Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
hesham102001

Who Is Truthful ?umar & Abu Bakr Or Janabe Fatima

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That "retarded" statement was something I uttered (for which I sought forgiveness and it was only to open your eyes).  But you believe in such "retardedness."  And I did not make anyone out to be a criminal.  But if you say person A stole the property of person B and person C (when had the power and authority to correct a mistake) did nothing, then you are equating person C with A.  Sorry if this sounds retarded - and it is retarded since it is a lie - then stop believing in, and preaching, it.

 

Can you please think before you post? Imam Ali A.S had no obligation to correct anything, IT WASNT A MISTAKE. That guy STOLE the prophet's land, get that through your head. It was all ready enough to show what kind of man the taker was. You cant even understand the difference between stealing from a prophet and a "mistake", how on earth will you understand the wisdom of the prophet and his family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please think before you post? Imam Ali A.S had no obligation to correct anything, IT WASNT A MISTAKE. That guy STOLE the prophet's land, get that through your head. It was all ready enough to show what kind of man the taker was. You cant even understand the difference between stealing from a prophet and a "mistake", how on earth will you understand the wisdom of the prophet and his family?

 

Exactly!  If it was not a mistake, then it was deliberate and hence, a crime.  Anyone that sides with a crime, or is in a position to implement justice but refuses to do so, is an accomplice or will be judged by the same judgement.

 

I re-post what Imam Ali [ra] said, “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)

Edited by muslim720

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly!  If it was not a mistake, then it was deliberate and hence, a crime.  Anyone that sides with a crime, or is in a position to implement justice but refuses to do so, is an accomplice or will be judged by the same judgement.

 

I re-post what Imam Ali [ra] said, “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)

 

 

You do realize Im a Shia right? I dont follow sunni commentaries that were made up and adjusted to fit their illogical companion system. Stop spewing retarded statements from your mouth. I just cant believe the illogical mind of yours. How is not taking back whats yours, a crime by accomplice??? How are you equating two and two together????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea umm I hate to tell you but some e-rijalist's , who God knows what their faiths are, dont carry weight. Nice try though :)

 

Keeeep Tryyying :D

 

You do realize where I got that article from, right?

 

http://www.velayattv.com/fa/index.php

 

The guy on the far right, he could have become a marja, but he choose to be a representative and he is a top shia rijalist in Iran. Not only that but he literally knows every single sunni source by the heart.

 

You obviously didn't read, why don't you read the scholars mentioned who have questioned/dismissed that book in that thread.

 

May Allah [swt] forgive me for uttering this filth but if "stealing" Fadak was a crime against Fatima [sa] committed by Abu Bakr [ra] then Imam Ali [ra], by not reclaiming Fadak when he had the chance to do so (during his own Khilaafat), makes him (Ali [ra]) an accomplice in this crime and just as guilty (as Abu Bakr [ra]).

 

Exactly. If there was injustice why didn't Imam Ali correct the wrong, atleast when he was a caliph? Rather he gave allegiance, involved himself in their system, and advised/helped. 

 

There is no consistency in this argument presented. All these folks do is come up with the worst case scenario regardless if there's any consistency or not. 

Edited by Ugly Jinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I told you I am not aware of any verse but If know then please share. 

 

So clearly, the narration by Abu Bakr contradicts what is in the Quran because the verses in Quran prove that Prophet's children inherited as other children inherit from their parents. There is no verse in Quran which tells us that Prophets do not leave inheritance.. It was a fabricated lie by Abu Bakr.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter under which chapter it is because it clearly says "Prophets do not leave dinar or dirham as inheritance (the arabic word یورثو or یورثة is used which means inheritance), what they leave as inheritance is their statements".
 
Now that you found another narration that contradicts the narration I quoted which is authenticated by Shia scholars, you need provide evidence that what you quoted is authenticated by your scholars.

 

 
It's funny how you totally ignore the whole point and the context. Even if we ignore the context, even then due to the fact that it is contradicting the Quranic verses. It will have to be thrown out. So your point is baseless. All your often repeated silly questions have already been answered many a times. Here is one of the link for details: http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html
 
An extract from above:
 
These particular Hadith mentions scholars not family. The tradition is stressing that Prophet's did not come on the earth to horde vast amounts of wealth for the scholars that succeeded them, the only riches they left for the Ulema was their inheritance of knowledge.

The above Hadeeth is clear in its own context that the Prophets did not leave any of their material belongings for the scholars but what they left was knowledge.

"If Muhammad Al-Khider was a great scholar of Islam and I happen to be a student of his, I would inherit from him the knowledge which he has but I would not inherit his material belongings that is where his family comes in."

The laws of inheriting divine knowledge are very different from inheriting Material Possessions. Hence the Hadeeth of Knowledge cannot be used to justify the actions of Abu Bakr against Fatima Al- Zahra (as) because the Material Inheritance is connected to the family and is quite different from the inheritance of knowledge which is not connected to the family alone.

 
First of all She didn't quote any verses, these are later fabricated by liars just like they fabricated the Khutba Fadakia.
 
She went to ask for Fadak which belonged to the Prophet (saw) who never gave it to anyone during his life. Abubakr quoted the words of the Prophets  (as) who said "We Prophets do not leave any inheritance, what we leave is charity (Sahih Muslim) So Abubakr acted on the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). Abubakr in the same narration says "but the Family of the Prophet (saw) can take their provisions from it". 
 
This narration is also narrated by many other companions including Ali so it is not a fabrication of Abubakr.  
 
 
You are lying again. Can't believe how people lie so much without any proof. Have you even read Quran?
 
First of all, Fadak was given to her during Prophet's lifetime as a gift. In Tafsir of verse 17:26:
 
“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.
[Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177]
 
 
 
Secondly, where is your proof that it was inserted later? Your hatred towards the family of the Prophet (pbuh) is quite evident now.
 
Narrated by Imam Ali (as) ? Are you serious? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So clearly, the narration by Abu Bakr contradicts what is in the Quran because the verses in Quran prove that Prophet's children inherited as other children inherit from their parents. There is no verse in Quran which tells us that Prophets do not leave inheritance.. It was a fabricated lie by Abu Bakr.

(salam)

What are those verses?

 

 
It's funny how you totally ignore the whole point and the context. Even if we ignore the context, even then due to the fact that it is contradicting the Quranic verses. It will have to be thrown out. So your point is baseless. All your often repeated silly questions have already been answered many a times. Here is one of the link for details: http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html
 

 

An extract from above:
 
These particular Hadith mentions scholars not family. The tradition is stressing that Prophet's did not come on the earth to horde vast amounts of wealth for the scholars that succeeded them, the only riches they left for the Ulema was their inheritance of knowledge.

The above Hadeeth is clear in its own context that the Prophets did not leave any of their material belongings for the scholars but what they left was knowledge.

"If Muhammad Al-Khider was a great scholar of Islam and I happen to be a student of his, I would inherit from him the knowledge which he has but I would not inherit his material belongings that is where his family comes in."

The laws of inheriting divine knowledge are very different from inheriting Material Possessions. Hence the Hadeeth of Knowledge cannot be used to justify the actions of Abu Bakr against Fatima Al- Zahra  (as) because the Material Inheritance is connected to the family and is quite different from the inheritance of knowledge which is not connected to the family alone.

 
What verse it contradicts?
 

 

 

 

You are lying again. Can't believe how people lie so much without any proof. Have you even read Quran?
 
First of all, Fadak was given to her during Prophet's lifetime as a gift. In Tafsir of verse 17:26:
 
“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra  (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.
[Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177]
 
 

 

It was never given as a gift to anyone. The report you quoted from 'Dur al-Manthur' is very weak as it is narrated by unreliable narrators. Secondly, the verse quoted in the report was revealed in Makkah but Fadak was captured after hijra. This is clear contradiction. 

 

Narrated by Imam Ali  (as) ? Are you serious? 

 

 

 

Not only Imam Ali but many other companions also narrated the same narration. So it was also 'fabricated lie' of Ali?

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

What are those verses?

 

Read the qutba given by Bibi Fatima (s) and also read http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

 

 

What verse it contradicts?

 

 
The verse about inheritance in surah Nisa.
 

It was never given as a gift to anyone. The report you quoted from 'Dur al-Manthur' is very weak as it is narrated by unreliable narrators. Secondly, the verse quoted in the report was revealed in Makkah but Fadak was captured after hijra. This is clear contradiction. 

 
I was expecting this standard response of yours which is to blame the narration. Where is your proof? 
 
Also, where is your proof that the verse was revealed in Makkah? Just because the surah is Makki doesn't mean that all the verses under it were also revealed in Makkah. Do you disagree with the fact that Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan Surahs?
 

Not only Imam Ali but many other companions also narrated the same narration. So it was also 'fabricated lie' of Ali?

 
I was at least hoping that you would present the narration.
 
Remmber that Imam Ali (as) was a witness for Bibi Fatimah (s) against Abu Bakr. So that makes him a rejector of the alleged hadith you are claiming of him to be a narrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Abu bakr gifted the land of fadak to his own sons?????? If yes than I doubt his intention....

Did Abu bakr snatched fadak from SYEDA E KAINAT and gifted to his wife ????? If yes than I doubt his intention......

Did Abu bakr usurped fadak and distributed it among his cousins ????? If yes than I doubt his intention......

After snatching fadak did Abu bakr started wearing expensive clothes???? If yes than I doubt his intention.....

After taking fadak away did Abu bakr started wearing gold or his wife started wearing expensive jewellery...... ????? If yes than I doubt his intention.....

Did Abu bakr after usurping fadak did pomp and show of himself????? If yes than I doubt his intention

On the other hand IMAM E HASSAN AS and IMAM HUSSAIN AS used to take the share out of fadak and not only that they kept on taking the share for 30 years....... Why did they do so if it was snatched from their mother..... There is something called ghairat...... Where was there integrity when they took the share from fadak.....

Where was there self respect when they were taking share of fadak from caliphs who snatched it from their mother....

People are talking all sorts

Get a grip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Read the qutba given by Bibi Fatima (s) and also read http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

 

That Khutba is a fabrication, even shia scholars doubt its authenticity. 

 

 

 

 

The verse about inheritance in surah Nisa.
 

 

Ok Thanks. 

 
 
I was expecting this standard response of yours which is to blame the narration. Where is your proof? 
 

 

The scan provided by ShiaPen doesn't show the full chain but I have seen the chain it is narrated by bunch of liars like Atiyah al-Awfi and other liars who attributed the lie to the Prophet (saw), Abu Saeed al-Khudri and Ibn Abbass. 

 

 

 

Also, where is your proof that the verse was revealed in Makkah? Just because the surah is Makki doesn't mean that all the verses under it were also revealed in Makkah. Do you disagree with the fact that Quran contains Madani verses in Makkan Surahs?

 

I agree that there are some Makki verses in Madani Surahs and vice verse. However, this verse was revealed in Makkah before Hijra. 

 

 

 

I was at least hoping that you would present the narration.
 
Remmber that Imam Ali  (as) was a witness for Bibi Fatimah (s) against Abu Bakr. So that makes him a rejector of the alleged hadith you are claiming of him to be a narrator.

 

Insha Allah. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Khutba is a fabrication, even shia scholars doubt its authenticity. 

 

(salam)

 

(bismillah)

 

Proof?? I am not even going to waste my time on this. You are only good at making claims without providing any proofs.

 

 

Ok Thanks. 

 

Remember the question, do you prefer a narration over the Quranic verse?

 

The scan provided by ShiaPen doesn't show the full chain but I have seen the chain it is narrated by bunch of liars like Atiyah al-Awfi and other liars who attributed the lie to the Prophet (saw), Abu Saeed al-Khudri and Ibn Abbass. 

 

 
Again making a claim without any proof? Your point has already been refuted on their website. They have proved the authenticity of the narration.
 

I agree that there are some Makki verses in Madani Surahs and vice verse. However, this verse was revealed in Makkah before Hijra. 

 
Again, a claim made without any proof. If you want to prove your point, please present your proof. I am not going to waste my time refuting your asssumptions.
 

Insha Allah. 

 
I will be waiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

 

(bismillah)

 

Proof?? I am not even going to waste my time on this. You are only good at making claims without providing any proofs.

 

(bismillah)

ok later, inshaaAllah

 

I don't remember everything now. 

 

Remember the question, do you prefer a narration over the Quranic verse?

 

Good, you remember. 

 

 

 
Again making a claim without any proof? Your point has already been refuted on their website. They have proved the authenticity of the narration.
 

 

I am not making claims without any proof. Read the Arabic text it doesn't give the full chain. It simply says Ibn Mardawiyah etc (this Tafsir Ibn Mardawiyah doesn't even exist so this is another evidence against it) from Abu Saeed and Ibn Abbass. But I have seen the full chain it is narrated by people like Atiyah al-awfi, Ali bin Abis etc. They are well-known liars.  

 

They proved the authenticity of the fabricated narration? That is funny. Can you give a link where they proved its authenticity?

 

 
Again, a claim made without any proof. If you want to prove your point, please present your proof. I am not going to waste my time refuting your asssumptions.

 

The verse is clear itself, Allah told the Prophet (saw) to tell Mushrikin of Quraish that that they at least "uphold the ties of kinship that exist between them and you". This is also mentioned by Ibn Abbas in Sahih Bukhari. 

 

 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love for Muhammad SAW and his family as and respect for his SAW companions  ra is a good way...what does it matter what little they fought over when all these men and women had one thing in common and that was the love of Allah and Rasul Allah SAW and the sacrifices they made.

 

 

note: i love and respect the Ahlul bayt  as more than the caliphs ra...dont know if i can be counted among shias, but "come to common terms..." and "make peace between your believing brothers..." is the Quran's way. besides, i believe that sufi, shia or sunni we shud join hands against the corrupt elite of today esp. since this is the end of the times...imam mahdi's emergence is due soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "retarded" statement was something I uttered (for which I sought forgiveness and it was only to open your eyes).  But you believe in such "retardedness."  And I did not make anyone out to be a criminal.  But if you say person A stole the property of person B and person C (when had the power and authority to correct a mistake) did nothing, then you are equating person C with A.  Sorry if this sounds retarded - and it is retarded since it is a lie - then stop believing in, and preaching, it.

 

 

Sometimes i really wonder if Allah swt has really closed the door of Iqal for you guys…. But anyway, the fact is: Bibi Fatima s.a had died in state of anger, Bibi Fatima s.a had  passed away with grievance towards Abu Bakr you can not deny this fact, most of your unbiased Ullmas has more or less accepted this fact, Now, do you really believe that Imam Ali by returning Fadak back would some how  removed   the "GRIEVANCE" that his wife had with Abu Bakr? as matter of fact what Imam Ali a.s had done was perfectly correct he wanted history to witness that Fadak was stolen from his wife so he let it remain that way so people of the future would see the criminality of Abu Bakr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(bismillah)

ok later, inshaaAllah

 

I don't remember everything now. 

 

 

(salam)

 

Ok, I will wait for this one as well.

 

 

 

Good, you remember. 

 

 
Thanks and your answer is ...?
 
I am not making claims without any proof. Read the Arabic text it doesn't give the full chain. It simply says Ibn Mardawiyah etc (this Tafsir Ibn Mardawiyah doesn't even exist so this is another evidence against it) from Abu Saeed and Ibn Abbass. But I have seen the full chain it is narrated by people like Atiyah al-awfi, Ali bin Abis etc. They are well-known liars.  
 
They proved the authenticity of the fabricated narration? That is funny. Can you give a link where they proved its authenticity?
 
 
Nice try but as I said it's already been refuted. Here is the link and an extract from the same:
 
 

The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi’s (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). al-Ejli said: ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thiqat). Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.’

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

 

The verse is clear itself, Allah told the Prophet (saw) to tell Mushrikin of Quraish that that they at least "uphold the ties of kinship that exist between them and you". This is also mentioned by Ibn Abbas in Sahih Bukhari. 

 

Again, you are assuming here. Anyways, read the link above and you will get an answer to this one as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

I made a mistake here. I mistaken the verse with another verse so ignore what I said here:

The verse is clear itself, Allah told the Prophet (saw) to tell Mushrikin of Quraish that that they at least "uphold the ties of kinship that exist between them and you". This is also mentioned by Ibn Abbas in Sahih Bukhari. 

 

 

 

 

nice try but as I said it's already been refuted. Here is the link and an extract from the same:

 

The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi’s (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). al-Ejli said: ‘Thiqah’ (Marifat al-Thiqat). Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.’

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

 

Majority of scholars have weakened Atiya.

 

Ibn Hajar didn't just say 'Saduq' He said "Saduq but makes many mistakes and He is a Shia Mudalis". I don't know  why your website half quotes? As for Ibn Mueen He simply said "salih" this is the lowest form of tawtheeq and there are three other reports of him declaring this narrator weak which is in agreement with the majority of scholars. So even they didn't fully made tawtheeq of him. As for Shaheen and Ibn Saad they are nothing when it comes to other scholars of Hadith (see the list I provided in the end). Shaheen, in his book 'asma al-thuqat - thiqa narrators' didn't only list 'Thiqa' narrators because he himself lists weak certain narrators and write 'weak' next them. So his book doesn't mean only 'thiqa' narrators are included. Not only that but this narrator Atiya al-awfi would narrator from a another liar narrator and call him "Abu Saeed" while it was 'al-Kalbi' and people would think it is "Abu Saeed" the companion. So when he narrates from Abu Saeed the Companion it further becomes weak. This is mentioned in by Ibn Hibban and other scholars.

 

Also, Sayyida Fatima never claimed that Fadak was given to her as a gift. If it was the case when why She went to Abubakr to ask for fadak as inheritance? This is another evidence against those who claim it was a gift. 

 

The scan provided by ShiaPen mentions Ibn Mardawiyah but this Tafsir doesn't exist so the report is rejected. 

 

Now List of scholars who weakened Atiyah:

 

1) Imam Bukhari said: "-Imam Ahmad said about hadith of Abdul-malik from Atiya from Abu Saeed ("I'm leaving for you two things")-"Kufiyan hadis, it is munkar" means it is rejected. (see "Tarih as-Sagir" vol 1, p 267)
2) Yahya ibn Muin said:"Atiya Al-Awfi is weak". (see "Ad-Duafa" Agili, vol 3, p 359)
3) Imam Nasai said: "Weak". (see "Daif val matrukun" #481)
4) Imam Darakutni said: "ضعيف". (see "Sunnan" vol 4, p 39)
5) Imam Bayhaqi said: "ضعيف" (see "Sunnan Sagir" vol 2, p 101; "Maarif" vol 6, p 144)
6) Imam Dhahabi said:"ضعيف الحديث "-"Weak in narrations" (see "Siyar" vol 5, p 325; "Mizan" vol 5, p 100)
7) Ibn Hadjar said:" وكان شيعياً مدلساً"-"(he) was shia and mudallis". (see "Tagrib" #4616)
8)Abdulla ibn Ahmad from his father:" هو ضعيف الحديث "-"He is weak in narrations" (see "Ilal" #1306)
9) In Mugni (2/436) we can read:" تابعي مشهور ، مجمع على ضعفه "-"(Atiya) famous tabein, there is "ijma" on his weakness"
10) In the book of imam Ahmad ("Ilal" №4502)--"وكان سفيان _ يعني الثوري _ يضعف حديث عطية"-:"Sufyan (As Sauri said) narrations of Atiya are weak"
11) Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said: "ضعيف"-"Weak". (see "Jarh va tadil" 3/1/№2125)

12 ) Abu Dawood said "he can not relied upon". 

Ibn Hibban said 'Fudayl ibn Marzuq' narrates fabrications from Atiya. 

 

more...

 

وقال الجوزجاني _ كما في أحوال الرجال (رقم 42) _ : ( مائل ).
وقال ابن خزيمة _ كما في صحيحه (4/68) _ : ( في القلب من عطية بن سعد العوفي ).
وقال الساجي _ كما في تهذيب التهذيب _ : ( ليس بحجة ، وكان يقدم علياً على الكل ).
وقال ابن حبان _ كما في المجروحين (2/176) بعد أن ذكر قصته مع الكلبي _ : ( فلا يحل الاحتجاج به ، ولا كتابة حديثه إلا على جهة التعجب ).
وقال ابن عدي _ كما في الكامل (7/85) _ : ( وقد روى عنه جماعة من الثقات ، ولعطية عن أبي سعيد ( الخدري ) أحاديث عداد ، وعن غير أبي سعيد ، وهو مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ، وكان يعد من شيعة الكوفة ).
 
وقال الحاكم _ كما في المستدرك (2/290) _ : ( وإنما يعرف هذا الحديث من حديث سوار بن مصعب عن عطية العوفي عن أبي سعيد ، وليس من شرط هذا الكتاب ).
 
وقال ابن رجب في شرح علل الترمذي (2/823) بعد نقل كلام الكلبي عن تدليس عطية العوفي له : ( ولكن الكلبي لا يُعتمد على ما يرويه . وإن صحت هذه الحكاية عن عطية ، فإنما يقتضي التوقف فيما يحكيه عن أبي سعيد من التفسير خاصة . فأما الأحاديث المرفوعة التي يرويها عن أبي سعيد فإنما يريد أبا سعيد الخدري ، ويصرح في بعضها بنسبته ).
 
وقال يحيى بن معين _ في رواية ابن الجنيد (رقم 234) _ : ( كان ضعيفاً في القضاء ، ضعيفاً في الحديث ).
وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
وقال _ في رواية ابن أبي مريم كما في الكامل (7/84) _ : ( ضعيف إلا أنه يكتب حديثه ).
 
وقال عبدالله بن أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : سمعت أبي ذكر عطية العوفي فقال : ( هو ضعيف الحديث ).
 
وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الصغير (1/267) _ قال أحمد في حديث عبدالملك عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( تركت فيكم الثقلين ) : ( أحاديث الكوفيين هذه مناكير ).

 

and more...

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

I made a mistake here. I mistaken the verse with another verse so ignore what I said here:

 

That's fine. 

 

But how about answering my question on your preference of Quran or Narrations?

 

 

 

Majority of scholars have weakened Atiya.
 
Ibn Hajar didn't just say 'Saduq' He said "Saduq but makes many mistakes and He is a Shia Mudalis". I don't know  why your website half quotes? As for Ibn Mueen He simply said "salih" this is the lowest form of tawtheeq and there are three other reports of him declaring this narrator weak which is in agreement with the majority of scholars. So even they didn't fully made tawtheeq of him. As for Shaheen and Ibn Saad they are nothing when it comes to other scholars of Hadith (see the list I provided in the end). Shaheen, in his book 'asma al-thuqat - thiqa narrators' didn't only list 'Thiqa' narrators because he himself lists weak certain narrators and write 'weak' next them. So his book doesn't mean only 'thiqa' narrators are included. Not only that but this narrator Atiya al-awfi would narrator from a another liar narrator and call him "Abu Saeed" while it was 'al-Kalbi' and people would think it is "Abu Saeed" the companion. So when he narrates from Abu Saeed the Companion it further becomes weak. This is mentioned in by Ibn Hibban and other scholars.
 
Also, Sayyida Fatima never claimed that Fadak was given to her as a gift. If it was the case when why She went to Abubakr to ask for fadak as inheritance? This is another evidence against those who claim it was a gift. 
 
The scan provided by ShiaPen mentions Ibn Mardawiyah but this Tafsir doesn't exist so the report is rejected. 
 
Now List of scholars who weakened Atiyah:
 
1) Imam Bukhari said: "-Imam Ahmad said about hadith of Abdul-malik from Atiya from Abu Saeed ("I'm leaving for you two things")-"Kufiyan hadis, it is munkar" means it is rejected. (see "Tarih as-Sagir" vol 1, p 267)
2) Yahya ibn Muin said:"Atiya Al-Awfi is weak". (see "Ad-Duafa" Agili, vol 3, p 359)
3) Imam Nasai said: "Weak". (see "Daif val matrukun" #481)
4) Imam Darakutni said: "ضعيف". (see "Sunnan" vol 4, p 39)
5) Imam Bayhaqi said: "ضعيف" (see "Sunnan Sagir" vol 2, p 101; "Maarif" vol 6, p 144)
6) Imam Dhahabi said:"ضعيف الحديث "-"Weak in narrations" (see "Siyar" vol 5, p 325; "Mizan" vol 5, p 100)
7) Ibn Hadjar said:" وكان شيعياً مدلساً"-"(he) was shia and mudallis". (see "Tagrib" #4616)
8)Abdulla ibn Ahmad from his father:" هو ضعيف الحديث "-"He is weak in narrations" (see "Ilal" #1306)
9) In Mugni (2/436) we can read:" تابعي مشهور ، مجمع على ضعفه "-"(Atiya) famous tabein, there is "ijma" on his weakness"
10) In the book of imam Ahmad ("Ilal" №4502)--"وكان سفيان _ يعني الثوري _ يضعف حديث عطية"-:"Sufyan (As Sauri said) narrations of Atiya are weak"
11) Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said: "ضعيف"-"Weak". (see "Jarh va tadil" 3/1/№2125)
12 ) Abu Dawood said "he can not relied upon". 
Ibn Hibban said 'Fudayl ibn Marzuq' narrates fabrications from Atiya. 
 
more...
 
وقال الجوزجاني _ كما في أحوال الرجال (رقم 42) _ : ( مائل ).
وقال ابن خزيمة _ كما في صحيحه (4/68) _ : ( في القلب من عطية بن سعد العوفي ).
وقال الساجي _ كما في تهذيب التهذيب _ : ( ليس بحجة ، وكان يقدم علياً على الكل ).
وقال ابن حبان _ كما في المجروحين (2/176) بعد أن ذكر قصته مع الكلبي _ : ( فلا يحل الاحتجاج به ، ولا كتابة حديثه إلا على جهة التعجب ).
وقال ابن عدي _ كما في الكامل (7/85) _ : ( وقد روى عنه جماعة من الثقات ، ولعطية عن أبي سعيد ( الخدري ) أحاديث عداد ، وعن غير أبي سعيد ، وهو مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ، وكان يعد من شيعة الكوفة ).
 
وقال الحاكم _ كما في المستدرك (2/290) _ : ( وإنما يعرف هذا الحديث من حديث سوار بن مصعب عن عطية العوفي عن أبي سعيد ، وليس من شرط هذا الكتاب ).
 
وقال ابن رجب في شرح علل الترمذي (2/823) بعد نقل كلام الكلبي عن تدليس عطية العوفي له : ( ولكن الكلبي لا يُعتمد على ما يرويه . وإن صحت هذه الحكاية عن عطية ، فإنما يقتضي التوقف فيما يحكيه عن أبي سعيد من التفسير خاصة . فأما الأحاديث المرفوعة التي يرويها عن أبي سعيد فإنما يريد أبا سعيد الخدري ، ويصرح في بعضها بنسبته ).
 
وقال يحيى بن معين _ في رواية ابن الجنيد (رقم 234) _ : ( كان ضعيفاً في القضاء ، ضعيفاً في الحديث ).
وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
وقال _ في رواية ابن أبي مريم كما في الكامل (7/84) _ : ( ضعيف إلا أنه يكتب حديثه ).
 
وقال عبدالله بن أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : سمعت أبي ذكر عطية العوفي فقال : ( هو ضعيف الحديث ).
 
وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الصغير (1/267) _ قال أحمد في حديث عبدالملك عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( تركت فيكم الثقلين ) : ( أحاديث الكوفيين هذه مناكير ).
 
and more...

 

 

 

I am not an expert on Rijal. I will leave it for someone who knows it well to respond. The websites we have referred to have contrary opinions. This is another set of references I found for this narration:

 

The chief of the commentators, Ahmad Tha'labi in his Kashfu'l-Bayan; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Tafsir, vol. IV, reporting from Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya; the famous commentator Ahmad Ibn Musa (died 352 A.H.) reporting from Abu Sa'id Khadiri and Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani; Ibn Kathir; Imadu'd-din Isma'il; Ibn ‘Umar Damishqi; Faqih al-Shafi'i in his Ta'rikh, and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 39, reporting from Tafsir al-Tha'labi, Jam'u'l-Fawa'id and Uyunu'l-Akhbar - all narrate that when the verse "and give to the near of kin his due" was revealed, the Holy Prophet of Allah called Fatima and bestowed the great Fadak upon her as a gift.

 

We also have narrations in our books about the fact that Fadak was given as a gift when this verse was revealed. 

 

No, you are wrong. Fadak was first claimed as a gift by her when refused she asked for it as an inheritance, Please read the historical facts before making claims.The reason why she went was because Fadak which was in her possession was usurped by the caliph and she went to get it back what was rightfully hers.

 

If Prophets do not leave anything behind how where the wives excepted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That's fine. 

 

But how about answering my question on your preference of Quran or Narrations?

 

(bismillah)

What about it?

 

 

 

 

I am not an expert on Rijal. I will leave it for someone who knows it well to respond. The websites we have referred to have contrary opinions. This is another set of references I found for this narration:

 

The chief of the commentators, Ahmad Tha'labi in his Kashfu'l-Bayan; Jalalu'd-din Suyuti in his Tafsir, vol. IV, reporting from Hafiz Ibn Mardawiyya; the famous commentator Ahmad Ibn Musa (died 352 A.H.) reporting from Abu Sa'id Khadiri and Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Haskani; Ibn Kathir; Imadu'd-din Isma'il; Ibn ‘Umar Damishqi; Faqih al-Shafi'i in his Ta'rikh, and Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch. 39, reporting from Tafsir al-Tha'labi, Jam'u'l-Fawa'id and Uyunu'l-Akhbar - all narrate that when the verse "and give to the near of kin his due" was revealed, the Holy Prophet of Allah called Fatima and bestowed the great Fadak upon her as a gift.

 

We also have narrations in our books about the fact that Fadak was given as a gift when this verse was revealed. 

 

 

 

You are quoting the same people and same sources again? Jala'addin's Tafsir is the same Dur Manthur (the one ShiaPen quotes) who takes it from Ibn Mardawiyah (this book doesn't exist). 

 

 

 

 

No, you are wrong. Fadak was first claimed as a gift by her when refused she asked for it as an inheritance, Please read the historical facts before making claims.The reason why she went was because Fadak which was in her possession was usurped by the caliph and she went to get it back what was rightfully hers.

 

 

No, She never claimed it as gift and it was not given as gift to anyone. She asked Abubakr about inheritance nothing about 'gift'.

 

 

 

 

If Prophets do not leave anything behind how where the wives excepted?

 

If you are talking about their houses then their houses were already on their names, not the Prophet's (saw). Fadak was in possession of the Prophet (saw), not given to anyone. 

 

I wonder why these 'usurpers' said that Ahlulbayt can take their sustenance from Fadak? I also wonder why these 'usurpers' gave other lands to Ahlulbayt (Ali)? I wonder why these 'usurpers' would distribute wealth (gained from anything i.e. conquests, wars)  to Ahlulbayt before anybody else and before themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

What about it?

You are quoting the same people and same sources again? Jala'addin's Tafsir is the same Dur Manthur (the one ShiaPen quotes) who takes it from Ibn Mardawiyah (this book doesn't exist).

No, She never claimed it as gift and it was not given as gift to anyone. She asked Abubakr about inheritance nothing about 'gift'.

If you are talking about their houses then their houses were already on their names, not the Prophet's (saw). Fadak was in possession of the Prophet (saw), not given to anyone.

I wonder why these 'usurpers' said that Ahlulbayt can take their sustenance from Fadak? I also wonder why these 'usurpers' gave other lands to Ahlulbayt (Ali)? I wonder why these 'usurpers' would distribute wealth (gained from anything i.e. conquests, wars) to Ahlulbayt before anybody else and before themselves?

Nice one Bruv.....

This simply depicts their intention....

Thumbs up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

What about it?

 

(salam)

 

What is your answer to the question you had asked in the past? You prefer Narrations over Quran? I don't want you to go in circles as you have been doing so far. Please answer this question about your preference.

 

 

You are quoting the same people and same sources again? Jala'addin's Tafsir is the same Dur Manthur (the one ShiaPen quotes) who takes it from Ibn Mardawiyah (this book doesn't exist). 

 

 
No. So you are claiming that Suyuti didn't what you know? 
 

No, She never claimed it as gift and it was not given as gift to anyone. She asked Abubakr about inheritance nothing about 'gift'.

 
You haven't read anything about Fadak then. Read the history. The first thing she claimed was that it was in her possession as a gift. When the witnesses were rejected that's when she sought it through inheritance by producing Quranic verses.
 
I wonder how people without knowing the historical facts start making up stories. The fact that it was in her possession is a clear proof that she was the owner. Check this link for more historical evidences from your books about it being a gift:
 
 
If you are talking about their houses then their houses were already on their names, not the Prophet's (saw). Fadak was in possession of the Prophet (saw), not given to anyone. 
 
I wonder why these 'usurpers' said that Ahlulbayt can take their sustenance from Fadak? I also wonder why these 'usurpers' gave other lands to Ahlulbayt (Ali)? I wonder why these 'usurpers' would distribute wealth (gained from anything i.e. conquests, wars)  to Ahlulbayt before anybody else and before themselves?
 
 

 

No, I am not talking about only the houses of the Prophet (pbuh). And where is your proof about the houses being on Wives names? 

 

First of all, I do not know what land and wealth you are talking about. But comparing such mean things to the property of Fadak is a very childish thing. This makes me wonder if you actually know anything about Fadak and it's importance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

What is your answer to the question you had asked in the past? You prefer Narrations over Quran? I don't want you to go in circles as you have been doing so far. Please answer this question about your preference.

 

(bismillah)

When did I prefer narration over Quran?

 

 
 
No. So you are claiming that Suyuti didn't what you know? 

 

You are mistaken. Suyuti in his Tafsir quotes all reports reported for each verse, unknown or known, weak or strong etc. 

 

 
You haven't read anything about Fadak then. Read the history. The first thing she claimed was that it was in her possession as a gift. When the witnesses were rejected that's when she sought it through inheritance by producing Quranic verses.
 
I wonder how people without knowing the historical facts start making up stories. The fact that it was in her possession is a clear proof that she was the owner. Check this link for more historical evidences from your books about it being a gift:
 
 

 

This whole witness thing is false just like Khutba Fadak is a fabrication of Shia. The Prophet (saw) never gave it anyone during his life not to Fatima (ra) or anybody else. 

 

No, I am not talking about only the houses of the Prophet  (pbuh). And where is your proof about the houses being on Wives names? 

 

Each wife of the Prophet (saw) had a house and it was named after each of them i.e. House of Aisha (ra) etc. Even the Quran says to the wives of the Prophet (saw) "and stay in your houses". 

 

 

 

First of all, I do not know what land and wealth you are talking about. But comparing such mean things to the property of Fadak is a very childish thing. This makes me wonder if you actually know anything about Fadak and it's importance at all.

 

The reason I compared other lands given Ahlulbayt because you claim they were 'usurpers'. The point was how can they be 'usurpers' when they gave other lands to Ahlulbayt and gave priority to them when distributing wealth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

Discussion has fallen off track. I will try to keep it simple as per OP's question. My typing problem is gone and i will be more than happy to write here :).

 

QUESTION ASKED IS ;

 

 

Who Is Truthful ?umar & Abu Bakr Or Janabe Fatima

 

APPROACH TO FIND THE ANSWER STEP 1

 

As a common muslim man, no matter if i am shia or sunni or wahabi, i look for answers first in the book of Allah s.w.t, THE QURAN and then Hadith. To remove all sorts of confusions i have decided to stick what is present in the hadith books of all these divided sects. 

What i need to look is who was truthful among these 3. Now i need to find it and the only free of courrption book i have is Quran,

 

QURAN STEP 2

 

فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ
 

 

translation:  And if anyone should argue with thee about this [truth] after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say: "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray [together] humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those [of us] who are telling a lie.

Quran, Sura Ale Imran verse 61. 

 

THINKING PROCESS STEP 3

 

Hmmmmm this is the only step where i see my holy prophet Muhammad s.a.w is going for Mubahila where he s.a.w is not planning for any debate or war but just to invoke Allah's curse upon who are telling lie. I am interested now in finding out whom Prophet s.a.w had chosen to represent his side (truth's representators). 

 

HELP FROM TAFSEER AND HADITH STEP 4

 

Book 031, Number 5915:  taken from SAHIH MUSLIM

This hadith has been narrated. on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa'd as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember
Allah
's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard
Allah
's Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about 'Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). 'All said to him:
Allah
's Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon
Allah
's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves
Allah
and his Messenger and
Allah
and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call 'Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and
Allah
gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed:" Let us summon our children and your children."
Allah
's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called
'Ali,
Fatima
, Hasan and Husain and said: O
Allah
, they are my family.

 

i make now (plus by the help of many more hadiths over this topic) a list of those who out of whole muslim community went out to represent the truthfulness of Islam. And my note book page appears like this

 

1- Muhammad s.a.w

2-Ali a.s

3- Fatima s.a

4- Hassan a.s

5- Hussain a.s

 

 CONCLUSION STEP-5

 

HMMM so it means in whole Muslim ummah of that time, there was non more truthful than these people. So i should rather stick to these people when it is them vs others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

Discussion has fallen off track. I will try to keep it simple as per OP's question. My typing problem is gone and i will be more than happy to write here :).

QUESTION ASKED IS ;

Who Is Truthful ?umar & Abu Bakr Or Janabe Fatima

APPROACH TO FIND THE ANSWER STEP 1

As a common muslim man, no matter if i am shia or sunni or wahabi, i look for answers first in the book of Allah s.w.t, THE QURAN and then Hadith. To remove all sorts of confusions i have decided to stick what is present in the hadith books of all these divided sects.

What i need to look is who was truthful among these 3. Now i need to find it and the only free of courrption book i have is Quran,

QURAN STEP 2

فَمَنْ حَاجَّكَ فِيهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ وَنِسَاءَنَا وَنِسَاءَكُمْ وَأَنْفُسَنَا وَأَنْفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَلْ لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

translation: And if anyone should argue with thee about this [truth] after all the knowledge that has come unto thee, say: "Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves; and then let us pray [together] humbly and ardently, and let us invoke God's curse upon those [of us] who are telling a lie.

Quran, Sura Ale Imran verse 61.

THINKING PROCESS STEP 3

Hmmmmm this is the only step where i see my holy prophet Muhammad s.a.w is going for Mubahila where he s.a.w is not planning for any debate or war but just to invoke Allah's curse upon who are telling lie. I am interested now in finding out whom Prophet s.a.w had chosen to represent his side (truth's representators).

HELP FROM TAFSEER AND HADITH STEP 4

Book 031, Number 5915: taken from SAHIH MUSLIM

This hadith has been narrated. on the authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa'd as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat 'Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about 'Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). 'All said to him: Allah's Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call 'Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed:" Let us summon our children and your children." Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.

i make now (plus by the help of many more hadiths over this topic) a list of those who out of whole muslim community went out to represent the truthfulness of Islam. And my note book page appears like this

1- Muhammad s.a.w

2-Ali a.s

3- Fatima s.a

4- Hassan a.s

5- Hussain a.s

CONCLUSION STEP-5

HMMM so it means in whole Muslim ummah of that time, there was non more truthful than these people. So i should rather stick to these people when it is them vs others.

Just a thought

one simple verse:

If you help him (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of the two; when they were in the cave, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said to his companion : “Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while the Word of Allah that became the uppermost; and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #40)

We all know who was the SECOND of the TWO

And also here is another verse;

"Those who spent and fought before the victory are not upon a level (with the rest of you)." (57:10)

We all know how much wealth Abu Bakr siddique ra spent ( ALL OF IT)

Jazakhallah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

Discussion has fallen off track. I will try to keep it simple as per OP's question. My typing problem is gone and i will be more than happy to write here :).

 

QUESTION ASKED IS ;

 

 

Who Is Truthful ?umar & Abu Bakr Or Janabe Fatima

 

 

(wasalam)

Your question is wrong. It was a matter they disagreed, it doesn't mean one was truthful and the other was liar. Your question should be who was right and who was mistaken. 

 

When your Maraji disagree on certain matters do you say "which of them is truthfull and which of them is liar" or do you say "which of them is correct and which of them are mistaken"?

 

So why not say the same for the Students and Companions of the Prophet of Islam (saw)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

When did I prefer narration over Quran?

 

(salam)

 

So do you agree that as per Quran anyone including the Prophet's children are eligible for their share from the parents as part of inheritance? If you disagree then present a verse which negated the above.

 

 

 

You are mistaken. Suyuti in his Tafsir quotes all reports reported for each verse, unknown or known, weak or strong etc. 

 

 
So basically, Suyuti's tafsir and the ones by the other list of scholars listed above are all filled with unauthentic narrations?
 

This whole witness thing is false just like Khutba Fadak is a fabrication of Shia. The Prophet (saw) never gave it anyone during his life not to Fatima  (ra) or anybody else. 

 
One more wild assumption of yours. Are you now going to deny the history because it doesn't fit your fantasies? It is an agreed fact that witnesses were asked by Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) was one of the witnesses. If you deny this basic historical fact, you must have some proof to back up your claim?
 

Each wife of the Prophet (saw) had a house and it was named after each of them i.e. House of Aisha  (ra) etc. Even the Quran says to the wives of the Prophet (saw) "and stay in your houses". 

 
Where is the proof to support your claim? Your houses doesn't mean a house which you own. People who live in rented houses also call their current home as their home. How does it make it a home which they own? What weird logic are you presenting?
 
Again, if you have any proofs present them or agree that you are lying here.
 

The reason I compared other lands given Ahlulbayt because you claim they were 'usurpers'. The point was how can they be 'usurpers' when they gave other lands to Ahlulbayt and gave priority to them when distributing wealth. 

 
Again, and where is the proof?
 
Please stop making claims when you cannot support them with proofs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

Your question is wrong. It was a matter they disagreed, it doesn't mean one was truthful and the other was liar. Your question should be who was right and who was mistaken. 

 

When your Maraji disagree on certain matters do you say "which of them is truthfull and which of them is liar" or do you say "which of them is correct and which of them are mistaken"?

 

So why not say the same for the Students and Companions of the Prophet of Islam (saw)? 

We call this behavior as hypocrisy. For so many posts for you yhe OP question was not appearing wrong. And you were discussing like anything. Now suddenly OP questions becomes wrong. Man get a life.

Just a thought

one simple verse:

If you help him (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) not (it does not matter), for Allah did indeed help him when the disbelievers drove him out, the second of the two; when they were in the cave, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said to his companion : “Be not sad (or afraid), surely Allah is with us.” Then Allah sent down His sakinah (calmness, tranquillity, peace) upon him, and strengthened him with forces (angels) which you saw not, and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowermost, while the Word of Allah that became the uppermost; and Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #40)

We all know who was the SECOND of the TWO

And also here is another verse;

"Those who spent and fought before the victory are not upon a level (with the rest of you)." (57:10)

We all know how much wealth Abu Bakr siddique ra spent ( ALL OF IT)

Jazakhallah

 

Mr Jazakallah

 

There is long debate on this verse. In this verse in fact Abu Bakr is condemed not praised. I hope some other brother will guide you to the link. Read it

Just a thought

And also here is another verse;

"Those who spent and fought before the victory are not upon a level (with the rest of you)." (57:10)

We all know how much wealth Abu Bakr siddique ra spent ( ALL OF IT)

Jazakhallah

For you its all about wealth isnt it? 

 

Another verse read this; 

 

Allah has said, (Surely the righteous shall drink of a cup the admixture of which is camphor. A fountain from which the servants of Allah shall drink; they make it to flow a (goodly) flowing forth. They fulfill vows and fear a day the evil of which shall be spreading far and wide. And they give food out of love for Him to the poor and the orphan and the captive. We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks. 76:5-9).

 

Another;

 

Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House, and to purify you a (thorough) purifying. 33:33).

 

These verses are for Ahle Bait p.b.u.t and Lady Fatimah s.a is in it. 

 

 

Now for Abu Bakr ......Read sura Hujraat and commentary of its initials verses. 

 

This is not just a thought, but haq. 

Edited by Muntaqim Force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Did Abu bakr gifted the land of fadak to his own sons?????? If yes than I doubt his intention....

Did Abu bakr snatched fadak from SYEDA E KAINAT and gifted to his wife ????? If yes than I doubt his intention......

Did Abu bakr usurped fadak and distributed it among his cousins ????? If yes than I doubt his intention......

After snatching fadak did Abu bakr started wearing expensive clothes???? If yes than I doubt his intention.....

After taking fadak away did Abu bakr started wearing gold or his wife started wearing expensive jewellery...... ????? If yes than I doubt his intention.....

Did Abu bakr after usurping fadak did pomp and show of himself????? If yes than I doubt his intention

On the other hand IMAM E HASSAN AS and IMAM HUSSAIN AS used to take the share out of fadak and not only that they kept on taking the share for 30 years....... Why did they do so if it was snatched from their mother..... There is something called ghairat...... Where was there integrity when they took the share from fadak.....
Where was there self respect when they were taking share of fadak from caliphs who snatched it from their mother....

People are talking all sorts

Get a grip

 

Advocate123

 

Few observation and queries

 

1.   What was the utilization of that money? Any authentic references ?

 

2.   What exactly the expenditure occurred on apostate wars then and from which all sources?

 

3.   Pomp and show reminds me another question with respect to Apostate wars, where people who only refused to accept the Caliph hood and were thus reluctant to give tax, were taken to task, wasn't it is categories in the pomp and show i.e show and use of force against those muslims for accepting him as caliph ? and even we read some narrations where Umer objected to the murder of those muslims.

 

As far as your last sentence in red is concern,This is blasphemy, which you should read yourself and repent. As per my previous interactions with you, you appears to be a person who respect the Masters of Youth in Jannah and yet some words like that for the respect of those Masters which you have used, repent less you are not a sunni but a nasibi which you should then declare / express in clear terms.

 

I also request admins to take a notice of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Advocate123

Few observation and queries

1. What was the utilization of that money? Any authentic references ?

2. What exactly the expenditure occurred on apostate wars then and from which all sources?

3. Pomp and show reminds me another question with respect to Apostate wars, where people who only refused to accept the Caliph hood and were thus reluctant to give tax, were taken to task, wasn't it is categories in the pomp and show i.e show and use of force against those muslims for accepting him as caliph ? and even we read some narrations where Umer objected to the murder of those muslims.

As far as your last sentence in red is concern,This is blasphemy, which you should read yourself and repent. As per my previous interactions with you, you appears to be a person who respect the Masters of Youth in Jannah and yet some words like that for the respect of those Masters which you have used, repent less you are not a sunni but a nasibi which you should then declare / express in clear terms.

I also request admins to take a notice of this.

I would appreciate if u would have answered,

Since u had knowledge of two things so u cleverly marked them in red and answered them and ignored the rest..... I like ur style as well.... Very shrewd and deceitful MASHALLAH

In the name of Allah I have committed no blasphemy ...... I wish a learned person would have read my thread..... But unfortunately it did not happened.....

Asking administration to intervene , why don't u answer that part

Last but not the least if the administration of this post is offended or is in doubt than I ask them to contact me as in the name of Allah ill provide them with references from three commentaries of sharah Nahj ul balaga with three different authors one published in Iran, one published in Lebanon and one I have forgotten with different authors to prove my stance....

I will not repent as to whatever is written, rather than asking administration to intervene please answer .......

I would like to again ask why was share from same land of fadak being taken for 30 consecutive years ....... Where was the ghairat of the kings of youth of paradise..... These princes of HOLY PROPHET SAWW for whom I believe if wished than jibrael and mikael would have brought food from heaven

For if they wished the angels of Allah SWT would have guarded their house doors

What prompted them to take share for 30 years from snatchers of fadak..... Where was the integrity gone????? Where was the ghairat gone????? Where was the self respect gone????? And it did not revived for 30 long years and it seems to be surprisingly revived in the modern world for some reason....

If I get banned ill be the most happiest person indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have recently switched from sunni to shia beliefs and only reason was that bibi fatima (s.a) was unhappy with Abu bakr. thats enough for someone who has a mind to think ! & who wants to board the ark of Noah !

The ark of Noah can be boarded irrespective , it's just a way of thinking..... Anyways if u have done so , may ur knowledge increase by leaps and bounds....

JAZAK Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

I would appreciate if u would have answered,
Since u had knowledge of two things so u cleverly marked them in red and answered them and ignored the rest..... I like ur style as well.... Very shrewd and deceitful MASHALLAH
In the name of Allah I have committed no blasphemy ...... I wish a learned person would have read my thread..... But unfortunately it did not happened.....
Asking administration to intervene , why don't u answer that part
Last but not the least if the administration of this post is offended or is in doubt than I ask them to contact me as in the name of Allah ill provide them with references from three commentaries of sharah Nahj ul balaga with three different authors one published in Iran, one published in Lebanon and one I have forgotten with different authors to prove my stance....
I will not repent as to whatever is written, rather than asking administration to intervene please answer
.......
I would like to again ask why was share from same land of fadak being taken for 30 consecutive years ....... Where was the ghairat of the kings of youth of paradise..... These princes of HOLY PROPHET SAWW for whom I believe if wished than jibrael and mikael would have brought food from heaven
For if they wished the angels of Allah SWT would have guarded their house doors
What prompted them to take share for 30 years from snatchers of fadak..... Where was the integrity gone????? Where was the ghairat gone????? Where was the self respect gone????? And it did not revived for 30 long years and it seems to be surprisingly revived in the modern world for some reason....
If I get banned ill be the most happiest person indeed

 

I never gave an answer to any of your questions, rather i raised observations except a sort of reply to your pomp and show question of yours which was also raised as a question not as an answer. Seriously what was your answer as i could not see a reply on the observations.

 

Is this is your answer that you have found me shrewd and deceitful. Subhan Allah, 

 

Why to contact in private, go ahead post your references, who stops you. Since i  have not seen the exact wordings, so i do not know what are you talking about. 

 

Stop your lip service, you do not believe in them as Prince of Paradise, Seriously please explain hadiath which says Hussain o mini wa ana minal Hussain. Had you believed you would have not used word Ghairat. Sunni Brothers do not use words like that its only nasibis who use insulting tone. Asking a question is something academic but questioning integrity is clear cut nasibiyat, So tell me please are you are a nasibi like ibn taymiyyah (LA)

Although I do not follow this Scholar but watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ar2AphvVk

Edited by Malagniman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I never gave an answer to any of your questions, rather i raised observations except a sort of reply to your pomp and show question of yours which was also raised as a question not as an answer. Seriously what was your answer as i could not see a reply on the observations.

Is this is your answer that you have found me shrewd and deceitful. Subhan Allah,

Why to contact in private, go ahead post your references, who stops you. Since i have not seen the exact wordings, so i do not know what are you talking about.

Stop your lip service, you do not believe in them as Prince of Paradise, Seriously please explain hadiath which says Hussain o mini wa ana minal Hussain. Had you believed you would have not used word Ghairat. Sunni Brothers do not use words like that its only nasibis who use insulting tone. Asking a question is something academic but questioning integrity is clear cut nasibiyat, So tell me please are you are a nasibi like ibn taymiyyah (LA)

Although I do not follow this Scholar but watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ar2AphvVk

Brother malagniman ,

When same tone , attitude and even more derogatory words are used for the opposite side ..... At that time no one speaks up

But these days the problem is that when a taste of ones own medicine is given to oneself.... Than people start asking the administration to intervene....

Those words were used for a purpose of realisation..... I m not what u r thinking.....

I will not repent but I apologise sincerely as it all outraged ur feelings....

Tc bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have recently switched from sunni to shia beliefs and only reason was that bibi fatima (s.a) was unhappy with Abu bakr. thats enough for someone who has a mind to think ! & who wants to board the ark of Noah !

And which ark would that be??? Twelvers, Ismaili , zaydi......and the list goes on. Could you point me to the right ark please, since all shia use these same boring lame arguments regarding abu bakr r.a

Edited by Just the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And which ark would that be??? Twelvers, Ismaili , zaydi......and the list goes on. Could you point me to the right ark please, since all shia use these same boring lame arguments regarding abu bakr r.a

Lol.....

U r now taking the piss bruv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And which ark would that be??? Twelvers, Ismaili , zaydi......and the list goes on. Could you point me to the right ark please, since all shia use these same boring lame arguments regarding abu bakr r.a

Hanafi, hannbali, shafii, Maliki, wahabi, salafi, deobandi...

Brother malagniman ,When same tone , attitude and even more derogatory words are used for the opposite side ..... At that time no one speaks upBut these days the problem is that when a taste of ones own medicine is given to oneself.... Than people start asking the administration to intervene....Those words were used for a purpose of realisation..... I m not what u r thinking.....I will not repent but I apologise sincerely as it all outraged ur feelings....Tc bro

And what medicine have the users of this forum given you? Or are you talking in a general sense?

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...