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

Sayyidah Faatimah Was A Liar?!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

This is what I found from sunnis themselves that attacks this so called shaykh ibn taymiyyah and his views of ahlul bayt a.s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I will only quote the words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, and leave the comments to you guys. He states in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pp. 243-244::

ونحن نعلم أن ما يحكى عن فاطمة وغيرها من الصحابة من القوادح كثير؛ منها كذب، وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين. وإذا كان بعضها ذنباً فليس القوم معصومين، بل هم مع كونهم أولياء الله ومن أهل الجنة، لهم ذنوب يغفرها الله لهم

And we know that what is narrated about the evil deeds of Faatimah, and others apart from her from the Sahaabah, , INCLUDING TELLING LIES, are several; and in some of these evil deeds they (Faatimah and the other Sahaabah) were only doing taaweel. Of course, some of these evil deeds were sins. However, they were not infallible. Rather, although they were friends of Allaah and from the people of Jannah, they committed sins that Allaah forgave for them.

Salafees call him "Shaykh al-Islaam" nonetheless. I wonder what they would have said if a Shee'ah had said the same thing about 'Aaishah and some other Sahaabah??

By the sound of it the man doesn't have a damn clue who Syeda Fatimah Zahra [sa] was and the ones who call him, Shaikh-al Islam, don't have a clue what Islam is about. If one can't recognise the true identy of the real guardians of Islam, then how the hell are they going to understand Islam???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I will only quote the words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, and leave the comments to you guys. He states in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pp. 243-244::

ونحن نعلم أن ما يحكى عن فاطمة وغيرها من الصحابة من القوادح كثير؛ منها كذب، وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين. وإذا كان بعضها ذنباً فليس القوم معصومين، بل هم مع كونهم أولياء الله ومن أهل الجنة، لهم ذنوب يغفرها الله لهم

And we know that what is narrated about the evil deeds of Faatimah, and others apart from her from the Sahaabah, , INCLUDING TELLING LIES, are several; and in some of these evil deeds they (Faatimah and the other Sahaabah) were only doing taaweel. Of course, some of these evil deeds were sins. However, they were not infallible. Rather, although they were friends of Allaah and from the people of Jannah, they committed sins that Allaah forgave for them.

Salafees call him "Shaykh al-Islaam" nonetheless. I wonder what they would have said if a Shee'ah had said the same thing about 'Aaishah and some other Sahaabah??

Another name of Wahabism is Confusion, which contradicts Quran and Prophet (pbuh) hadiths and no wonder this is the tool (confusing others) they use to create terrorists in the name of Islam.

Here are 40 hadiths about Fatima (as), about position of Fatima (as), including she is chief of woman of Paradise, which no woman ever will have or has from Sunni books.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/53733-forty-hadiths-about-fatima-a/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

431293_1862461497014_301454681_n.jpg

427500_1862462497039_106865741_n.jpg

421767_1862463777071_193531624_n.jpg

402544_1862464497089_50777896_n.jpg

ممتاز و مستند عالم اور شارح ترمذی حافظ مبارکپوری "بضعة مني" کی شرح میں رقمطراز ہیں کہ اس سے پتہ چلتا ھے کہ جس ہستی کو ایذاء دینے سے رسول [ص] کو اذیت پہنچتی ہو تو ایسی ہستی کو بھی ایذاء دینا حرام ھے کیونکہ ایذاء کم ہو یا زیادہ ہر صورت میں متفقہ طور پر رسول [ص] کو ایذاء دینا حرام ھے اور یہ بات بھی بلا شک و شبہ ثابت ھے کہ جس چیز سے سیدہ فاطمہ [س ع] کو اذیت پہنچتی ھے تو انکی اذیت سے رسول [ص] کو بھی اذیت پہنچتی ھے چنانچہ ہر وہ شخص جس سے ذرہ برابر بھی سیدہ فاطمہ [س ع] کو تکلیف پہنچی تو لامحالہ اس شخص نے نبی کریم [ص] کو تکلیف دی جیساکہ یہ صحیح حدیث اس پر شاھد ھے اور اس سے زیادہ سیدہ فاطمہ [س ع] کو کسی چیز سے اتنی تکلیف نہی ہوسکتی جتنی تکلیف سیدہ طاہرہ [س ع] کو امام حسین کے قتل [شہادت] سے پہنچی ھے [جو کہ یقنی طور پر ایذاء رسول کا باعث ھے]۔

تحفة الأحوذي شرح ترمذی//جلد10//صفحہ340//طبعہ قدیمی کتب خانہ۔

May Allah Curse Ibne taymiyah(la)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

I will only quote the words of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, and leave the comments to you guys. He states in his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pp. 243-244::

ونحن نعلم أن ما يحكى عن فاطمة وغيرها من الصحابة من القوادح كثير؛ منها كذب، وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين. وإذا كان بعضها ذنباً فليس القوم معصومين، بل هم مع كونهم أولياء الله ومن أهل الجنة، لهم ذنوب يغفرها الله لهم

And we know that what is narrated about the evil deeds of Faatimah, and others apart from her from the Sahaabah, , INCLUDING TELLING LIES, are several; and in some of these evil deeds they (Faatimah and the other Sahaabah) were only doing taaweel. Of course, some of these evil deeds were sins. However, they were not infallible. Rather, although they were friends of Allaah and from the people of Jannah, they committed sins that Allaah forgave for them.

Salafees call him "Shaykh al-Islaam" nonetheless. I wonder what they would have said if a Shee'ah had said the same thing about 'Aaishah and some other Sahaabah??

when it comes to allaamah ibne taymiyah my scholar said that alot of false narrations have been attributed to him and one needs authenticate such narrations as he is a "controversial" scholar in the sense that he differed with some scholars on certain issues but he was still a man with great knowledge.

I see you have provided the source - do you have the publication name of the book or have you got this source on line?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^^^

I would be very wary of your 'scholar' then. This lanaati is the precursor to Wahabbi literalist creed and this is not the only narration I've seen posted that shows his obvious Nasb.

If person A has great knowledge but harbours emnity towards the Prophet (SAW) or his Ahlebayt (as) then that knowledge is of no avail - wasn't Iblis also knowledgable?

Minhaj ul Sunnah should be available on-line (in Arabic and possibly Urdu translation) but not English as far as I know.

ALI

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^^^

I would be very wary of your 'scholar' then. This lanaati is the precursor to Wahabbi literalist creed and this is not the only narration I've seen posted that shows his obvious Nasb.

If person A has great knowledge but harbours emnity towards the Prophet (SAW) or his Ahlebayt (as) then that knowledge is of no avail - wasn't Iblis also knowledgable?

Minhaj ul Sunnah should be available on-line (in Arabic and possibly Urdu translation) but not English as far as I know.

ALI

sorry brother - I dont see what is wrong with my scholar saying that one should authenticate narrations attributed to allaamah ibne taymiyah and acknowledging his level of knowledge aswell as disagreeing with him in some aspects???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Ibrahim,

Please find a copy of Minhaaj al-Sunnah of Ibn Taymiyyah, published by Muasassah al-Risaalah, the first edition, 1406 Hijree and look at the volume and page numbers that I cited, and tell me if you find those words there or not. Please do that and fear Allaah in doing so.

Secondly, do YOU believe that Allaah has purified the Ahl al-Bayt absolutely from ALL evil deeds or not? If you do, do you not think that these words of Ibn Taymiyyah make him a kaafir? He is rejecting the clear testimony of Allaah in the Qur‘aan! And, if you say the Ahl al-Bayt (as) were impure, then what is your evidence?

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Ibrahim,

Please find a copy of Minhaaj al-Sunnah of Ibn Taymiyyah, published by Muasassah al-Risaalah, the first edition, 1406 Hijree and look at the volume and page numbers that I cited, and tell me if you find those words there or not. Please do that and fear Allaah in doing so.

Secondly, do YOU believe that Allaah has purified the Ahl al-Bayt absolutely from ALL evil deeds or not? If you do, do you not think that these words of Ibn Taymiyyah make him a kaafir? He is rejecting the clear testimony of Allaah in the Qur‘aan! And, if you say the Ahl al-Bayt (as) were impure, then what is your evidence?

Thanks.

Im not sure about such quranic ayahs and whether you are quoting them correctly. I think most sunnis believe that apart from muhammad pbuh - everyone else in this ummah are not infallible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Im not sure about such quranic ayahs and whether you are quoting them correctly. I think most sunnis believe that apart from muhammad pbuh - everyone else in this ummah are not infallible.

He is referring to the second part of verse 33:33 of the Qur'an.

And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. [Yusuf Ali]

Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. [shakir]

Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. [Pickthall]

Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. [sahih International]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Ibrahim,

I did NOT mention “infallible“. It was deliberate. I ask you again: do you believe that Allaah has purified the Ahl al-Bayt (as) absolutely from ALL evil deeds or not? And, do you agree that Sayyidah FaaTimah (as) was from the Ahl al-Bayt (as)?

Or, do you believe that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) were impure souls, as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is suggesting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

He is referring to the second part of verse 33:33 of the Qur'an.

And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. [Yusuf Ali]

Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. [shakir]

Allah's wish is but to remove uncleanness far from you, O Folk of the Household, and cleanse you with a thorough cleansing. [Pickthall]

Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. [sahih International]

So it all boils down to this, what does [Leh-Yuzhiba] mean??? That he removes or that he keeps away??? And what does [ Wa-Yotahirokum] mean??? And he purifies you or he keeps you purified??? What ever the meaning, does this not mean sainthood [Masoomiath]??? Is Allah not granting the Ahlul Baith sainthood [Masoomiath]???

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

@ Ameen,

Great inputs there brother!

The ayah is one of the most interesting verses in the Book of Allaah. It starts with “innamaa“, which is an adverb of EXCLUSIVITY. In other words, “innamaa“ denotes that the merits in the verse apply to NONE others among ALL creatures - whether angel, human or jinn - from the beginning of creation till Qiyaamah, EXCEPT to the Ahl al-Bayt (as). They are their EXCLUSIVE merits. People of knowledge are well aware of this function of “innamaa“.

Then the verse says “yureedu“. The verb is in the present CONTINUOUS sense, thereby establishing that Allaah‘s wish in the verse is CONTINUOUS. It has ALWAYS been Allaah‘s wish, since He created the souls of the Ahl al-Bayt to keep all forms of evil deeds and evil characteristics away from them, and to purify them absolutely. Therefore, the Ahl al-Bayt (as) are of the highest level of purity, which no angel or prophet reached, according to this verse!

So, were they dirty, such that Allaah removed dirt from them? The answer is a clear NO for two reasons. One, the Prophet (pbuh) is the head of the Ahl al-Bayt (as). He was NEVER dirty spiritually, such that a cleaning of him would be required. According to the Qur‘aan (5:15), he is the LIGHT FROM ALLAAH. A light is never impure. Therefore, Allaah only kept all forms of spiritual dirt away from him, as well as from all other members of his pure Ahl al-Bayt (as). Secondly, the wish of Allaah in the verse is EVER CONTINUOUS, and His wish is His Command (see the last verses of Surah Yaaseen). In other words, Allaah has an EVER CONTINUOUS Command that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) be FOREVER protected from all spiritual dirts and kept forever pure absolutely. This reality cancels out any possibility of removing spiritual dirts from them! They never have them to begin with, by Allaah‘s Command!

These are great realities that people like Ibn Taymiyyah reject from Allaah, and thereby accuse the Ahl al-Bayt (as), including even the Prophet and Sayyidah FaaTimah (as) of several evil deeds!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Upon you is what you deserve.

This is Islam, Ahlul-Sunnah, I regret to inform you that you have mistranslated the quote, I hope un-intentionally, this is the correct translation:

[And we know that there are a lot of shortcomings being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these (narrations) are lies, and in some of them they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible, although they are pious friends(Awliya) of Allah and from the people of Jannah, yet they still have sins that Allah will forgive.]

The Muslims have opened a thread about this in "islamic-forum" dot net, in the [Muslim vs Shia] section, and they have corrected your faulty translation.

I recommend taking a couple of basic Arabic courses before you open a book, because you are unqualified to translate anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Ibrahim,

I did NOT mention “infallible“. It was deliberate. I ask you again: do you believe that Allaah has purified the Ahl al-Bayt (as) absolutely from ALL evil deeds or not? And, do you agree that Sayyidah FaaTimah (as) was from the Ahl al-Bayt (as)?

Or, do you believe that the Ahl al-Bayt (as) were impure souls, as Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is suggesting?

No muslim believes that the ahlelbayt are impure souls and I have seen other sayings of ibne taymiyah praising the ahlelbayt. I do not believe the ahlelbayt nor for that matter the sahabah were infallible. if they errd or sinned or made mistakes then it would have been done in good faith or they repented immediately etc etc.

im sure you and I have a different view of who are the ahlelbayt dont we?

Edited by Ibrahim786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

sorry brother - I dont see what is wrong with my scholar saying that one should authenticate narrations attributed to allaamah ibne taymiyah and acknowledging his level of knowledge aswell as disagreeing with him in some aspects???

The problem is once someone is identified as a Nasibi his words and deeds are meaningless as he is no longer a Muslim.

Ask your scholar if he uses the same criteria when it comes to Shi'ah scholars. Our books are replete with gems of wisdom about Noble Quran, sala'at, fasting etc. so ask him if it's acceptable to reap the benefits of Rafidhi 'knowledge' without necessarily agreeing with Shi'ah aquaid.

If he answers in the negative then, unless you're happy to be slowly dragged into full-blown Nawasib tendencies (as has happened all over sunni world via petro-dollars) I would steer well clear of him.

ALI

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

[And we know that there are a lot of shortcomings being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these (narrations) are lies, and in some of them they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible, although they are pious friends(Awliya) of Allah and from the people of Jannah, yet they still have sins that Allah will forgive.]

The Muslims have opened a thread about this in "islamic-forum" dot net, in the [Muslim vs Shia] section, and they have corrected your faulty translation.

Seriously, did you post this as a joke?! This guy must be on the joking side.

Well, if you were joking, better avoid these kinds of jokes - because they ridicule their makers. The so-called “correct“ translation you have copied does not even tally with the Arabic text I cited, to begin with! Who translated that? Is he your “professor“ in Arabic or your comedian?

It is strange that Farid (who recently ran away from this forum citing circumstances beyond his control) is still able to participate so actively on your Naasibi forum! Strange! And, yet, rather than correct that joke “correction“, he fell for it, and he and the other Nawaasib laughed it off, forcing themselves to believe that the nightmare is over! I specifically tagged Farid to invite him into this thread. But, he chose to comment about this thread on a Naasibi forum instead!

Now, yaa Naasibi, i invite you to withdraw your joke re-translation and apologize to our brothers for the bad joke. If you do not do that within a reasonable time, I would be compelled to offer a few lessons in basic Arabic to you guys and expose your EXTREME dishonesty. Of course, I am also still learning Arabic. But, the dishonesty of you guys is even too poor for non-starters!

And, do YOU realize that you Nawaasib are really making things much worse for Ibn Taymiyyah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You just found out that Ibn Taymiyyah is a dirty filthy nasibi who hates the ahl al bayt?

Ibn Taymiyyah said derogatory and demeaning things about all members of Prophet household and not just Fatima (as).

Exactly, he even praised the killer of Imam Hussain (as) Umar bin saad (LA) because he was Sahabi of Prophet (pbuh), by saying Imam Hussain (as) was wrong, thus foresaking Ahlulbayt (as) for the sake of Sahaba.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just found out that Ibn Taymiyyah is a dirty filthy nasibi who hates the ahl al bayt?

Ibn Taymiyyah said derogatory and demeaning things about all members of Prophet household and not just Fatima (as).

What is his opinion on Imam Ali (as)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is his opinion on Imam Ali (as)?

Read what you'd like out of this, but it seems that Ali [a] is a kafir according to him:

Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaaj al-Sunnah, ed. Muhamamd Rashaad Saalim, (Mu'assasah Qurtubah, 1st ed., 1406), vol. 7, pg. 137-138:

الله قد أخبر أنه سيجعل للذين آمنوا وعملوا الصالحات وُدًّا، وهذا وعد منه صادق، ومعلوم أنَّ الله قد جعل للصحابة مودة في قلب كل مسلم، لا سيما الخلفاء رضي الله عنهم، لا سيما أبو بكر وعمر فإن عامة الصحابة والتابعين كانوا يودونهما، وكانوا خير القرون، ولم يكن كذلك عليٌّ؛ فإنَّ كثيرًا من الصحابة والتابعين كانوا يبغضونه ويسبونه ويقاتلونه

Allāh has informed that he makes those who believe and do good have love, and this is a number from the truth. And it is known that Allāh has made the ṣaḥābah have love in the hearts for every Muslim, especially the khulāfā’, may Allāh be pleased with them, especially Abū Bakr and `Umar, and verily all the ṣaḥābah and the tabi`īn loved them two, and they are the best century (generation), and this was not so for `Alī, for many from the ṣaḥābah and tabi`īn hated him, insulted (cursed) him, and battled him

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

when it comes to allaamah ibne taymiyah my scholar said that alot of false narrations have been attributed to him and one needs authenticate such narrations as he is a "controversial" scholar in the sense that he differed with some scholars on certain issues but he was still a man with great knowledge.

I see you have provided the source - do you have the publication name of the book or have you got this source on line?

It is the same one-eyed dajjal who created Wahabism, which means to see things from one eye, and that is how AlSaud used his one-eyed ideology and cheated/cheating Sunnis.

No wonder the greatest scholars of Wahabism are one-eyed both physically and ideologically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Upon you is what you deserve.

This is Islam, Ahlul-Sunnah, I regret to inform you that you have mistranslated the quote, I hope un-intentionally, this is the correct translation:

[And we know that there are a lot of shortcomings being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these (narrations) are lies, and in some of them they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible, although they are pious friends(Awliya) of Allah and from the people of Jannah, yet they still have sins that Allah will forgive.]

The Muslims have opened a thread about this in "islamic-forum" dot net, in the [Muslim vs Shia] section, and they have corrected your faulty translation.

I recommend taking a couple of basic Arabic courses before you open a book, because you are unqualified to translate anything.

[And we know that there are a lot of shortcomings being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these (narrations) are lies, and in some of them they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible, although they are pious friends(Awliya) of Allah and from the people of Jannah, yet they still have sins that Allah will forgive.]

It is apparent that you are not going to recant your lies in the above re-translation. So, I am left with no option but to expose you.

So, let me do a phrase-by-phrase translation and analyses so that our brothers see the liar. Ibn Taymiyyah starts by saying:

æäÍä äÚáã

And we know

He is here referring to himself. He is expressing clear knowledge of something. He continues:

áã Ãä ãÇ íÍßì Úä ÝÇØãÉ æÛíÑåÇ ãä ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ãä ÇáÞæÇÏÍ

That what is narrated/reported about Faatimah and others apart from her from the Sahaabah IN TERMS OF EVIL DEEDS

The Naasibi prefers to translate it (qawaadih, from qadaha) as "shortcoming" instead of "evil deeds". This is to lessen the impact of Ibn Taymiyyah's words. Shortcomings may be innocent mistakes, and are easily forgivable. But, this Naasibi has to deal with these words of Ibn Taymiyyah:

æÇáÐíä ÞÏÍæÇ Ýí Úáí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå æÌÚáæå ßÇÝÑÇ æÙÇáãÇ áíÓ Ýíåã ØÇÆÝÉ ãÚÑæÝÉ ÈÇáÑÏÉ Úä ÇáÅÓáÇã

As for those who accuse 'Alee, may Allaah be pleased with him, of doing evil deeds (qadahah), and called him a kaafir and an oppressor, there is no group among them that were apostates from Islaam.

This is from his Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 5, p. 8 . For Allaah's sake, is this only about mere shortcomings? Now, these people accused Imaam 'Alee (as) of kufr and oppression, are these mere shortcomings or grave evil deeds? Also, if anyone calls Aboo Bakr or 'Umar, or Aboo Hurayrah for that matter, a kaafir and oppressor, the Nawaasib rush to declare such a person an apostate! Now, see what their "Shaykh al-Islaam" is saying about those who call Imaam 'Alee a kaafir and oppressor!!!

This is another proof of Ibn Taymiyyah's Naasibism.

Let us continue with Ibn Taymiyyah's words in the OP:

ßËíѺ

are numerous/plenty/several/many

In other words, what has been reported/narrated about the evil deeds of Faatimah and some of the Sahaabah are numerous. This is Ibn Taymiyyah’s own view, which shows his certain belief in the matter. When a scholars say about an issue “there are several reports about it” he is apparently confirming it.

Ibn Taymiyyah continues:

º ãäåÇ ßÐÈ¡

Among them are (instances of telling) lies.

This is the part that shocks the Nawaasib most. Therefore, the Naasibi translates this part as:

some of these (narrations) are lies

So, he is attributing Ibn Taymiyyah's words to the reports, rather than the alleged evil deeds. No doubt, if Ibn Taymiyyah was only talking about the reports, then the Naasibi translation is correct. HOWEVER, if he was talking about the alleged evil deeds, then the clear meaning is that among those evil deeds were instances of telling lies. So, which is which? We can only get this better by looking at that statement in context. Look at Ibn Taymiyyah's words, and I have highlighted the relevant pronouns:

º ãäåÇ ßÐÈ¡ æÈÚÖåÇ ßÇäæÇ Ýíå ãÊÃæøáíä. æÅÐÇ ßÇä ÈÚÖåÇ ÐäÈÇð ÝáíÓ ÇáÞæã ãÚÕæãíä

Among THEM are lies, AND in some of THEM they were doing taaweel, AND even though some of THEM were sins, the people were not infallible.

The Naasibi has distorted this part in this way:

some of THESE (narrations) are lies, and in some of THEM they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of THESE (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible

He is changing the SAME pronoun from “them” to “these” to fulfill his dishonest agenda. Yaa Naasibi, when has åÇ meant “these”? Could you bring any example? This is a terrible distortion and lie from these Nawaasib to protect the “secret” of their Naasibi “Shaykh al-Islaam”. The pronoun åÇ never means “these”. Yet, he is changing the meaning to avoid the obvious. Lastly, the underlined part is NOT in the Arabic at all!

It is apparent that the pronoun åÇ in that passage refers to the same things. All the instances of “them”, connected by the conjunction “and”, refer to the same entities. If they refer to the alleged evil deeds, then the first sentence would mean:

Among them are instances of telling lies.

Now, the last part of the passage apparent crushes the Nawaasib. Ibn Taymiyyah says:

º ãäåÇ ßÐÈ¡ æÈÚÖåÇ ßÇäæÇ Ýíå ãÊÃæøáíä. æÅÐÇ ßÇä ÈÚÖåÇ ÐäÈÇð ÝáíÓ ÇáÞæã ãÚÕæãíä

Among THEM are lies, AND in some of THEM they were doing taaweel, AND even though some of THEM WERE sins, the people were not infallible.

Some of what? The reports? Some of the reports were sins? Does that make any sense? Or some of the alleged evil deeds were sins?

Every sensible person knows that Ibn Taymiyyah was referring to the alleged evil deeds, that some of them were sins on the part of Sayyidah Faatimah (as) and some of the Sahaabah.

The Naasibi translator had to doctor this part because it blows everything for him:

And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible

All the red parts are NOT in the Arabic! Moreover, the phrase ßÇä refers to the past, and is used to express BELIEF IN THE CERTAINTY of a past matter. This is why the Naasibi translator has also used “proved”, to establish this fact – even though ßÇä does NOT mean “proved”!

A crucial point to note about Sunnee Islaam is that the crimes of the Sahaabah are grouped into two: those in which they did taaweel and those which are sins. Those in which they did taaweel were those examples where they were interpreting the Qur’aan and Sunnah, BUT were wrong in doing so. In such cases, Sunnees award them one reward for each crime they commit through their taaweel.

Imaam al-Haytamee, in al-Sawaaiq, vol. 2, p. 499, states for instance:

æÃÚÏÇÄå ÇáÎæÇÑÌ æäÍæåã ãä Ãåá ÇáÔÇã, áÇ ãÚÇæíÉ æäÍæå ãä ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ; áÃäåã ãÊÃæøö áæä, Ýáåã ÃÌÑ.

His (i.e. ‘Alī’s) enemies were the Khawaarij and others like them from the Syrians, not Mu’aawiyah and others like him from the Sahaabah. This is because they (i.e. Mu’aawiyah and other Naasibi Sahaabah) were doing taaweel (i.e. interpreting the Qur’ān). So, they had one good reward.

He adds on page 319:

Åä ãÚÇæíÉ æÃÊÈÇÚå ãËÇÈæä, ÛíÑ ãÃËæãíä ÈãÇ ÝÚáæå ãä ÞÊÇá Úáí.

Mu’aawiyah and his followers will be rewarded with good, and they were not sinners, on account of what they did in fighting ‘Alee.

So, for every soul that Mu’aawiyah murdered, he will get a good reward from Allaah simply because he was doing taaweel!!!! These guys are never free from Naasibism!

This is why Ibn Taymiyyah has classified the alleged evil deeds into two:

1. Those in which the Sahaabah were only doing taaweel and will therefore get good rewards for their crimes

2. Those in which the Sahaabah were actual sinners

He wrote:

º ãäåÇ ßÐÈ¡ æÈÚÖåÇ ßÇäæÇ Ýíå ãÊÃæøáíä. æÅÐÇ ßÇä ÈÚÖåÇ ÐäÈÇð ÝáíÓ ÇáÞæã ãÚÕæãíä

Among THEM are (instances of telling) lies, AND in some of THEM they were doing taaweel, AND even though some of THEM WERE sins, the people were not infallible.

The Naasibi translator also exposes his own dishonesty in another way. This is the Arabic:

æäÍä äÚáã Ãä ãÇ íÍßì Úä ÝÇØãÉ æÛíÑåÇ ãä ÇáÕÍÇÈÉ ãä ÇáÞæÇÏÍ ßËíѺ ãäåÇ ßÐÈ¡ æÈÚÖåÇ ßÇäæÇ Ýíå ãÊÃæøáíä. æÅÐÇ ßÇä ÈÚÖåÇ ÐäÈÇð ÝáíÓ ÇáÞæã ãÚÕæãíä¡ Èá åã ãÚ ßæäåã ÃæáíÇÁ Çááå æãä Ãåá ÇáÌäÉ¡ áåã ÐäæÈ íÛÝÑåÇ Çááå áåã

And this is the Naasibi translation:

[And we know that there are a lot of shortcomings being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, SOME of these (narrations) are lies, and in some of them they relied upon Ta'weel (in order to criticize). And even if some of these (sayings) proved the guilt of the folks(Sahaba) they are not infallible, although they are pious friends(Awliya) of Allah and from the people of Jannah, yet they still have sins that Allah will forgive.]

The highlighted parts are the SAME words in the Arabic. Yet, see his distortion!

But then, the Naasibi does not realize that no matter how he dodges, he still CANNOT escape from the reality that Ibn Taymiyyah authenticates some of these reports about the alleged evil deeds of Sayyidah Faatimah (as) and some of the Sahaabah!!! Saying “some are lies”, automatically means “some are not lies, but true!” So, in any case, Ibn Taymiyyah is still guilty of Naasibism!!!

I will end my expose of this Nawaasib with these words of a Sunnee scholar who has also commented on these words of Ibn Taymiyyah. A Sunnee scholar, Dr. Mahmood al-Sayyid Sabeeh, in his Akhtaa Ibn Taymiyyah fee Haqq Rasool Allaah wa Ahl Baytih [Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah Concerning the Messenger of Allaah and His Ahl al-Bayt] (Daar Zayn al-Aabideen; 1431 H), p. 63, was so shocked by these words of Ibn Taymiyyah, that he wrote:

áÇ ÃÏÑí ãÇ åí ÇáÞæÇÏÍ ÇáßËíÑÉ ÇáÊí ÍõßíÊ Úä ÇáÓíÏÉ ÝÇØãÉ ÇáÒåÑÇÁ ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåÇ ¡ ÓæÇÁ ÇáßÐÈ¡ Ãæ ÇáÊí ßÇäÊ ãÊÃæøáÉ¡ íÚäí ÝÇØãÉ ßÇäÊ ãÊÃæáÉ¡ Ãæ ÇáÊí æÞÚÊ ÝíåÇ ÈÐäÈ¡ æÃíø ÝÇÌÑ ÐßÑ Ðáß.

I do not know which several evil deeds were narrated/reported about Sayyidah Faatimah al-Zahraa, may Allaah be pleased with her, much less (about) telling lies, or which evil deeds in which she was doing taaweel, meaning that Faatimah was doing taaweel, or reports in which she is stated to have committed sins, and which liar has narrated such reports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@Al Muhammadee

JazakAllah for your efforts akhi, there is no doubt that Ibn Taymmiya was a pure nasibi. This is not a hidden fact even the giant of them all Ibn Hajar had to admit in Lisan al-Mizan, Volume 6 page 320

وكم من مبالغة لتوهين كلام الرافضي أدته أحيانا إلى تنقيص علي رضي الله عنه

"The exaggeration in refuting the Rafidhi text has sometimes taken him to towards belittling Ali (ra)"

Imaam al-Haytamee, in al-Sawaaiq, vol. 2, p. 499, states for instance:

وأعداؤه الخوارج ونحوهم من أهل الشام, لا معاوية ونحوه من الصحابة; لأنهم متأوِّ لون, فلهم أجر.

His (i.e. ‘Alī’s) enemies were the Khawaarij and others like them from the Syrians, not Mu’aawiyah and others like him from the Sahaabah. This is because they (i.e. Mu’aawiyah and other Naasibi Sahaabah) were doing taaweel (i.e. interpreting the Qur’ān). So, they had one good reward.

He adds on page 319:

إن معاوية وأتباعه مثابون, غير مأثومين بما فعلوه من قتال علي.

Mu’aawiyah and his followers will be rewarded with good, and they were not sinners, on account of what they did in fighting ‘Alee.

So, for every soul that Mu’aawiyah murdered, he will get a good reward from Allaah simply because he was doing taaweel!!!! These guys are never free from Naasibism!

That is a sick joke what you quoted right there my bro.

Taweel or ijtihad whatever you wanna call it, is only done when it's not clear in the Quran and sunnah but when something is so clear cut like fighting with the Imam of the time or not giving your allegiance to Him a.s is nothing but a massive crime in eyes of Allah swt. Those who died fighting against Imam Ali a.s will end up in hell.

Edited by muslimunity1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

The Nawaasib attempted to reply to my last post. One can only laugh at their "refutations". One of them, Umar bin al-Khattaab, writes:

Believe it or not, this african donkey stole the understanding from another donkey. He knows very well which donkey I am talking about.

So mr. rafidimajosiunity, go tell that Husseiniyat-Nigro to give credit to original donkey who first came up with this [Edited Out].

It's really shocking for those who never heard about this stupid, ignorant before - the original donkey...he happens to be a black tyre head tycoon.

He has already been refuted on arabic forums by rafidah who couldn't withstand such stupidity from him.

Then, he revealed the name of this "original donkey" who FIRST came up with the arguments I am using in this thread:

He is none other than the great Allama, Hujjatul-rafdh wal-Zandaqa, the undefeated (cause he never accept challenge and runs away from debate), Ayatullat of his time Kamal al-Hydari the howling dog.

Well, he is a LIAR here, since the first to reveal this Naasibism of Ibn Taymiyyah, as far as I know, was a Sunnee scholar, Dr. Mahmood al-Sayyid Sabeeh, in his Akhtaa Ibn Taymiyyah fee Haqq Rasool Allaah wa Ahl Baytih [Mistakes of Ibn Taymiyyah Concerning the Messenger of Allaah and His Ahl al-Bayt]. You can download the book in PDF here. See pages 63-65. Even Aayatullaah Sayyid Kamaal al-Haydaree (ra) referenced this book while treating this particular Naasibi allegation against Sayyidah Faatimah (as).

And which Raafidah in Arabic forums have "refuted" Sayyid Kamaal (ra)??!

This liar, 'Umar, adds:

Now this is what I call pure racism. Now we have to wait and see if Husseiniyat negro @ [Edited Out]chat will still chose to remain husseiniyat negro or will he become a field negro.

One is perplexed by the extreme level of poor ethics and character among these people. Not that it is surprising. But, they have got to an extreme level.

Yet, they claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah, i.e. followers of the Sunnah. The Sunnah, as we can see from the Qur’aan, is:

وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلَىٰ خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ

[Yusufali 68:4] And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character.

These guys think they are also upon at least a good (if not exalted) standard of character?! With this racism and foul mouth, they follow the Sunnah??

Of course, ‘Umar the Naasibi, eventually addresses one of my points:

Whats funny is to see this rafidi translating قَوَادِح as evil deeds. whereas in the given context it refers to slander. But as we know this donkey copy pasted this understanding from greater donkey, the one who has been defeated by a dog.

قَوَادِح

التعريف

1 - القوادح في اللّغة جمع قادح‏:‏ يقال قدح الرجل يقدحه قدحاً إذا عابه بالطعن في نسبه أو عدالته‏.‏

Qawadh is plural of Qadh, which means slander in english. Ibn Taymiyya was refering to rafidi slanders against Sayyedatul Nisa Al-3alameen Fatimah (ra) and Sahaba (ra) as there is no one other than these mushrik kafirs who were and are famous for abusing and slandering sahaba and ahlul-bait.

He insists that Qawaadih in the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, which I have translated as evil deeds, only means “slander”. And he copied an Arabic definition from which he supposedly got such understanding. HOWEVER, let us together examine what Qawaadih means, according to his own supplied definition. If it is said that a man qadaha or attribute qawaadih to another, it means (according to his quote):

طعن في نسبه أو عدالته‏.‏

Attack on his lineage (i.e. calls him a [Edited Out]) or on ‘adaalah (justice or righteousness).

So, if you accuse a man of telling lies, for instance, you have qadaha him. If you accused him of murder, you have qadaha him. If you accuse him of kufr, you have qadaha him. ANY EVIL DEED, if you attribute it to a man, you have qadaha him. That establishes my point, and my translation.

Hani, another Naasibi, corrects 'Umar the Racist:

^ Best translation for Qawadeh is "Defamation".

In a way, I agree with him. To say anything defamatory about another is to qadaha him. Fine.

Then, Hani quotes an email he got from one Khalid Williams, supposedly a Sunnee Arabic expert:

Alaykum Salam,

Sorry to be quick but I'm a bit pressed for time. Your translation is correct in sha Allah; if it were "including telling lies" it would be الكذب with alif-lam for the jins. Also for وبعضها كانوا فيه متأوّلين, I would say it should be "and for others they [the scholars] provided excuses by means of ta'wil." Allahu A'lam.

Wassalam

Khalid

This is NOT necessarily true. The Sunnee scholar I referenced earlier understood the phrase to mean attributing the telling of lies to Sayyidah Faatimah (as), even without the alif and lam. Moreover, Sayyid Kamaal (as) has the same understanding, and he understands Arabic well. Moreover, this is what an Arab poster on this Arabic forum says after quoting Ibn Taymiyyah's words:

الأمر العجيب أنهم يقولون أن الصحابة كلهم عدول لأنه لا يصدر منهم الكذب

و شيخ النواصب طعن في الصحابة من أجل أن يقول ان بنت رسول الله بضعة رسول الله سيدة نساء أهل الجنة سيدة نساء المؤمنين كاذبة

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

فأي عدالة لصاحابتكم يا أهل السنة و قد كشف شيخ القمل عن كثير من كذب الكثير منهم

The matter is in deed strange, that they (i.e. Sunnees) claim that all the Sahaabah were just or righeteous because they never lied, and the Shaykh of the Nawaasib attack the Sahaabah because he said that the daughter of the Messenger of Allaah, the msitress of the women of Paradise and the mistress of the believing women, was a LIAR!!!!!!!!

What more justice or righteousness remains for your Sahaabah, O Ahl al-Sunnah, and the Shaykh of lice has exposed a lot of the several lies from them.

These people are Arabs, and yet understand the words of Ibn Taymiyyah in the same way that I do. Strangely, Khalid Williams is apparently NOT even an Arab!

And, as for why the repetitions of "them" in the words of Ibn Taymiyyah refer to the SAME entities, and to the alleged evil deeds (as opposed to Khalid's illusions), see my last post.

So, Hani concludes:

So basically the Shia's translation could be correct if the sentence were to say:

"من القوادح كثير منها الكذب" or "من القوادح الكثير منها الكذب"

But since it says this as you can see in the scans above:

"من القوادح كثير منها كذب"

Then the correct translation would be:

"And we know that there is much defamation being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these [attributions] are lies, and for others they [the Shia scholars] provided excuses by means of Ta'weel."]

Now, I want to deal with Hani's new "correct translation":

Then the correct translation would be:

"And we know that there is much defamation being attributed to Fatima and the Sahaba, some of these [attributions] are lies, and for others they [the Shia scholars] provided excuses by means of Ta'weel."]

If "some of these attributions are lies" (I wonder when ها starts to mean "these"], then OTHERS ARE NOT! That is the correct meaning - meaning that Ibn Taymiyyah ACCEPTED that SOME OF THOSE "DEFAMATORY NARRATIONS" ABOUT SAYYIDAH FAATIMAH (as) AND SOME OF THE SAHAABAH ARE TRUE!!!

That in itself ESTABLISHES Ibn Taymiyyah as a Naasibee! This is what we have been telling you guys. Your "Shaykh al-Islaam" was a Naasibi!

Now, Hani, answer this question: IS IT REALLY TRUE THAT LOTS OF DEFAMATORY NARRATIONS ARE RECORDED ABOUT SAYYIDAH FAATIMAH AND THAT SOME OF THEM ARE TRUE?

This is a BIG test for Ibn Taymiyyah's honesty: he is either saying the truth or LYING in these words of his. Do YOU agree?

Moreover, the fact that Ibn Taymiyyah accepts the authenticity of some of these alleged lies is EVIDENCE that he was NOT speaking about Shee'ah fabricating ahaadeeth against Sayyidah Faatimah (as). Ibn Taymiyyah regarded us, Rawaafid, as liars. So, he would not accept our narrations at all. He was speaking about Sunnee reports, and accepted that some of these reports (by your translation) were not lies.

Edited by Al-MuHammadee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...