlaq on this forum in these discussions.

As to your post, without a doubt, the virtues of the righetous Companions (ra) are extolled in the Quran, but the question is, where (either in the Quran or the Sunnah) does it say that Allah(swt) was talking about every single person who 'saw the Prophet (pbuh) and died believing in his message' in these ayahs?

And Allah(swt) knows best.

Brother I proved some points from the verses I mentioned, and I have not raised this point from the verses I posted. Though there is a verse which I can use for evidence but right now, I don't want to indulge in that discussion. Because the discussion will go somewhere else.

I've already answered the above here

http://www.shiachat....-bin-yassir-ra/

You didn't answer the main thing brother. I said the first narrator is Shia muhaddith, and we know and you know that if an innovator narrates a hadith which is in supportive of his religion, even if he is thiqah, his that specific hadith is not accepted. Did you answer this? No.

Here Allah swt was pleased with them when they give bayah underneath the tree, there is no doubt because the companions done a good act but there were also conditions attached to the allegiance as we can see from the following verse a covenant was made in the same chapter verse 10:

"Verily those who plight their fealty to thee do no less than plight their fealty to Allah. the Hand of Allah is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with Allah,- Allah will soon grant him a great Reward."

One of the conditions stated in sahih muslim is not to flee from battlefield but did the companions keep that covenant? No they did not as explained when they ranaway again after the allegiance underneath the tree.

Also is Allah swt still pleased with them all? we see a statement of an companion in Bukhari:

I met al-Bara bin 'Azib and said (to him). "May you live prosperously!

You enjoyed the company of the Prophet and gave him the Pledge of

allegiance (of al-Hudaibiya) under the Tree (of al-Hudaybiyah)." On

that, al-Bara' said, "O my nephew! You do not know what we have done

after him (i.e. his death)."

The companion didn't seem to convinced?

My point was what kind of companions were these that if they can leave the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w to die, don't be suprised if they turn against the wilaya of Amir ul Momineen Ali ibn Abu Talib a.s

Just a reminder those who made covenant one of the conditions was not to flee, which they did again in the battle of Hunain etc as it's clear from Quran & narrations. Some narrations mention 12 remained 80 remained, 100 remained. Those of you that do not know more than 10,000 participated in this battle & that's a minimum number I'm talking about.

These companions left the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w in the clutches of death & ran as they did in Uhud (this just goes to show you that how dear the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w was to majority of the companions).

What they did afterwards is a debatable issue, but ask yourself, Allah became pleased with them while He knew what was in their hearts, could Allah be happy with them if they had hypocrisy in their hearts? So they were not hypocrites. And since Allah was pleased with them, of course Allah forgave what they did before this allegiance, do you agree with it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salat is a combination of worship & preyer....

My opinion your real Namaz begins after you come off the preyer matt....

After you have asked the All Beneficial, The Merciful for your forgiviness of sins, then is the time to turn your vows into your deeds. In other words your actions. The aim is to not recommit the sins you have just asked repentance for.

Begin Stead- fast is your namaz (kaim or Qaim) is key to paradise correct ???

Then let's turn to who we receive this Namaz from....

To REMAIN stead-fast with the holy Prophet (saws) ((pbuh & holy household) is essential for the promise of paradise..

If you turn your face from your Qibla then Namaz becomes invalid...

Recognise the Qibla brothers.....

What it was....

What it is today....

What the coming will bring...

The end is the beginning & the first is the last....

The idolisers know not their wrong , due to their following of their father's...

Dont let your father's be the destruction of your final destiny which was written by our creator before our existence...

YA ALI MADAT (as)

Who guides us to our prophet's teachings &

Which is the reason of our sinsere love towards Allah'S worship...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do we explain the khawarij in Ali's time ? they hated Ali but they were no hypocrites they truely believed that Ali has sinned.We know from Ali's sermons that he made a distinction between his enemies in Syria ( who might be considered hypocrites) and khawarij.So how can everyone who hates Ali be a hypocrite ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do we explain the khawarij in Ali's time ? they hated Ali but they were no hypocrites they truely believed that Ali has sinned.We know from Ali's sermons that he made a distinction between his enemies in Syria ( who might be considered hypocrites) and khawarij.So how can everyone who hates Ali be a hypocrite ?

Brother you realise you not questioning others on this forum but in fact you are questioning our beloved prophet ((pbuh & holy household).

Sunni ,shia agreed hadith....

Iblis asks why should I bow towards Adam (as)..

He infact does not realise what is the greater.

The command???

Or who the command is coming from ?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Kalaam

You didn't answer the main thing brother. I said the first narrator is Shia muhaddith, and we know and you know that if an innovator narrates a hadith which is in supportive of his religion, even if he is thiqah, his that specific hadith is not accepted. Did you answer this? No.

Brother you totally skipped the first two narrations and ignored/overlooked the comments by both giants Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Ibn Hajar Asqalaani where the former even states saheeh chains

The reason why I didn't go in depth with that narrator is because when the giants have admitted the authenticity of the narration and they had no problem seeing in line with the aqeeda of islaam, I don't see how Ibad ibn Yaqoob makes a big difference has there are multiple chains for this hadith.

What they did afterwards is a debatable issue, but ask yourself, Allah became pleased with them while He knew what was in their hearts, could Allah be happy with them if they had hypocrisy in their hearts? So they were not hypocrites. And since Allah was pleased with them, of course Allah forgave what they did before this allegiance, do you agree with it or not.

Like I've stated in my previous post Allah swt was pleased with the action the they had preformed which was that they gave allegiance to the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w and made a firm covenant (with the conditions mentioned in Muslim) but being pleased with an action at the time when you preform a good deed doesn't mean that it gives you a licence for life.

If Allah swt was pleased with them on unconditional basis then you would have a strong point but Allah swt was pleased with them based on the covenant, which one of the conditions was not to flee from the battlefield.

Yes your right in saying Allah swt did forgive them before but what about the battles that took place after the covenant i.e Hunain etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brother you totally skipped the first two narrations and ignored/overlooked the comments by both giants Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and Ibn Hajar Asqalaani where the former even states saheeh chains

The reason why I didn't go in depth with that narrator is because when the giants have admitted the authenticity of the narration and they had no problem seeing in line with the aqeeda of islaam, I don't see how Ibad ibn Yaqoob makes a big difference has there are multiple chains for this hadith.

Saheeh chains but having Shia thiqah narrators, like the one you posted, are you getting any point? The chain is of course sahih, because the shia narrator is thiqah, not zaeef, but at the end, he is shia narrator. And just because a hadith has sahih chain, it doesn't mean it is authentic. Sanad being sahih is one aspect from the many aspects by which the narrations are guaged.

Like I've stated in my previous post Allah swt was pleased with the action the they had preformed which was that they gave allegiance to the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w and made a firm covenant (with the conditions mentioned in Muslim) but being pleased with an action at the time when you preform a good deed doesn't mean that it gives you a licence for life.

If Allah swt was pleased with them on unconditional basis then you would have a strong point but Allah swt was pleased with them based on the covenant, which one of the conditions was not to flee from the battlefield.

Yes your right in saying Allah swt did forgive them before but what about the battles that took place after the covenant i.e Hunain etc?

Forget about license for life, I am not talking about that yet. I am saying when they pledged allegiance to the Prophet (s), Allah was pleased with them. Now if they were hypocrites, Allah would not be pleased with their act, just like Allah is never pleased with even the pilgrimage of the hypocrite. Secondly, when Allah was pleased with them while knowing what was in their hearts, he was pleased with them while knowing what they did before. Do you understand what I said and agree with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Brother, i would like to repeat what i said on previous page, that Allah was pleased with Bani Israel too, as they were conferred upon with numerous blessings. Didn't Allah know their state of hearts? They always betrayed the Prophets,(as) . But Allah kept showing mercy to manifest that His pleasure is due to His pious servants i.e Prophets. Similarly, in this Ayat, He is manifesting His pleasure if they obey Prophet,(saww), so they may abide by it in future, seeing how Allah gets pleased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Brother, i would like to repeat what i said on previous page, that Allah was pleased with Bani Israel too, as they were conferred upon with numerous blessings. Didn't Allah know their state of hearts? They always betrayed the Prophets, (as) . But Allah kept showing mercy to manifest that His pleasure is due to His pious servants i.e Prophets. Similarly, in this Ayat, He is manifesting His pleasure if they obey Prophet,(saww), so they may abide by it in future, seeing how Allah gets pleased.

Allah wasn't pleased with them sister. If God conferred upon them blessings, it doesn't show He is pleased with them. Today more 'blessings' are upon the non Muslims or Muslims? Does it show Allah is pleased with the non Muslims? Allah shows his Mercy to the non believers also in this world. Isn't it so?

I just ask a simple question from all of you! Will Allah be pleased with a hypocrite for the pilgrimage he does? Of course the answer is no. So when Allah was pleased with them when they rendered allegiance, while knowing what was in their hearts, it proves that they were not hypocrites. Secondly, he was pleased with them, so it shows that there previous 'grave crimes if any' were also forgiven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

Saheeh chains but having Shia thiqah narrators, like the one you posted, are you getting any point? The chain is of course sahih, because the shia narrator is thiqah, not zaeef, but at the end, he is shia narrator. And just because a hadith has sahih chain, it doesn't mean it is authentic. Sanad being sahih is one aspect from the many aspects by which the narrations are guaged.

So are you saying that all the chains have shia narrators?

Forget about license for life, I am not talking about that yet. I am saying when they pledged allegiance to the Prophet (s), Allah was pleased with them. Now if they were hypocrites, Allah would not be pleased with their act, just like Allah is never pleased with even the pilgrimage of the hypocrite. Secondly, when Allah was pleased with them while knowing what was in their hearts, he was pleased with them while knowing what they did before. Do you understand what I said and agree with this?

Good deed is good act, regardless if a Mushrik, kuffar, hypocrites performs it. Yes what happens to their good deeds is a different story and how it is balanced in the scale of justice by Allah swt but the facts don't change did they break the covenant or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah wasn't pleased with them sister. If God conferred upon them blessings, it doesn't show He is pleased with them. Today more 'blessings' are upon the non Muslims or Muslims? Does it show Allah is pleased with the non Muslims? Allah shows his Mercy to the non believers also in this world. Isn't it so?

I just ask a simple question from all of you! Will Allah be pleased with a hypocrite for the pilgrimage he does? Of course the answer is no. So when Allah was pleased with them when they rendered allegiance, while knowing what was in their hearts, it proves that they were not hypocrites. Secondly, he was pleased with them, so it shows that there previous 'grave crimes if any' were also forgiven.

Allah clearly says ,He gave Fazeelah to bani Israel. When their hearts were not sincere towards Prophets, why were they given Fazeelah in a first place? We are quite sure that inspite of the fact that, non Muslims today are enjoying lot of blessings ,but they are not having fazeelah over Muslims. Neither they get heavenly food, nor clouds over their heads. Didn't He accept their(Israelites) sacrifice in Surah al Baqra, though they made lot of excuses to avoid it. So how their sacrifice was accepted while being hypocrites? In this way, many questions can be arise.

And yes their previous crimes could be forgiven, if they didn't have disobeyed the Prophet,(saww) afterwards. But as Allah says, (i am not copying exact Ayah)'' If Muhammad,(saww) dies, or gets killed, would you return on your heels'', says a lot actually. They were going to quit their commitments ,it's clearly suggesting.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that all the chains have shia narrators?

That is just one issue. There can be many other issues, so a sahih chain doesn't mean that the narration is authentic.

Good deed is good act, regardless if a Mushrik, kuffar, hypocrites performs it. Yes what happens to their good deeds is a different story and how it is balanced in the scale of justice by Allah swt but the facts don't change did they break the covenant or not?

Is Allah pleased with the fasts, pilgrimage or prayer of a hypocrite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is just one issue. There can be many other issues, so a sahih chain doesn't mean that the narration is authentic.

Is Allah pleased with the fasts, pilgrimage or prayer of a hypocrite?

(bismillah)

(salam)

everything in measure up to that point in time.

think of iblis.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...