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

The Ahlul Bayt - The Family Of The Beloved

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Don't mindlessly copy-paste me things (especially after having a history of condemning others for that) because I have a feeling that a person who cannot translate a page of arabic (with generous margins and footnotes) given over a week will find all this information so soon.

 

 

 

Copy paste? it took me two days to research on this topic & gather all the concrete evidence to refute ur arguments & u start off by saying its a copy paste?  very well.. even the dumbest person here can see that proper evidence has been provided. btw can u show the other readers the location from where i have copy pasted the images? & as for that page mockery.. you will see ur partner in crime feeling ashamed & being beaten to ground (as u have seen before) once i have got the whole topic translated. u have asked for a page? i will provide u the whole topic translated to clear all misconceptions & expose ur lies & misquotations. Just wait & see.

 

 

 

 

 

It's obvious that the richness bibi Fatima  (as) is asking from Rasul Allah (saww) isn't literally Fiqhi Tarika, grandchildren don't inherit in Shi'a fiqh if the parents are still alive, they inherit if their parents are dead:

 

(مسألة 1320): إذا لم يكن للميت ابن أو بنت بلا واسطة كان الأرث لأولادهما فيرث حفيده حصة أبيه، وإن كان إنثى ويرث سبطه حصة أمه، وإن كان ذكرا " ومع التعدد في كلا الفرضين للذكر مثل حظ الأنثيين، فلو مات شخص عن بنت ابن وابن بنت: أخذت البنت سهمين وأخذ الأبن سهما واحدا.
 
 

 

 

SubhanAllah is that ur refutation?

 

 

If that isnt the fiqhi tarika than what is the hadith implying? dont bother quoting the hadith which is irrelevant to the topic.

 

 

 
As for the hadith you provide from Al-Kafi:
 
١ ـ محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن أبي الحسن الثاني عليه‌السلام قال سألته عن الحيطان السبعة التي كانت ميراث رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله لفاطمة عليها‌السلام فقال لا إنما كانت وقفا وكان رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله يأخذ إليه منها ما ينفق على أضيافه والتابعة يلزمه فيها فلما قبض جاء العباس يخاصم فاطمة عليها‌السلام فيها فشهد علي عليه‌السلام وغيره أنها وقف على فاطمة عليها‌السلام وهي الدلال والعواف والحسنى والصافية وما لأم إبراهيم والميثب والبرقة.
 
 

The narrator says this was mirath but the Imam corrects him saying this was waqf, and says Syeda Fatima  (as) was the trustee this waqf (to take care of its affairs. In case you don't understand/know what waqf is, it's public property (e.g. a Masjid). She was its caretaker but this wasn't her own property like Fadak was.

 

 

 

Yes, thats a very smart  way of  arriving at a judgement  & making a fool out of those who have no understanding of arabic. can u please translate the whole text word by word keeping in view the arabic grammar to avoid any misconceptions? 

 

 

 

 

As for the ahadith you give to me about women not inheriting, I addressed this issue before but let me post again what I wrote in case you didn't see, I established these are talking about the wife not inheriting from Aqqaar (property/land) as is even stated in the hadith you provided:

 

 

 

 

Sure... 

 

 

491، 13 - 1 - علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن محمد بن حمران، عن زرارة عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: النساء لا يرثن من الارض ولا من العقار شيئا(2).

 

 

If u had read the hadith properly u might have noticed that they were two hadith & this one was the first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next time research what you write properly.

 

 

 

 

My research was proper & my refutations were to the point... there is absolutely no shame in admitting the flaws in ones faith especally those who are in minority & disputed... process that

Edited by Invoker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bismihi Ta'ala   Assalamu Alaykum   Before I continue regarding what you posted about the hadith of the Prophets not bequeathing dirham or dinar, I'd like to state my view on it. I think this Hadith i

(bismillah)     You actually believe those are his صلى الله عليه وآله weapons and material? Different countries claim the same artifacts, as far as I remember hearing. Let's not forget the claims made

Don't mindlessly copy-paste me things (especially after having a history of condemning others for that) because I have a feeling that a person who cannot translate a page of arabic (with generous marg

  • Veteran Member

Salaam alaykum,

 

1.  There are seven authentic narrations found in our books, regarding this matter, and only two mention sadaqah.

 

Let me only quote the relevant portion of each of the seven narrations.

 

Bukhari :: Book 53 :: Volume 4 :: Hadith 325
Narrated ‘Aisha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him.
 

Muslim :: Book 19 : Hadith 4354
It has been narrated by ‘Urwa b Zubair on the authority of ‘A’isha, wife of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), that Fatima, daughter of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), requested Abu Bakr, after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him), that he should set apart her share from what the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had left from the properties that God had bestowed upon him.
 

Bukhari :: Book 59 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 368
Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar.
 

Bukhari :: Book 80 :: Volume 8 :: Hadith 718
Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al ‘Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar.
 
Tirmidhi: 1614

Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah (ra) reported that Sayyidiah Fatimah (ra) came to Sayyidina Abu Bakr (ra) and asked, “Who will inherit you?” He said, “My wife and my children.”
She asked, “Then, what is with me that I do not inherit my father?”
 
So here we have five narrations that do not suggest that Fatima [ra] asked for Fadak as sadaqah.
 
Again, as I have said so many times, please understand things - and study Islam - holistically.
 
2.  That narration backfired more than it did good to your cause.  For argument's sake, let's say that Umar [ra] believed that Fadak was the Prophet's [saw] property.  The Qur'an says that fay "belongs to" and then mentions several categories of people.  The Qur'an, therefore, takes precedence.
 

 

(wasalam)

 

1. Are you trying to suggest that the narrations which state that it was Sadqa are false ones?

 

So if the narration you presented earlier from your Sahih book is not true, then please present a narration which shows that Abu Bakr offered anything to the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh)?

 

Thanks for your suggestion but more than me as I have pointed out earlier based on your mistakes, you need to study and understand Islam historically. It would be better if you practice before your preach.

 

2. So are you now suggesting that even Umar misinterpreted the Quranic verses? 

 

I am surprised to see you saying that Quran takes precedence when only the other day you tried portraying that a narration can override the Quranic verses to prove your point. Please make up your mind and tell me which of the two versions you believe to be true.

 

The fact that the people who lived during the revelation of the Quran interpreted the verses in a way contrary to what modern day scholars like you are interpreting is clear evidence that your translation of the Quranic verses is totally WRONG.

 

 

 

The "outstanding questions" are to pave a way for you standing outside to get back in and hopefully stage a comeback in this discussion.  The only point you cannot let go off is the horses of Sulaiman [as].  I have already addressed that except you want a "yes" or "no" answer.

 

 

 

It is there for everyone to see who is desperately waiting to stage a comeback into this discussion. Any truth seeker can see how the questions which will expose your treacherous lies have remain unanswered.

 

You have no Quranic verses to prove your poiint, no narrations to prove that how you are interpreting Quranic verses is similar to what was understand back in those days, you falsely accuse the Prophet (pbuh) of not informing his family about their share after his death, your mis-interpretation of the Quranic verses has been exposed time and time again, your illogical statements contradicting the historical facts exposed, etc etc... Yet instead of apologizing for defaming the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh), you have the audacity to continue your dishonest ways and accuse me of having no point to discuss? Your deceitful stance will no longer will be tolerated. 

 

 

The fact that you have no answer to the question if Prophet Dawood's property was left as alms is a clear proof of how you are deliberately avoiding questions, And now you say that you have answered about the Horses (which you still haven't) when the question which is waiting for an answer is about everything which Prophet Dawood (as) left behind. Either you are acting dumb or you are here to only play deceitful games to defend the MISTAKES of your demi-gods.

 

 

If you are true in your claims then why are you running away from the questions? Let's see how truthful you are. Can you answer the questions asked? Or risk exposing your true face to everyone as you have not run out of more lies.

 

 

We are all waiting for your answers to the questions asked to end this discussion. Man up and answer them. Enough of dodging the questions.

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1. By the way, it is funny how you want me to bring a Qur'anic verse which says that Prophets [asws] do not leave inheritance - when we know that the case of Zakariya [as] and Dawud [as] make it obvious - yet you do not need any Qur'anic verse for the family [ra] of the Prophet [saw] not receiving sadaqa.

 

2. In the case of the family [ra] of the Prophet [saw] not taking sadaqa, an authentic narration is sufficient but when it comes to Prophets [asws] not leaving inheritance - despite narrations in both Shia and Sunni texts - you demand for a clear Qur'anic verse.

 

3. Again, let me remind you that the family (wives, Fatima and Imam Ali, may Allah be pleased with them all) of the Prophet [saw] used to take a stipend from the "bayt ul maal" or state treasury which is a lot different than sadaqa.

 

4. Lastly, scholars are of the opinion that while Zakat is impermissible upon the family [ra] of the Prophet [saw], they can take from voluntary charity, not obligatory (Zakat).  Disputable and a little out of the scope of our discussion but thought I should share it.

 

 

One more post full of lies and incorrect translations of the Quranic verses.

 

 

1. It really is funny as the Quranic proves that every man & woman have a share in inheritance. Yet you speak of something which goes against the Quran. The case of Prophet Zakariya (as) and Prophet Dawood (as) proves you wrong again.

 

2. And which authentic narration would that be? The one narrated by Abu Bakr? And yes, I demand a Quranic verse as Quran tells us that everyone has a share. So if Abu Bakr thought there is an exception for the Prophets then it better be proven from Quran.

 

3. You bring a narration saying they demanded Sadqa and when confronted you run away from the discussion hiding behind more fabrications.

 

4. One more point totally irrelevant to our discussion.

 

 

 

One more post of yours and guess what the questions still remain unanswered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Shia hadiths go as far as pronouncing that Prophets [asws] do not leave "dinar" and "dirham".

 

 

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

 

You truly seem to be a follower of the above. Unfortunately for you it won't work here on SC.

 

Your lies have been exposed so many times and yet you shamelessly quote the same lie again and again. I doubt if you have ever opened the book and read the hadith to understand the context.

 

Fear Allah swt and stop spreading the lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

SubhanAllah is that ur refutation?

 

 

If that isnt the fiqhi tarika than what is the hadith implying? dont bother quoting the hadith which is irrelevant to the topic.

Whatever it is, it isn't literal, talking about how the Imams inherited their characteristics from the Prophet if anything. The reason it cannot be literal is because it doesn't make sense, fiqhi speaking a grandson will not inherit from his grandfather if his parents are still alive. Therefore it's only speaking in the sense of how Hassanain were a mirror of their grandfather and not saying that this is all that they could inherit.

 

 

Yes, thats a very smart  way of  arriving at a judgement  & making a fool out of those who have no understanding of arabic. can u please translate the whole text word by word keeping in view the arabic grammar to avoid any misconceptions? 

 

I don't know who taught you Arabic but that's what's written. It's hard to do a word by word translation due to the confusing wordings but this is about the best translation I could give:

 

١ ـ محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن أبي الحسن الثاني عليه‌السلام قال سألته عن الحيطان السبعة التي كانت ميراث رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله لفاطمة عليها‌السلام فقال لا إنما كانت وقفا وكان رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله يأخذ إليه منها ما ينفق على أضيافه والتابعة يلزمه فيها فلما قبض جاء العباس يخاصم فاطمة عليها‌السلام فيها فشهد علي عليه‌السلام وغيره أنها وقف على فاطمة عليها‌السلام وهي الدلال والعواف والحسنى والصافية وما لأم إبراهيم والميثب والبرقة.
 
Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from Abi Al-Hasan Al-Thani (as) he said: "I (Ahmad ibn Muhammad) asked him about the seven gardens which were the inheritance of Rasul Allah (saww) to Fatima (as)" So he said: "No, verily it was waqf (public property) and Rasul Allah would take to it from it what he would sustain his guests with and those things that followed that were necessary. So when it was seized, Abbas came with legal action against Fatima, so Ali and others acted as witnesses that it was waqf (public property) upon Fatima (i.e. that she was its trustee to take care of it), and it is Al-Dalal, and Al-Awaf, and Al-Husna, and Al-Safiya, and what was to Um Ibrahim, and Muthayib, and Al-Burqah."
 
This narration in no way says it was her private property, but the narrator asks the Imam about it thinking it was her inheritance and He (as) corrects him saying it was actually public domain in the trust of Fatima, and this was not her own private property.
 

 

Sure... 

 

 

491، 13 - 1 - علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن محمد بن حمران، عن زرارة عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: النساء لا يرثن من الارض ولا من العقار شيئا(2).

 

 

If u had read the hadith properly u might have noticed that they were two hadith & this one was the first.

 

I don't know how much Shi'a hadith you've read, but if you have read even a little you'd learn that they use Al-Mar'a/Imra'at interchangeably with wife (and if you know basic Arabic, you know Nisa is plural of Al-Mar'a/Imra'at). As I stated before these narrations are talking solely about the wife not inheriting from earth or property and not all women. The translation of this would be "The wife (lit. woman) doesn't inherit anything from earth or from property", they can inherit though from the proceeds of the earth or property. I highlighted in that post of mine I quoted which you totally seemed to have ignored this when I showed you that though this is only talking about wives, a daughter can inherit from her father:

 

محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، وعن عدَّة من أصحابنا ، عن سهل بن زياد جميعاً ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن ابن رئاب ، عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) في رجل مات وترك ابنته واُخته لأبيه واُمّه ، فقال : المال للابنة ، وليس للاُخت من الأب والاُمّ شيء
 
Imam Al-Baqir regarding a man who does and leaves his daughter, sister from his father, and mother, so he said: "The wealth to his daughter and not a thing to his sister from his father and his mother"
 
Wasa'il Al-Shia volume 26 page 103
 
Syed Al-Rohani in fiqh al-sadiq volume 23 declares the Hadith Sahih, like I said before as well I'm not sure if this is speaking in terms of wasiyya or no but that's irrelevant because the point shows that she does inherit.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whatever it is, it isn't literal, talking about how the Imams inherited their characteristics from the Prophet if anything. The reason it cannot be literal is because it doesn't make sense, fiqhi speaking a grandson will not inherit from his grandfather if his parents are still alive. Therefore it's only speaking in the sense of how Hassanain were a mirror of their grandfather and not saying that this is all that they could inherit.

 

 

 

 

Never mind.

 

 

 

 

I don't know who taught you Arabic but that's what's written. It's hard to do a word by word translation due to the confusing wordings but this is about the best translation I could give:

 

١ ـ محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن أبي الحسن الثاني عليه‌السلام قال سألته عن الحيطان السبعة التي كانت ميراث رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله لفاطمة عليها‌السلام فقال لا إنما كانت وقفا وكان رسول الله صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله يأخذ إليه منها ما ينفق على أضيافه والتابعة يلزمه فيها فلما قبض جاء العباس يخاصم فاطمة عليها‌السلام فيها فشهد علي عليه‌السلام وغيره أنها وقف على فاطمة عليها‌السلام وهي الدلال والعواف والحسنى والصافية وما لأم إبراهيم والميثب والبرقة.
 
Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from Abi Al-Hasan Al-Thani (as) he said: "I (Ahmad ibn Muhammad) asked him about the seven gardens which were the inheritance of Rasul Allah (saww) to Fatima (as)" So he said: "No, verily it was waqf (public property) and Rasul Allah would take to it from it what he would sustain his guests with and those things that followed that were necessary. So when it was seized, Abbas came with legal action against Fatima, so Ali and others acted as witnesses that it was waqf (public property) upon Fatima (i.e. that she was its trustee to take care of it), and it is Al-Dalal, and Al-Awaf, and Al-Husna, and Al-Safiya, and what was to Um Ibrahim, and Muthayib, and Al-Burqah."
 
This narration in no way says it was her private property, but the narrator asks the Imam about it thinking it was her inheritance and He (as) corrects him saying it was actually public domain in the trust of Fatima, and this was not her own private property.
 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary i am interested to know who taught YOU arabic because how on earth can u assume that it was waqf for the public? It can be waqf for 1 family or even 1 person.

 

As for ur translation of the hadith, here is what the correct translation is:

 

 

fat1_zpsc70922a4.jpg

 

 

What are the merits of being a beneficiary?

 

A beneficiary (also, in trust lawcestui que use) in the broadest sense is a natural person or other legal entity who receives money or other benefits from a benefactor. For example, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is the person who receives the payment of the amount of insurance after the death of the insured. The beneficiaries of a trust are the persons with equitable ownership of the will are called devisees or legatees according to local custom.

 

 

& for ur surprise there are some other narrations which clear all the doubts about these seven gardens. lets look at them shall we?

 

 

fat2_zpsebefbcd0.jpg

 

 

fat3_zps6e08ffd6.jpg

 

 

 

So i am sure that u have absolutely no idea about the story of these seven gardens & what much more interesting is that ur scholars shout day & night over fadak but they have never mentioned their followers about these gardens which ahly bayt possessed.

 

 

 


 

I don't know how much Shi'a hadith you've read, but if you have read even a little you'd learn that they use Al-Mar'a/Imra'at interchangeably with wife (and if you know basic Arabic, you know Nisa is plural of Al-Mar'a/Imra'at). As I stated before these narrations are talking solely about the wife not inheriting from earth or property and not all women. The translation of this would be "The wife (lit. woman) doesn't inherit anything from earth or from property", they can inherit though from the proceeds of the earth or property. I highlighted in that post of mine I quoted which you totally seemed to have ignored this when I showed you that though this is only talking about wives, a daughter can inherit from her father:

 

محمد بن يعقوب ، عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، وعن عدَّة من أصحابنا ، عن سهل بن زياد جميعاً ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن ابن رئاب ، عن زرارة عن أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) في رجل مات وترك ابنته واُخته لأبيه واُمّه ، فقال : المال للابنة ، وليس للاُخت من الأب والاُمّ شيء
 
Imam Al-Baqir regarding a man who does and leaves his daughter, sister from his father, and mother, so he said: "The wealth to his daughter and not a thing to his sister from his father and his mother"
 
Wasa'il Al-Shia volume 26 page 103
 
Syed Al-Rohani in fiqh al-sadiq volume 23 declares the Hadith Sahih, like I said before as well I'm not sure if this is speaking in terms of wasiyya or no but that's irrelevant because the point shows that she does inherit.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisa literally means women. That is a horrible argument to refute the meaning of hadith & even if we assume that that such rulings are valid than fatima was not the only one who had the right to inherit fadak. The existence of maternal uncle Abbas who surprisingly tried to dispute the other seven gardens as mentioned in the first hadith image of this post was alive but we find NO authentic evidence that he claimed his share in fadak.

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

. The existence of maternal uncle Abbas who surprisingly tried to dispute the other seven gardens as mentioned in the first hadith image of this post was alive but we find NO authentic evidence that he claimed his share in fadak.

 

 

 

What about this?

 

 

“...Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.” 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(wasalam)

 

1. Are you trying to suggest that the narrations which state that it was Sadqa are false ones?

 

2. So are you now suggesting that even Umar misinterpreted the Quranic verses? 

 

3.  Any truth seeker can see how the questions which will expose your treacherous lies have remain unanswered.

 

4. Your deceitful stance will no longer will be tolerated. 

 

 

5. The fact that you have no answer to the question if Prophet Dawood's property was left as alms is a clear proof of how you are deliberately avoiding questions, 

 

6. I am surprised to see you saying that Quran takes precedence when only the other day you tried portraying that a narration can override the Quranic verses to prove your point. 

 

 

Salaam alaykum,

 

1.  Again, you have to understand a matter holistically.  The narrations which contain the word "sadaqa" are not weak except five out of seven do not contain the word "sadaqa".  Therefore, while the narrations confirm each other, only the use of the word "sadaqa" becomes a matter of contention.  For example - and here is when you will gauge my level of honesty, transparency and dedication to this subject - there are 20 narrations (in total) that directly or indirectly deal with Fatima [ra] asking Abu Bakr [ra] and her reaction.  11 out of 20 are found with no mention of Fatima [ra] getting upset or leaving with anger.

 

Holistically, and quantitatively, you cannot disregard the narrations but the matter of anger becomes questionable.  

 

2.  I was only going by your interpretation - agreeing for the sake of argument - though Umar [ra] never suggested that Fadak belonged exclusively to the Prophet [saw].  

 

3.  Treacherous lies?  Brother, other than ShiaPen articles, you have not studied a darn thing regarding the issue of Fadak.  The questions which you claim to have remained unanswered are all included in the articles - pertaining to Fadak - at ShiaPen.  You are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

4.  Deceitful stance will not be tolerated?  I think I have tolerated, and entertained, you for longer than anyone else would have cared.

 

5.  I am using your own argument against you and you have no rebuttal but to re-state your question which has already been answered.  Going by the narration, if nothing from that which belonged to Dawud [as] was given in charity, then he [as] left no inheritance, therefore, he [as] had nothing of his own.  His kingdom was not his own as we find is the message in the Qur'an.  

 

You harp upon the kingdom of Dawud [as] and its transfer to Sulaiman [as] while you ignore the fate of the kingdom before Dawud [as] and after Sulaiman [as].  You ignore Talut [as] and I am certain you know nothing as to what happened to the kingdom after Sulaiman [as].

 

6.  Override is not the word I used.  I think I used the word "modify".

 

 

 

 

 

1. It really is funny as the Quranic proves that every man & woman have a share in inheritance. Yet you speak of something which goes against the Quran. The case of Prophet Zakariya (as) and Prophet Dawood (as) proves you wrong again.

 

2.  And yes, I demand a Quranic verse as Quran tells us that everyone has a share. So if Abu Bakr thought there is an exception for the Prophets then it better be proven from Quran.

 

 

 

1.  Wow!  9 pages and I have touched everything related to Zakariya [as] and Dawud [as] and you remain adamant.

 

2.  Consumption of Zakat was impermissible for the Prophet [saw] and his family [ra].  If this exception was made, it "better be proven from Qur'an".  Otherwise, stay quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Invoker be aware that Muhammad Sarwar's translation of al Kafi is so poor sometimes it is a joke.

 

 

Maybe.. but not not on this one.

 

 

 

What about this?

 

 

“...Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.” 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720

 

 

 

 

This was after the death of Fatima & during the reign of Caliph Umar. The point is why he didnt claim fadak alongside with fatima? Shiapen quotes only a part which u have copied... read the whole narration.

Edited by Invoker
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Salaam alaykum,

 

1.  Again, you have to understand a matter holistically.  The narrations which contain the word "sadaqa" are not weak except five out of seven do not contain the word "sadaqa".  Therefore, while the narrations confirm each other, only the use of the word "sadaqa" becomes a matter of contention.  For example - and here is when you will gauge my level of honesty, transparency and dedication to this subject - there are 20 narrations (in total) that directly or indirectly deal with Fatima [ra] asking Abu Bakr [ra] and her reaction.  11 out of 20 are found with no mention of Fatima [ra] getting upset or leaving with anger.

 

Holistically, and quantitatively, you cannot disregard the narrations but the matter of anger becomes questionable.  

 

2.  I was only going by your interpretation - agreeing for the sake of argument - though Umar [ra] never suggested that Fadak belonged exclusively to the Prophet [saw].  

 

3.  Treacherous lies?  Brother, other than ShiaPen articles, you have not studied a darn thing regarding the issue of Fadak.  The questions which you claim to have remained unanswered are all included in the articles - pertaining to Fadak - at ShiaPen.  You are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

4.  Deceitful stance will not be tolerated?  I think I have tolerated, and entertained, you for longer than anyone else would have cared.

 

5.  I am using your own argument against you and you have no rebuttal but to re-state your question which has already been answered.  Going by the narration, if nothing from that which belonged to Dawud [as] was given in charity, then he [as] left no inheritance, therefore, he [as] had nothing of his own.  His kingdom was not his own as we find is the message in the Qur'an.  

 

You harp upon the kingdom of Dawud [as] and its transfer to Sulaiman [as] while you ignore the fate of the kingdom before Dawud [as] and after Sulaiman [as].  You ignore Talut [as] and I am certain you know nothing as to what happened to the kingdom after Sulaiman [as].

 

6.  Override is not the word I used.  I think I used the word "modify".

 

 

(wasalam)

 

 

1. I like the way how you to try defending the lies in your books. But in simple words, it can be either Sadqa or it can't be Sadqa. If it wasn't sadqa then the narrations you presented are to be considered unauthentic. Do you agree?

 

2. You don't have to suggest anything for argument's sake as Umar clearly states in the narration that the lands from Bani Nadir were meant for the Prophet (pbuh) contradicting your incorrect stance. Please read the narrations from your own books before making false claims.

 

3. Wrong again. The questions I have put forward have not been taken from Shiapen. If you think you are the sharpest tool in the shed then why don't you try answering them instead of running away from them for so long?

 

4. Yes, it's there for everyone to see who has been constantly mis-translating the Quranic verses to his liking, not agreeing with his own's caliphs when they contradict his stance, stating things which contradict historical facts, trying to malign the Prophet (pbuh) and his family, dodging simple questions which will seal the fate of this discussion etc.

 

5. Again, another desperate attempt. The kingdom was not his own??? What a joke? Quran clearly tells us Prophet Sulaiman (as) was Prophet Dawood's (as) heir & the fact that he inherited the kingdom proves you wrong again. Your arguments are baseless again. Can you answer the question asked instead of muddying the waters?

 

6. So you believe narrations take precedence over Quran? Please make up your mind and tell me which one you think takes precedence. So far I have seen two conflicting opinions from you.

 

 

 

1.  Wow!  9 pages and I have touched everything related to Zakariya [as] and Dawud [as] and you remain adamant.
 
2.  Consumption of Zakat was impermissible for the Prophet [saw] and his family [ra].  If this exception was made, it "better be proven from Qur'an".  Otherwise, stay quiet.

 

 

 

1. I remain steadfast because you have been incorrectly translating the verses to suite your liking. Which is why I have been asking you the questions which you have been so desperately avoiding.

 

2. I have already proven why Zakat was exempted for the Prophet (pbuh) and his family. I am not going to repeat myself just because you want to deviate the topic. You can scroll back a few pages and read my reply.

 

 

Now that all your desperate attempts at dragging this discussion are laying to waste, can we get back to business? Is it too much to expect you to answer a few questions????

 

 

You have not left an iota of doubt for people reading this thread about who you follow and idolize. Just like how your demi-gods use to run away from difficult situations, I find you running away from questions which will expose the castle of lies upon which the Caliphate has been built. If you think otherwise then start answering the questions. As you seem to be having difficulty answering all the questions together let me break them for you and go one question at a time if that helps you.

 

 

Do you have a verse from Quran which exempts the Prophets from inheritance?

 

 

Please reply to the above question and stop emulating your demi gods or stay quiet.

 

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Maybe.. but not not on this one.

 

 

 

 

This was after the death of Fatima & during the reign of Caliph Umar. The point is why he didnt claim fadak alongside with fatima? Shiapen quotes only a part which u have copied... read the whole narration.

 

Are you okay? Why would he "claim" Fadak "alongside" Fatima Zahra (sa) when only she was entitled to it? He advanced his claim when his claim became matures i.e. he was seeking his share from Fatima Zahra's share from her father's property. Have a look at it again:

 

 

“...Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.” 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(wasalam)

 

 

1. I like the way how you to try defending the lies in your books. But in simple words, it can be either Sadqa or it can't be Sadqa. If it wasn't sadqa then the narrations you presented are to be considered unauthentic. Do you agree?

 

2. You don't have to suggest anything for argument's sake as Umar clearly states in the narration that the lands from Bani Nadir were meant for the Prophet (pbuh) contradicting your incorrect stance. Please read the narrations from your own books before making false claims.

 

3. Wrong again. The questions I have put forward have not been taken from Shiapen. If you think you are the sharpest tool in the shed then why don't you try answering them instead of running away from them for so long?

 

4. Yes, it's there for everyone to see who has been constantly mis-translating the Quranic verses to his liking, not agreeing with his own's caliphs when they contradict his stance, stating things which contradict historical facts, trying to malign the Prophet (pbuh) and his family, dodging simple questions which will seal the fate of this discussion etc.

 

5. Again, another desperate attempt. The kingdom was not his own??? What a joke? Quran clearly tells us Prophet Sulaiman (as) was Prophet Dawood's (as) heir & the fact that he inherited the kingdom proves you wrong again. Your arguments are baseless again. Can you answer the question asked instead of muddying the waters?

 

6. So you believe narrations take precedence over Quran? Please make up your mind and tell me which one you think takes precedence. So far I have seen two conflicting opinions from you.

 

7. I remain steadfast because you have been incorrectly translating the verses to suite your liking. Which is why I have been asking you the questions which you have been so desperately avoiding.

 

8. I have already proven why Zakat was exempted for the Prophet (pbuh) and his family. I am not going to repeat myself just because you want to deviate the topic. You can scroll back a few pages and read my reply.

 

9. You have not left an iota of doubt for people reading this thread about who you follow and idolize. Just like how your demi-gods use to run away from difficult situations, I find you running away from questions which will expose the castle of lies upon which the Caliphate has been built. 

 

10. Please reply to the above question and stop emulating your demi gods or stay quiet.

 

 

Walaykum as salaam,

 

1.  You are something else!  Your shamelessness is beyond any imagination.  You have lied multiple times, took support from weak, inauthentic, downright deceptive narrations, cannot prove that Fadak belonged to the Prophet [saw], you have not studied anything I have brought forth regarding Dawud [as] and Zakariya [as], failed to reconcile whether Fadak was "gift" or "inheritance" - the list goes on - and you want to assert that because the word "sadaqa" appears in a few narrations, they are somehow weak?!

 

The kindred had a share in fay and that is what the verse says.  Please find reconciliation for your own fairy tales otherwise ShiaPen will only walk you into embarrassment after another.

 

2.  Now you want me to bring up that narration and refute you again?  Thanks but no thanks!  For someone with the slightest amount of decency, it is enough for him or her to be exposed once.  However, since you have no shame nor honor, I can destroy every single point of yours, which Alhamdulilah I have, and you will still bring up the same refuted points.

 

3.  Here is one.  Again, if you have any self-respect, this would be enough but having discussed with you long enough, I do not think it will bother your conscience because you possibly might not have one.

 

"We challenge Al Khider and Co to present even a single authentic report proving that the Kingdom of Dawood (as) was distributed among the poor of his nation as Sadaqah after his death."

 

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

4.  While your charges are baseless, I have looked at the matter from every angle whereas you have restricted all the aspects, pertaining to this matter, only to those that barely get you by.

 

For starters, do you want to explain brother ibn Al-Ja'abi's use of the word "waqf"?

 

5.  Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things."  (Surah Baqarah, verse 247)

 

That is the coming into existence of the kingdom and the transfer from Talut [as] to Dawud [as] is what you need to address because before you brought forth your - I should say ShiaPen's - questions, I had already hinted at the transfer of kingdom from Talut [as] to Dawud [as].  You have not even addressed this point nor do I expect you to even stray near it because it does not play into your plan.

 

6.  Are you freaking serious?  It is not "taking precedence" when it explains a Qur'anic injunction or slightly modifies it.  Again, we can see that you could not prove your allegation that I said that narrations "override" the Qur'an. 

 

7.  Please prove it or we will excuse it as just another lie from a habitual liar.

 

8.  The point is not why Zakat is impermissible for the family [ra] of the Prophet [saw] to consume.  The point is that this exception (for Ahlul Bayt [ra]) is not found in the Qur'an as clearly and loudly as we find it in narrations.  Sure you tried to make it appear as though I said that narrations "override" the Qur'an but I was only referring to exactly what I have just highlighted (that hadiths can sometimes make Qur'anic injunctions more clear or provide slight modification or exception to a Qur'anic rule).

 

Here is another one: Qur'an, in Surah Ahzab, only mentions the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] and to identify the Ahlul Kisa [ra], we have to consult authentic narrations (because the Qur'an does not name Imam Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain - may Allah [swt] be pleased with them).  Again, you have to consult authentic hadith to grasp the entire matter.

 

9.  Funny that you have the nerve to say that I believe in "demi gods" and "running away" when you believe that there is a 12th Imam who can hear those who call upon him and he is hiding since he is too frightened to come out.

 

10.  May Allah [swt] give you what you deserve for accusing me of taking "demi gods" and partners with Allah [swt].

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"The kingdom was not his own??? What a joke?"

 

Quoting Ibn Kathir [rah] from http://www.islamawareness.net/Prophets/sulaiman.html

 

When there were displayed before him, in the afternoon, well-trained horses of the highest breed (for jihad in Allah's cause).  And he said: "Alas! I did love the good (these horses) instead of remembering my Lord (in my 'Asr prayer)" till the time was over, and the sun had hidden in the veil of the night.  Then he said: "Bring them (horses) back to me."  Then he began to pass his hand over their legs and their necks (till the end of the display).

 
And indeed We did try Solomon and We placed on his throne Jasadan (a devil, so he lost his kingdom for a while) but he did return (to his throne and kingdom by the Grace of Allah and he did return) to Allah with obedience and in repentance.  He said: "My Lord! Forgive me, and bestow upon me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me. Verily, You are the Bestower."
 
So, We subjected to him the wind, it blew gently to his order whithersoever he willed, and also the devils from the jinns including every kind of builder and diver, and also other bound in fetters. (Saying of Allah to Solomon): "This is Our gift, so spend you or withhold, no account will be asked."  And verily, he enjoyed a near access to Us, and a good final return Paradise. (Surah Sad, verses 31-40).  [end quote]
Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Insha'Allah, I will add a few more points to clarify the nature of kingdom of Dawud [as].  Considering that we are hours away from Ramadan, I will try my best not to indulge in this discussion any further until after Ramadan.

 

Ibn Kathir [rah], in Stories of the Prophets, says about Dawud [as] "Although a king, he did not live on the income of his kingdom.  Being well-experienced in the craft of weapon-making, he made and sold weapons and lived on that income."

 

Coming to Sulaiman [as], Ibn Kathir notes, "Sulaiman [as] inherited Dawud's [as] prophethood and dominion.  This was not material inheritance as prophets [asws] do not bequeath their property.  It is given away to the poor and needy, not to their relatives."

 

We even read in the Qur'an that Sulaiman [as] was offered gifts by Bilqis which he [as] refused to accept.  Sulaiman [as] said that what Allah [swt] has given him is far better than what Allah [swt] had given to Bilqis.  This establishes two things: one, Sulaiman [as], as the heir of Dawud [as], valued prophethood over any wealth.  And two, if Sulaiman [as] inherited abundant wealth from his father [as], he [as] would have expressed the fact that he [as] had already received plenty from Dawud [as] as inheritance and that he [as] was self-sufficient.  But we saw that Dawud [as] lived off of his own income and whatever he [as] earned through weapon-crafting.  In fact, Ibn Kathir says that Sulaiman [as] responded by saying, "Allah [swt] has given me plenty of wealth, a large kingdom and prophethood.  I am, therefore, beyond bribery."

 

"Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: "Will ye give me abundance in wealth?  But that which God has given me is better than that which He has given you!  Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!"  (Surah An-Naml, verse 36)

 

There is no stress upon material inheritance anywhere........neither in the case of Zakariya [as] and Yahya [as] nor in the case of Dawud [as] and Sulaiman [as].

 

So it remains!  Was the kingdom of Dawud [as] given in sadaqah?  Again, the condition is that that which the Prophets [asws] leave behind is given in charity.  If nothing was given in charity, then logic dictates that the kingdom did not belong to Dawud [as] rather it was given to him by Allah [swt].  The Qur'an confirms this as well.  In the case of Sulaiman [as], we read in the Qur'an that Allah [swt] - temporarily - took the kingdom away from him.  It is true that Allah [swt] can take anything away from anyone but there is greater wisdom behind the kingdom being temporarily taken away (from Sulaiman a.s.) and making mention of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Walaykum as salaam,

 

1.  You are something else!  Your shamelessness is beyond any imagination.  You have lied multiple times, took support from weak, inauthentic, downright deceptive narrations, cannot prove that Fadak belonged to the Prophet [saw], you have not studied anything I have brought forth regarding Dawud [as] and Zakariya [as], failed to reconcile whether Fadak was "gift" or "inheritance" - the list goes on - and you want to assert that because the word "sadaqa" appears in a few narrations, they are somehow weak?!

 

The kindred had a share in fay and that is what the verse says.  Please find reconciliation for your own fairy tales otherwise ShiaPen will only walk you into embarrassment after another.

 

2.  Now you want me to bring up that narration and refute you again?  Thanks but no thanks!  For someone with the slightest amount of decency, it is enough for him or her to be exposed once.  However, since you have no shame nor honor, I can destroy every single point of yours, which Alhamdulilah I have, and you will still bring up the same refuted points.

 

3.  Here is one.  Again, if you have any self-respect, this would be enough but having discussed with you long enough, I do not think it will bother your conscience because you possibly might not have one.

 

"We challenge Al Khider and Co to present even a single authentic report proving that the Kingdom of Dawood (as) was distributed among the poor of his nation as Sadaqah after his death."

 

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

 

4.  While your charges are baseless, I have looked at the matter from every angle whereas you have restricted all the aspects, pertaining to this matter, only to those that barely get you by.

 

For starters, do you want to explain brother ibn Al-Ja'abi's use of the word "waqf"?

 

5.  Their Prophet said to them: "God hath appointed Talut as king over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "God hath Chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: God Granteth His authority to whom He pleaseth. God careth for all, and He knoweth all things."  (Surah Baqarah, verse 247)

 

That is the coming into existence of the kingdom and the transfer from Talut [as] to Dawud [as] is what you need to address because before you brought forth your - I should say ShiaPen's - questions, I had already hinted at the transfer of kingdom from Talut [as] to Dawud [as].  You have not even addressed this point nor do I expect you to even stray near it because it does not play into your plan.

 

6.  Are you freaking serious?  It is not "taking precedence" when it explains a Qur'anic injunction or slightly modifies it.  Again, we can see that you could not prove your allegation that I said that narrations "override" the Qur'an. 

 

7.  Please prove it or we will excuse it as just another lie from a habitual liar.

 

8.  The point is not why Zakat is impermissible for the family [ra] of the Prophet [saw] to consume.  The point is that this exception (for Ahlul Bayt [ra]) is not found in the Qur'an as clearly and loudly as we find it in narrations.  Sure you tried to make it appear as though I said that narrations "override" the Qur'an but I was only referring to exactly what I have just highlighted (that hadiths can sometimes make Qur'anic injunctions more clear or provide slight modification or exception to a Qur'anic rule).

 

Here is another one: Qur'an, in Surah Ahzab, only mentions the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] and to identify the Ahlul Kisa [ra], we have to consult authentic narrations (because the Qur'an does not name Imam Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain - may Allah [swt] be pleased with them).  Again, you have to consult authentic hadith to grasp the entire matter.

 

9.  Funny that you have the nerve to say that I believe in "demi gods" and "running away" when you believe that there is a 12th Imam who can hear those who call upon him and he is hiding since he is too frightened to come out.

 

10.  May Allah [swt] give you what you deserve for accusing me of taking "demi gods" and partners with Allah [swt].

 

Another reply but the ONE question asked still remains UNANSWERED. Yet, we see you shamelessly accusing others.

 

1. The fact that the narration you presented stated that the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) asked for Sadqa proves how you stoop to such low levels to quote fabricated narrations to prove your point. You have been defending a lot of lies but this one seems to be even beyond your capability to defend. What you are accusing me of is due to your ignorance. Go back and read my posts and you will find each of those points refuted including your lies on Prophet Dawood (as) and Prophet Zakaria (as).

 

Your interpretation of the Quranic verses have been exposed to be nothing but your own fallacy and your own caliph disagree with your fairy tale.

 

 

2. You have ceased to amaze me. Look who is talking of honor???? Seriously? The person who has been shamelessly evading a few simple questions which will expose his lie is now accusing others of it even though each & every point of his illogical claims have been refuted. You need to go and read your books before you make such childish claims. The narrations clearly destroys what little hope you had of twisting the meaning of the verses. 

 

Gotta feel for you as you have no where to hide since your own caliphs have not supported you on this topic. Your whimsical statements have only embarrassed you as you have no proofs.

 

 

3. Why do we see the word 'self-respect' coming out of you????? What has this world come to? The person who has been constantly dodging the questions has no right to even dream of using such words. Just because one question from the many I have asked (which you have evaded) so far you think is similar to what has been asked on that website doesn't prove you right. The fact remains the same, you have been running away from those questions for a very long time.

 

 

4. You can go about falsely claiming & boasting all you want but the fact that you have still not answered the questions is enough to quash your silly claim. To add to that people reading this thread have seen how you have mis-interpreted the Quranic verses, gone against your own caliphs statements and so on.

 

You for starters can first answer my questions before you think you are in any position to make any requests.

 

 

5. One more incorrect translation of the Quranic verses. You very well know that the knowledge mentioned in this verse is not the kingdom we are discussing about. What you brought about on this subject was a desperate but illogical attempt to not answer my question. But hey haven't we seen such shameless acts of using the Quranic verses to your liking before? Yes we have. If at all this verse proves anything it is that "This knowledge is given to those leaders whom He Himself elects to lead and guide the people." It only proves that Allah selects the leaders and not people themselves. Since this is not in scope of our current discussion I would not discuss it in detail here.

 

Why don't you stop your deceitful ways and answer the question asked?

 

 

6. Excuse me??? I asked for a Quranic verse and you presented a narration and expected it to be overriding what the Quran says. Yet, you accuse me of not proving your lies? You are seriously shameless.

 

 

7. Read the posts on this thread again and you will find yourself as the one who is the habitual liar, the same one whose lies have constantly been exposed and the one who has been dodging questions which will expose the truth. But one thing I must commend you so far is how you have been deviating this topic without answering the questions being asked? You have mastered this craft of dishonesty for sure.

 

 

8. If you read the Quran it is quite clear that impurities cannot reach them. So your point has been refuted already as it is mentioned in Quran. To answer your question, re-read my previous post on this subject where I have clearly mentioned that the narrations works in conjunction with the Verse and not modify the verse as you are incorrectly projecting here. Seriously, can you not see the difference?

 

 

9. I find this reply of yours not surprising at all as you have been constantly defaming the family of the Prophet (pbuh). This one is just another addition to the list. But the fact that in the process you still copied the behavior of those who would run away from difficult situations is quite evident as the questions yet remain unanswered.

 

 

10. InshaAllah. If it wasn't true I would have seen some honest answers to the questions asked. Instead all I see is an emotional statement.

 

May Allah show you the light as your love for your demi-gods has overtaken the words of Allah & His Prophet (pbuh).

 

 

 

Finally, I would wrap up this post by reminding you of this verse from the Quran.

 

[Shakir 11:18] And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah? These shall be brought before their Lord, and the witnesses shall say: These are they who lied against their Lord. Now surely the curse of Allah is on the unjust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

"The kingdom was not his own??? What a joke?"

 

Quoting Ibn Kathir [rah] from http://www.islamawareness.net/Prophets/sulaiman.html

 

When there were displayed before him, in the afternoon, well-trained horses of the highest breed (for jihad in Allah's cause).  And he said: "Alas! I did love the good (these horses) instead of remembering my Lord (in my 'Asr prayer)" till the time was over, and the sun had hidden in the veil of the night.  Then he said: "Bring them (horses) back to me."  Then he began to pass his hand over their legs and their necks (till the end of the display).

 
And indeed We did try Solomon and We placed on his throne Jasadan (a devil, so he lost his kingdom for a while) but he did return (to his throne and kingdom by the Grace of Allah and he did return) to Allah with obedience and in repentance.  He said: "My Lord! Forgive me, and bestow upon me a kingdom such as shall not belong to any other after me. Verily, You are the Bestower."
 
So, We subjected to him the wind, it blew gently to his order whithersoever he willed, and also the devils from the jinns including every kind of builder and diver, and also other bound in fetters. (Saying of Allah to Solomon): "This is Our gift, so spend you or withhold, no account will be asked."  And verily, he enjoyed a near access to Us, and a good final return Paradise. (Surah Sad, verses 31-40).  [end quote]

 

 

 

A sunni tafsir again to prove your point and that too of a very well know anti-ahlul bayt person. Seriously, are you that desperate??? 

 

As I have stated before, by presenting tafsir from Ibn Kathir you are only insulting this discussion.

 

 

Insha'Allah, I will add a few more points to clarify the nature of kingdom of Dawud [as].  Considering that we are hours away from Ramadan, I will try my best not to indulge in this discussion any further until after Ramadan.

 

Ibn Kathir [rah], in Stories of the Prophets, says about Dawud [as] "Although a king, he did not live on the income of his kingdom.  Being well-experienced in the craft of weapon-making, he made and sold weapons and lived on that income."

 

Coming to Sulaiman [as], Ibn Kathir notes, "Sulaiman [as] inherited Dawud's [as] prophethood and dominion.  This was not material inheritance as prophets [asws] do not bequeath their property.  It is given away to the poor and needy, not to their relatives."

 

We even read in the Qur'an that Sulaiman [as] was offered gifts by Bilqis which he [as] refused to accept.  Sulaiman [as] said that what Allah [swt] has given him is far better than what Allah [swt] had given to Bilqis.  This establishes two things: one, Sulaiman [as], as the heir of Dawud [as], valued prophethood over any wealth.  And two, if Sulaiman [as] inherited abundant wealth from his father [as], he [as] would have expressed the fact that he [as] had already received plenty from Dawud [as] as inheritance and that he [as] was self-sufficient.  But we saw that Dawud [as] lived off of his own income and whatever he [as] earned through weapon-crafting.  In fact, Ibn Kathir says that Sulaiman [as] responded by saying, "Allah [swt] has given me plenty of wealth, a large kingdom and prophethood.  I am, therefore, beyond bribery."

 

"Now when (the embassy) came to Solomon, he said: "Will ye give me abundance in wealth?  But that which God has given me is better than that which He has given you!  Nay it is ye who rejoice in your gift!"  (Surah An-Naml, verse 36)

 

There is no stress upon material inheritance anywhere........neither in the case of Zakariya [as] and Yahya [as] nor in the case of Dawud [as] and Sulaiman [as].

 

So it remains!  Was the kingdom of Dawud [as] given in sadaqah?  Again, the condition is that that which the Prophets [asws] leave behind is given in charity.  If nothing was given in charity, then logic dictates that the kingdom did not belong to Dawud [as] rather it was given to him by Allah [swt].  The Qur'an confirms this as well.  In the case of Sulaiman [as], we read in the Qur'an that Allah [swt] - temporarily - took the kingdom away from him.  It is true that Allah [swt] can take anything away from anyone but there is greater wisdom behind the kingdom being temporarily taken away (from Sulaiman a.s.) and making mention of it.

 

 

Why is so hard for you to accept the facts? I won't expect you to take the whole month of Ramadan to answer a few simple questions? Or would they? Or is it just another excuse to run away now that you are out of any more lies to present?

 

Let me repeat the question if you missed it in my earlier post:

 

 

As you seem to be having difficulty answering all the questions together let me break them for you and go one question at a time if that helps you.

 

 

Do you have a verse from Quran which exempts the Prophets from inheritance?

 

 

Please reply to the above question and stop emulating your demi gods or stay quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Another reply but the ONE question asked still remains UNANSWERED. Yet, we see you shamelessly accusing others.

 

I won't expect you to take the whole month of Ramadan to answer a few simple questions?

 

 

How many questions remain unanswered?  One or "a few simple questions"?  You seem to have lost track yourself.  Happens when you rely on regurgitation more than reflection.

8. If you read the Quran it is quite clear that impurities cannot reach them. So your point has been refuted already as it is mentioned in Quran. To answer your question, re-read my previous post on this subject where I have clearly mentioned that the narrations works in conjunction with the Verse and not modify the verse as you are incorrectly projecting here. Seriously, can you not see the difference?

 

 

Alright, then prove Imamat from the Qur'an or at least prove that Surah Ahzab (verses of purification) was referring to Imam Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain (may Allah [swt] be pleased with them all) from the Qur'an itself.

1. Go back and read my posts and you will find each of those points refuted including your lies on Prophet Dawood (as) and Prophet Zakaria (as).

 

2. Your interpretation of the Quranic verses have been exposed to be nothing but your own fallacy and your own caliph disagree with your fairy tale.

 

 

 

1.  Really?  You have evaded everything regarding Dawud [as] and Zakariya [as], especially the latter when it comes to Yahya [as], like no other.

 

2.  That was your own buffoonery that backfired.  You said that Abu Bakr [ra] did not interpret the verses regarding Dawud [as] as the rest of Muslims and you took support from a weak narration.  Although we proved that the narration was weak, you are still harping upon this point.  I did not expect any better because reality slaps you in the face at every corner.  One being, Imam Ali [ra] never taking Fadak back for his children.

 

If Fadak was the right of his children [ra], ordained by Allah [swt], he would have never ceased to pursue it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you okay?

 

Yes, Alhamdulillah i'm okay... thanks for asking.

 

 

 

 Why would he "claim" Fadak "alongside" Fatima Zahra (sa) when only she was entitled to it? He advanced his claim when his claim became matures i.e. he was seeking his share from Fatima Zahra's share from her father's property. Have a look at it again:

 

 

“...Then I took charge of this property for two years during which I managed it as Allah’s Apostle and Abu Bakr did. Then you both (‘Ali and ‘Abbas) came to talk to me, bearing the same claim and presenting the same case. (O ‘Abbas!) You came to me asking for your share from the property of your nephew, and this man (Ali) came to me, asking for the share of his wife from the property of her father.” 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 80, Number 720

 

 

 

So Abbas had the right to claim from the property of Fatima ra but not from the property of Mohammad saw?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

5. One more incorrect translation of the Quranic verses. You very well know that the knowledge mentioned in this verse is not the kingdom we are discussing about. What you brought about on this subject was a desperate but illogical attempt to not answer my question. But hey haven't we seen such shameless acts of using the Quranic verses to your liking before? Yes we have. If at all this verse proves anything it is that "This knowledge is given to those leaders whom He Himself elects to lead and guide the people." It only proves that Allah selects the leaders and not people themselves. Since this is not in scope of our current discussion I would not discuss it in detail here.

 

 

That is the translation by Yusuf Ali so it is not my incorrect translation.  But can't you see what the Jews were doing?  First, they said that they would fight if they had a leader, a king.  When Allah [swt] chose Talut [as] for them, their next contention was that Talut [as] was poor (not well-endowed with wealth).

 

This is the inception of the kingdom which started with Talut [as] and ended with Sulaiman [as].  Since the kingdom is being questioned and seen as "inheritance", it is imperative that we see and reflect on its inception and how much wealth was perhaps involved. 

 

From my research, the kingdom reached its peak of wealth under Sulaiman [as] and he invested in building the Al-Aqsa.  So the question of acquiring horses, for example, can neither be proven through the Qur'an nor authentic narrations.

 

I am sorry but it seems like you have not even grasped my points going back to the very beginning.

 

 

 

 

6. Excuse me??? I asked for a Quranic verse and you presented a narration and expected it to be overriding what the Quran says. Yet, you accuse me of not proving your lies? You are seriously shameless.

 

May Allah show you the light as your love for your demi-gods has overtaken the words of Allah & His Prophet (pbuh).

 

 

Again, without authentic narrations - by your standards - the verses of purification will never apply to Ahlul Kisa [ra] and they only apply to the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw].

 

I never said override.  You cannot quote me as saying "override", I have asked you before to do so, yet you shamelessly keep accusing me of saying "override" along with the accusation that I hate the family [ra] of Rasulullah [saw].

 

As for demi-gods, I know it feels good to say that to others but Alhamdulilah in our mosques, we do not have supposed pictures of Imams [ra] nor do we display a head on a spear with people running around to get blessings from it.

 

 

 

A sunni tafsir again to prove your point and that too of a very well know anti-ahlul bayt person. Seriously, are you that desperate??? 

 

As I have stated before, by presenting tafsir from Ibn Kathir you are only insulting this discussion.

 

 

So it is alright for you to present a Sunni tafsir - known for containing weak narrations - for an alleged belt and shirt narration (because it sides with your fairy tales) but not when it comes to actually understanding the stories of earlier Prophets [asws]?  By the way, I was quoting Stories of the Prophets, not tafsir.  Another example of how much time you take to read (and understand, if applicable at all) my posts before you respond.

 

You set the standard!  You borrowed lies from ShiaPen in the name of "Sunni tafsir".   At least I am quoting authentic sources.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

yet you shamelessly keep accusing me of saying "override" along with the accusation that I hate the family [ra] of Rasulullah [saw].

 

Your name is Muslim but you have no idea what politeness is.  

 

The first thing a Muslim must learn is to keep his tongue in check.

 

If you took out the word "shamelessly" from  that sentence, you could still convey what you had to say. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Your name is Muslim but you have no idea what politeness is.  

 

The first thing a Muslim must learn is to keep his tongue in check.

 

If you took out the word "shamelessly" from  that sentence, you could still convey what you had to say. 

 

 

Salaam alaykum,

If you may have noticed, this topic had nothing to do with Fadak.  One member wanted me to either pick Abu Bakr [ra] or Fatima [ra].  When I presented the Qur'anic verses regarding fay, another brother decided to engage in a discussion with me.

 

During our discussion, I realized that as Yam_110 started running out of material - and the weak, spurious narrations he borrowed from ShiaPen were exposed - he resorted to tactics and demeaning words instead of standing corrected.

 

I am a human being with only so much patience.  Here I am doing research and trying to look at this matter from every angle and the only response I am getting is either personal attack (that I believe in demi-gods and that I hate Ahlul Bayt r.a.) or an accusation like "you have mistranslated or misinterpreted the verse" without actual proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Let me address the "inheritance" by Sulaiman [as] and touch upon the horses he [as] is said to have "inherited".

 

The following scholars have interpreted "inheritance" as referring to knowledge, status or prophethood and have rejected that it has anything to do with material wealth: Ibn katheer, Al-Tabari, Al-Baghawi, Al-Shawkani, Al-Razi, Al-Nasfi, Al-Naysabouri, Al-Baydaowi, Al-Tha’alabi, Muqatil, Al-Kulbi, Al-Qushairi, Ibn A’rafa, Al-I’zz bin abdilsallam, Al-Zumukhshiri and many others.

 

 

 

 

 

We read in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran:
وقيل: ورثها من ابيه وكان أبوه اصابها من العمالقة

“It has been said: ‘He inherited them (horses) from his father and his father had obtained them as a booty from Amaliqs.”

 

 

This opinion was mentioned in a passive form which means it is odd and has no authenticity.

 

 

 

 


We read in al-Tashil le Uloom al-Tanzil by Abu Abdillah Ibn al-Jezi al-Ghernati (d. 741 H):
فقال الجمهور إن سليمان عليه السلام عرضت عليه خيل كان ورثها عن ابيه

“The majority said that Sulayman [as] brought for him horses he inherit them from his father”

 

This cannot be true because the above-mentioned scholars have rejected that Sulaiman [as] inherited wealth from Dawud [as].  Furthermore, to say that "majority said" is not sufficient.  Names have to be given and everything has to be tallied up to see if truly the majority said that Sulaiman [as] inherited horses from his father [as].

 

 

 

 


We read in Zad al-Masir by Imam of Salafies Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 597 H):
والثالث : أنه ورثها من أبيه داود

The third: 'That he inherited them from his father David'

 

 

Al-Jawzi said that this was mentioned by Muqatil.  However, Muqatil, in his own tafsir, said that Sulaiman [as] did not inherit any form of wealth as Prophets [asws] do not do so.

 

 

 

 


Imam Qurtubi records in his Tafseer:
وقال مقاتل ورث سليمان من أبيه داود ألف فرس

“Maqatil said that Solomon inherited 1000 horses from his father”

 

 

Again, Muqatil rejects the notion that Sulaiman [as] inherited material wealth from his father in his own tafsir.

 

 

 

 


Shaykh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (742-808 H) records in Hayaat al Haywan:
وجمهور المفسرين على أنها كانت خيلا موروثة

“The majority of scholars say that those horses were inherited”

 

 

Again, "majority of scholars say that those horses were inherited" without actually naming those scholars and establishing the fact that they, indeed, were in majority.

 

 

 

 


We read in Tafseer Baydhawi:
وقيل أصابها أبوه من العمالقة فورثها منه

'It has been said that his father obtained them (as war booty) from Amaliq then he (Solomon) inherited them'

 

 

Al-Baydhawi himself said that Sulaiman [as] did not inherit any material wealth as Prophets [asws] do not do so!

 

 

 

 


We read in Tafseer al-Muharer al-Wajiz by Abu Mhammad ibn Attya al-Maharebi (d. 546):
وجمهور الناس على أنها كانت خيلا موروثة
“The majority of people state that those horses were inherited”

 

 

Again another claim that "majority of people state that those horses were inherited"!  Who are these people?  And them being in majority has not been established.

 

So the question may arise: why would scholars mention these narrations if they themselves reject them?  The answer is simple!  Scholars of tafsir bring every narration pertaining to a verse (or passage) of the Qur'an and then they declare which ones are authentic (and correct) while they reject the remainder.  Ibn Kathir [rah] does this most of the time in his tafsir.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

Do you have a verse from Quran which exempts the Prophets from inheritance?

 

 

Let me show you the inheritance of believers and those who are among righteous.  Thereafter, you can choose to acknowledge the Qur'anic verses and believe in them or outright reject them.  My prediction is that you will reject the verses on the basis that I have mistranslated or misinterpreted them.  But the message is clear and for going against it, your status will be clear too.

 

Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by God's leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest Grace.  (Surah Fatir, verse 32)

 

These will be the heirs;

Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).  (Surah Mu'minoon, verses 10-11)

 

No where will you find material wealth being guaranteed for the believers or righteous, let alone Prophets [asws].  Therefore, to insinuate that Zakariya [as] was concerned that his wealth would be usurped after him is ludicrous.  Numerous times, we read in the Qur'an that when a certain prophet [as] was sent to a nation, he said to them that he wants NOTHING from them.

 

The reason why Rasulullah [saw] made Zakat forbidden for himself and his family [ra] was to ensure that no one would accuse him (or his family r.a.) for creating Islam and using it as a means to get rich.

 

Hence, in the light of the Qur'anic verses and authentic narrations (in both Shia and Sunni texts), we can safely conclude that Prophets [asws] do not pursue material wealth (as charity is more noble and befitting than accumulating personal wealth) and therefore, they did not leave anything behind for inheritance.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

How many questions remain unanswered?  One or "a few simple questions"?  You seem to have lost track yourself.  Happens when you rely on regurgitation more than reflection.

 

One from the previous post which was the one you replied to and many more from the earlier ones which were broken down to help you in understanding. You seem to be skilled at dodging difficult questions but to think that you can get away here is not going to happen if the discussion is to move forward.

 

 

 

Alright, then prove Imamat from the Qur'an or at least prove that Surah
Ahzab (verses of purification) was referring to Imam Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain (may Allah [swt] be pleased with them all) from the Qur'an itself.

 

 
Imamat is not part of our discussion. I won't let you divert this thread just because you are running short of lies. And more over you are not in a position to raise questions until the ones you have evaded so far are answered. 
 
Re-read my previous replies on ahlul Kisa and you will find the answer.
 
1.  Really?  You have evaded everything regarding Dawud [as] and Zakariya [as], especially the latter when it comes to Yahya [as], like no other.
 
2.  That was your own buffoonery that backfired.  You said that Abu Bakr [ra] did not interpret the verses regarding Dawud [as] as the rest of Muslims and you took support from a weak narration.  Although we proved that the narration was weak, you are still harping upon this point.  I did not expect any better because reality slaps you in the face at every corner.  One being, Imam Ali [ra] never taking Fadak back for his children.
 

 

1. Excuse me? I have evaded? I have refuted all your baseless arguments and illogical assumptions on Prophet Zakariya (as) and Prophet Dawood (as). Yet, you could not answer my questions when confronted?

 

2. Buffoonery??? Yupe, that's something which you have been doing on a daily basis here. You seem to be having difficulties reading the replies? You are calling a narration weak just because you could not refute it. Brother PureEthics had given you a link which quashes this fallacy of ours. Also, the fact that the narration from Umar also contradicts your incorrect translation of the Quranic verses.

 

Can you present one narration where Abu Bakr interpreted the verses like you are doing now?

 

Both your caliphs have not helped you by going against your translation of the verses. Are you now going to claim that you don't agree with them as you told me about Umar 2? 

 

As we have seen on a regular basis, your deceptive techniques are backfiring on you more than any one else. It is quite evident for everyone to see on whose face reality has been slapping hard.

 

 

 

If Fadak was the right of his children [ra], ordained by Allah [swt], he would have never ceased to pursue it. 

 

 

 

You desperately cling on to the same point which has been refuted already (though it is nothing new and one expected of you) that Imam Ali (as) didn't take back Fadak. The one which has been refuted already by an example of the Prophet (pbuh). Just because your first three caliphs didn't follow the Prophet (pbuh) you would expect the same behavior from others too. Not happening.

 

A couple of narrations which should seal this lie of yours forever InshaAllah.

 

Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Fadhal narrated from Abul-Hasan (Ali ibn Musa Al-Ridha) [a]: I asked him about Amir-ul-Momineen, why he did not seek to return Fadak when he ruled the people, and he replied: “Because we the Ahlul Bayt do not take our rights from those who have wronged us, except Him (Allah). And we are the Awliya of the Momineen, we rule for them and take (and return) their rights from those that wronged them, and we do not take it for ourselves.” 

Reminds us of the True Sunnah of Rasool-Allah (pbuh).

حدثنا : أحمد بن علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم رحمه الله قال : حدثنا : أبي ، عن أبيه إبراهيم بن هاشم ، عن محمد بن أبي عمير ، عن إبراهيم الكرخي قال : سألت أبا عبد الله (ع) فقلت له : لأي علة ترك علي بن أبي طالب (ع) فدك لما ولى الناس فقال : للاقتداء برسول الله (ص) لما فتح مكة وقد باع عقيل بن أبي طالب داره فقيل له : يا رسول الله ألا ترجع إلى دارك ؟ ، فقال (ص) : وهل ترك عقيل لنا داراً ، إنا أهل بيت لا نسترجع شيئا يؤخذ منا ظلماً ، فلذلك لم يسترجع فدك لماّ ولىّ

 

Narrated ahmed ibn ali ibn ibrahim ibn hashim narrated my father narrated his father ibrahim ibn hashim from mohamed ibn abi umair from ibrahim al-karkhi he said : for what reason did mola ali asws leave fadak when he ruled ? so he (asws) said : because he followed on the footsteps of rasool Allah asws when he conquered Mecca he found out that aqeel ibn abi talib has sold his house (the house of the prophet(saww)) so he was asked : o prophet! why don’t you take your house back? so he said : well aqeel didn’t leave us a house and we are the people of a house that never take anything back that is taken from us unjustly . so this is why he didn’t(ali(as)) take fadak back.

SOURCES:-

1- ilal us shari’i, vol 1, page 155

2- bihar ul anwaar, vol 29, page 396

3- al-taraif, syed ibn taos, vol 1, page 251 

 

 

Are you now going to accuse the Prophet (pbuh) of something???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

That is the translation by Yusuf Ali so it is not my incorrect translation.  But can't you see what the Jews were doing?  First, they said that they would fight if they had a leader, a king.  When Allah [swt] chose Talut [as] for them, their next contention was that Talut [as] was poor (not well-endowed with wealth).

 

This is the inception of the kingdom which started with Talut [as] and ended with Sulaiman [as].  Since the kingdom is being questioned and seen as "inheritance", it is imperative that we see and reflect on its inception and how much wealth was perhaps involved. 

 

From my research, the kingdom reached its peak of wealth under Sulaiman [as] and he invested in building the Al-Aqsa.  So the question of acquiring horses, for example, can neither be proven through the Qur'an nor authentic narrations.

 

I am sorry but it seems like you have not even grasped my points going back to the very beginning.

 

I have given you the meaning & context of the verses and yet you seem to ignorantly deny it. If we see the verse it says that Allah chooses the leaders so you better not quote this text otherwise your caliphate is in danger. Anyways, we will discuss that at a later point on a different thread probably.

 

The fact his kingdom & wealth was not left over as alms is all we need to prove the narration of prophets not leaving anything is a fabrication. You can research all you want but if you miss the simplest of points it ain't going to help you one bit.

 

The fact that Prophet Sulaiman (as) inherited his father's kingdom is sufficient to prove your claim as false and to add to that even a lot of Sunni scholars have attested the same. Just because you deny it doesn't mean that it is not true. You need to do better than twisting historical facts.

 

 

 

Again, without authentic narrations - by your standards - the verses of purification will never apply to Ahlul Kisa [ra] and they only apply to the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw].
 
I never said override.  You cannot quote me as saying "override", I have asked you before to do so, yet you shamelessly keep accusing me of saying "override" along with the accusation that I hate the family [ra] of Rasulullah [saw].
 
As for demi-gods, I know it feels good to say that to others but Alhamdulilah in our mosques, we do not have supposed pictures of Imams [ra] nor do we display a head on a spear with people running around to get blessings from it.

 

Read my reply before acting dumb. I said there is a verse in Quran and the narration works in conjunction with the verse. Which is not your case. You have no verse to prove your point. Yet, I only see you bring up a narration and assume that this will modify the rule mentioned in Quran. It's clear that you are only dragging this discussion without meaning.

 

You said the narrations can modify the Quranic verse. Isn't that same as override? You clearly are desperate & shamelessly accusing others of what actually is your forte. If you did not hate the family of the Prophet (pbuh) you wouldn't be defaming them here. Your true nature has been quite evident to everyone as it is no rocket science.

 

I do not know what you are referring to but alhumdulillah we do not have anything of that in our mosques. But that doesn't change the fact that you are here to only defend the mistakes of a few individuals.

 

 

 

So it is alright for you to present a Sunni tafsir - known for containing weak narrations - for an alleged belt and shirt narration (because it sides with your fairy tales) but not when it comes to actually understanding the stories of earlier Prophets [asws]?  By the way, I was quoting Stories of the Prophets, not tafsir.  Another example of how much time you take to read (and understand, if applicable at all) my posts before you respond.
 
You set the standard!  You borrowed lies from ShiaPen in the name of "Sunni tafsir".   At least I am quoting authentic sources.
 

 

 

 

I wouldn't have thought that you would be unaware of the basics of debating. To a Sunni, we would always present stuff from his own books. Narrations you call weak are something which have been attested by your scholars. If you think you know more than them then it is your arrogance.

 

I have presented another link of the Tafsir which also states the same. So if you have a problem then go after your scholars and accuse them of being shameless liars or agree that you are the same. The stories you have quoting have been incorrect.

 

We all know your standard. One full of support for fabrication narrations. Yet you claim them to be authentic sources? How you wish they were. Unfortunately the alleged authentic sources you are mentioning do more harm than good for you which is why you are having trouble defending them.

 

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

 

Salaam alaykum,

If you may have noticed, this topic had nothing to do with Fadak.  One member wanted me to either pick Abu Bakr [ra] or Fatima [ra].  When I presented the Qur'anic verses regarding fay, another brother decided to engage in a discussion with me.

 

During our discussion, I realized that as Yam_110 started running out of material - and the weak, spurious narrations he borrowed from ShiaPen were exposed - he resorted to tactics and demeaning words instead of standing corrected.

 

I am a human being with only so much patience.  Here I am doing research and trying to look at this matter from every angle and the only response I am getting is either personal attack (that I believe in demi-gods and that I hate Ahlul Bayt r.a.) or an accusation like "you have mistranslated or misinterpreted the verse" without actual proof.

 

 

Firstly, you claim to love ahlul bayt and then defame the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) of being wrong. Yet, when you are made aware of the facts you start abusing others. Read my post again where I warned you to refrain from accusations and continue this discussion with akhlaq. Yet you overstepped the line and have been given only a taste of your own medicine recently.

 

It's not me who has ran out of material but you as you have been constantly trying hard to divert this topic with some irrelevant stuff.

 

You should be thankful that I have remained patient all this while and have been refuting your stance with manners (even though you have been constantly dodging my questions) one which you seem to have lost off late in your desperation.

 

 

So please get your facts right before making any emotional appeals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1. Let me show you the inheritance of believers and those who are among righteous.  Thereafter, you can choose to acknowledge the Qur'anic verses and believe in them or outright reject them.  My prediction is that you will reject the verses on the basis that I have mistranslated or misinterpreted them.  But the message is clear and for going against it, your status will be clear too.

 

Then We have given the Book for inheritance to such of Our Servants as We have chosen: but there are among them some who wrong their own souls; some who follow a middle course; and some who are, by God's leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest Grace.  (Surah Fatir, verse 32)

 

These will be the heirs;

Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).  (Surah Mu'minoon, verses 10-11)

 

2. No where will you find material wealth being guaranteed for the believers or righteous, let alone Prophets [asws].  Therefore, to insinuate that Zakariya [as] was concerned that his wealth would be usurped after him is ludicrous.

 

3.  Numerous times, we read in the Qur'an that when a certain prophet [as] was sent to a nation, he said to them that he wants NOTHING from them.

 

4. The reason why Rasulullah [saw] made Zakat forbidden for himself and his family [ra] was to ensure that no one would accuse him (or his family r.a.) for creating Islam and using it as a means to get rich.

 

Hence, in the light of the Qur'anic verses and authentic narrations (in both Shia and Sunni texts), we can safely conclude that Prophets [asws] do not pursue material wealth (as charity is more noble and befitting than accumulating personal wealth) and therefore, they did not leave anything behind for inheritance.

 

 

1. Yet another post with you boasting about yourself and assuming things.

 

2. Below verse which talks of inheritance in Quran:

 

[shakir 4:7] Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion.

 

 

So to claim that nothing about material wealth is mentioned is freaking hilarious. You take verses out of context and when you stand corrected you start abusing.

 

3. Yet we do not see that they did not earn their livelihood. So your assumption isn't making sense. Why would Allah grant His Prophet (pbuh) something if they do not earn their livelihood using material wealth? To say that Prophet (pbuh) would get something which is completely different from booty means that it is not for all the ummah. And then to assume that it has to be used for the Ummah is a clear contradiction of the Quranic verses.

 

4. Another assumption which I have already clarified from Quran. Whilst your claim is partially true but the reason why it is not completely acceptable is because not all the members of the Prophet's  (pbuh)  family were prohibited from receiving zakat. So we see this logic of yours is not fitting the bill? The only logical answer to this is what I have already presented in my earlier posts as your interpretation is going against logic.

 

 

 

So we can conclude that the Prophets do not pursue material wealth but that doesn't mean that they don't leave behind anything for their descendants.

 

 

 

Based on the above reply, it can be inferred that your answer is there is no verse which excludes the Prophets from the general inheritance laws.

 

 

So moving on to the next question:

 

Do you have any narration which proves that Abu Bakr interpreted the verses like you are doing now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

The following comment was reported. We would not tolerate this elsewhere on Shiachat. But this is the Shia/Sunni dialogue forum where a wider expression of beliefs has to be allowed (IMHO).

 

After all we have to allow expression of the idea that God does not exist (astaghfirullah) on the Atheism dialogue forum.

 

 

9.  Funny that you have the nerve to say that I believe in "demi gods" and "running away" when you believe that there is a 12th Imam who can hear those who call upon him and he is hiding since he is too frightened to come out.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1.  One from the previous post which was the one you replied to and many more from the earlier ones which were broken down to help you in understanding.

 

2.  Imamat is not part of our discussion. I won't let you divert this thread.....Re-read my previous replies on ahlul Kisa and you will find the answer.

 
3. Excuse me? I have evaded? I have refuted all your baseless arguments and illogical assumptions on Prophet Zakariya (as) and Prophet Dawood (as).

 

4.  Also, the fact that the narration from Umar also contradicts your incorrect translation of the Quranic verses.

 

5.  Can you present one narration where Abu Bakr interpreted the verses like you are doing now?

 

6.  A couple of narrations which should seal this lie of yours forever InshaAllah.

 

 

1.  The number of your questions is turning out to be like the dilemma of the number of horses that Sulaiman [as] "inherited".  By the way, I am happy to see you totally ignore my entire post where I refuted every single notion of Sulaiman [as] "inheriting" horses from his father.

 

2.  It is not but had you had one verse from the Qur'an regarding Imamat, or one to reveal the identity of Ahlul Kisa [ra], you would have flaunted it for all us.  You do not so you reach out to hadiths.  However, when others do the same, the condition is set that it should only be proven from the Qur'an.  That is hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

3.  Wow, where?  You have intentionally dodged the answer of the prayer of Zakariya [as].  I even showed that Allah [swt] said about Yahya [as] what 'Isa [as] said about himself.  Therefore, no one was asking for a heir to inherit his material wealth.  Supposedly I defame the daughter of Rasulullah [saw] but you are presenting Prophets [asws] and Ahlul Bayt [ra] as those lusting for money and wealth.

 

4.  I am out of words to see how firmly you are still holding onto this.  That very narration got you to admit that the Prophet [saw] used to distribute the proceeds of Fadak thus shattering the notion that Fadak was given as a gift.  Does it make sense for Rasulullah [saw] to gift Fadak to Fatima [ra] and then distribute its proceeds?

 

5.  Abu Bakr [ra] based his decision on what the Prophet [saw] said.  And if you doubt the honesty of Abu Bakr [ra], read the list of people I provided you who had heard the same from Rasulullah [saw].  Also, Allah [swt] vouches for the honesty of Abu Bakr [ra].

 

"O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful(sadiqeen)." (9:119)

 

"For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and [His] approval and supporting Allah and His Messenger, [there is also a share]. Those are the truthful (sadiqun)." (59:8)

 

6.  Oh, look who has reached out to narrations to prove a point?!  No, prove that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back their rights, after it has been usurped, from the Qur'an.  Otherwise, admit that you were wrong in trying to straitjacket me and restricting everything to Qur'anic verses.  If you cannot admit that, which I am sure you will not, then please prove from the Qur'an that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back that which was unjustly taken from them.

 

 

 

 

1.  I have given you the meaning & context of the verses and yet you seem to ignorantly deny it. If we see the verse it says that Allah chooses the leaders so you better not quote this text otherwise your caliphate is in danger. Anyways, we will discuss that at a later point on a different thread probably.

 

2.  The fact his kingdom & wealth was not left over as alms is all we need to prove the narration of prophets not leaving anything is a fabrication.

 

3.  The fact that Prophet Sulaiman (as) inherited his father's kingdom is sufficient to prove your claim as false and to add to that even a lot of Sunni scholars have attested the same.

 

4.  Read my reply before acting dumb. I said there is a verse in Quran and the narration works in conjunction with the verse. Which is not your case. You have no verse to prove your point.

 

5.  You said the narrations can modify the Quranic verse. Isn't that same as override?

 

6.  I do not know what you are referring to but alhumdulillah we do not have anything of that in our mosques. But that doesn't change the fact that you are here to only defend the mistakes of a few individuals.

 

7. I wouldn't have thought that you would be unaware of the basics of debating. To a Sunni, we would always present stuff from his own books.

 

 

1.  Allah [swt] choosing a leader is another matter.  The kingdom started with Talut [as].  Can you please address how the kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Allah [swt] while Talut [as] was poor (according to the Qur'an), was transferred from Talut [as] to Dawud [as]?  Was it inheritance?  By which law of inheritance?

 

2.  You have not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that nothing was left behind as alms, therefore, you cannot pass a judgment on what Abu Bakr [ra] heard from Rasulullah [saw].  Furthermore, it is a lose-lose situation for you.  If there was nothing left as alms (from Dawud a.s.), then it means that he left nothing (that he owned) as inheritance.  The Qur'an testifies that the kingdom was not his.  And if you prove that his kingdom was given in charity, then you have confirmed that Abu Bakr [ra] spoke the truth.  Heads, I win, tails, you lose ;)

 

3.  After I refuted all the narrations that you brought forth (regarding inheritance of horses), you have the audacity to say this?  When you make a claim and use "scholarly" backing as support, the "scholarly" backing must stand or else your claim will collapse.  Your claim has collapsed but you are still pushing on.  Sad!

 

4.  Do you have a verse that identifies Ahlul Kisa [ra]?  Do you have a verse which says that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back that which was usurped (from them)? 

 

5.  No, to modify or make an exception is not to override but make a special case for a particular group, situation or category of people.

 

6.  Really?  Then who is that green-turbaned man a picture of whom I see during Muharram?  Nice try evading that one but failed!

 

7.  Or maybe because your own books do not narrate the merits of Ahlul Kisa [ra] like you find in our books?  From your own books too, it has been established that Prophets [asws] do not leave "dirhams or dinars".  No scholar has held a Prophet [as] responsible for any monetary compensation so it is clear what Kulayni wished to impart upon us.

 

 

 

 

The following comment was reported. We would not tolerate this elsewhere on Shiachat. But this is the Shia/Sunni dialogue forum where a wider expression of beliefs has to be allowed (IMHO).

 

After all we have to allow expression of the idea that God does not exist (astaghfirullah) on the Atheism dialogue forum.

 

Salaam alaykum,

I did not say that except in defense :)

 

Some brothers have realized that strength-in-numbers have not helped their case so they have resorted to misusing power.  Understandable but pathetic when we realize that I was not the provoker.

I have presented another link of the Tafsir which also states the same. So if you have a problem then go after your scholars and accuse them of being shameless liars or agree that you are the same. The stories you have quoting have been incorrect.

 

 

Every single narration ShiaPen has quoted from every single tafsir - regarding the belt, shirt and horses - have been refuted.  I also explained to you how mufassirun narrate everything and then they substantiate the authentic narrations while rejecting the weak ones.  Therefore, you ought to reach out to ShiaPen and ask them to amend their articles.  They are causing many like yourself to walk into embarrassing situations.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

One of the oldest Shia tafsir is Tafsir Furat Al Kufi authored by Furat Ibn Furat Ibn Ibrahim Al-Kufi.  Most of the narrations, in Tafsir Furat Al Kufi, are attributed to Muhammad Baqir [ra] and Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra] and while there are other Shia commentaries, Tafsir Furat Al Kufi is said to be "titled an Imami exegesis in all aspects."  Shia scholars, of later generations, heavily rely upon the narrations found in this work and even Majlisi, in the introduction of Bihar ul Anwar, names it as one of his most important source.

 

Having said a little about the commentary, let me share what I found out. 

 

Tafseer Furaat part-1 page 149 to 150:

 

pMATTVZ.jpg

 

The highlighted part is a narration in which Rasulullah [saw] and Imam Ali [ra] are talking about inheritance.  Imam Ali [ra] questions Rasulullah [saw] as to what the Prophets [asws] before Rasulullah [saw] would inherit.  The Prophet [saw] informs Imam Ali [ra] that Prophets [asws] (before him) only left the Book of Allah [swt] and their sunnah.

 

Once again, we see the message that "Prophets [asws] do not leave inheritance" being echoed in another Shia text only substantiating what Abu Bakr [ra] - and other Sahabas [ra] including Imam Ali [ra] - had heard from Rasulullah [saw].

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1.  The number of your questions is turning out to be like the dilemma of the number of horses that Sulaiman [as] "inherited".  By the way, I am happy to see you totally ignore my entire post where I refuted every single notion of Sulaiman [as] "inheriting" horses from his father.

 

2.  It is not but had you had one verse from the Qur'an regarding Imamat, or one to reveal the identity of Ahlul Kisa [ra], you would have flaunted it for all us.  You do not so you reach out to hadiths.  However, when others do the same, the condition is set that it should only be proven from the Qur'an.  That is hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

3.  Wow, where?  You have intentionally dodged the answer of the prayer of Zakariya [as].  I even showed that Allah [swt] said about Yahya [as] what 'Isa [as] said about himself.  Therefore, no one was asking for a heir to inherit his material wealth.  Supposedly I defame the daughter of Rasulullah [saw] but you are presenting Prophets [asws] and Ahlul Bayt [ra] as those lusting for money and wealth.

 

4.  I am out of words to see how firmly you are still holding onto this.  That very narration got you to admit that the Prophet [saw] used to distribute the proceeds of Fadak thus shattering the notion that Fadak was given as a gift.  Does it make sense for Rasulullah [saw] to gift Fadak to Fatima [ra] and then distribute its proceeds?

 

5.  Abu Bakr [ra] based his decision on what the Prophet [saw] said.  And if you doubt the honesty of Abu Bakr [ra], read the list of people I provided you who had heard the same from Rasulullah [saw].  Also, Allah [swt] vouches for the honesty of Abu Bakr [ra].

 

"O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful(sadiqeen)." (9:119)

 

"For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and [His] approval and supporting Allah and His Messenger, [there is also a share]. Those are the truthful (sadiqun)." (59:8)

 

6.  Oh, look who has reached out to narrations to prove a point?!  No, prove that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back their rights, after it has been usurped, from the Qur'an.  Otherwise, admit that you were wrong in trying to straitjacket me and restricting everything to Qur'anic verses.  If you cannot admit that, which I am sure you will not, then please prove from the Qur'an that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back that which was unjustly taken from them.

 

1. Not really. Those questions are turning out to be nightmares for you which is why they are being desperately evaded.

 

You refuted? Excuse me??? A copy paste from another forum and you think with someone's personal opinion you have refuted everything your scholars have attested so far.

 

2. As I have stated before, just because you cannot read the verse in Quran it doesn't mean that it isn't present. The hypocrisy is what you have been practicing here by trying to deviate the topic when you are out of any meaningful stuff. Read my post about ahlul kisa again and tell me which point is not clear to you? 

 

3. I have already refuted your stance and clearly mentioned that Prophet Zakariya (as) asked for a heir to inherit him based on his prayers. You need to read my replies. You are only taking verses from Quran out of context and assume that you have proven something. No not really. Just because you think & assume that you have proven something without reading the refutation doesn't mean that you have proved it. 

 

As I have said before, a prophet being born in the house of another prophet is no guarantee. So when Prophet Zakariya (as) asks for a heir it cannot be about a prophet and to add to that he fears about what his relatives would do after him is a clear give away as to why he is asking for a heir. The verse below:

 

[Yusufali 19:5] "Now I fear (what) my relatives (and colleagues) (will do) after me: but my wife is barren: so give me an heir as from Thyself

 

 

The verse about the prayer of Prophet Zakariya (as) is clear evidence that he was asking for a heir to his material wealth so that it doesn't go to his evil relatives. Stop interpreting the verses to your liking and taking them out of context which even your caliphs didn't do.

 

 

4.  Your problem is that you are not agreeing that you were wrong in your interpretation of the Quranic verse. You are conveniently ignoring the first part of the narration where your second caliph has clearly states contrary to what you have been claiming all this while. You first agree to this point and the rest will become clear.

 

As I have stated before if the Prophet (pbuh) can be bestowed with something with a distribution model then why can't the same rule be followed for others? 

 

 

5. Looks like you have NO narration about Abu Bakr using the Quranic verses to prove his point.

 

If the Quranic verses are supposed to be interpreted as the way you are doing now then either of the two must be true:

 

a ) Abu Bakr didn't know that the verses meant this and you know Quran more than him.

b)  Abu Bakr knew those Quranic verse and he didn't interpret them in the way modern day scholars like you are doing.

 

I would go with the latter. So what's your pick?

 

 

Few more addition to the lies. Verses 9:119 and 59:8 are not about Abu Bakr. Please stop your web of lies. For argument sake, if I go by your interpretation that verse 59:8 states that all the Muhajirs are truthful then even Bibi Fatima (s) and Imam Ali (as) are muhajirs then why are you not accepting that they were speaking the truth when they said that Fadak was theirs? Your double standards have been clearly exposed again.

 

The less we speak of Abu Bakr's honesty, the better. You cling on to a narration which only he heard and think that he is honest whilst in the process you insult the Prophet (pbuih) of not informing his family members who would be impacted by this. What sort of love for the Prophet (pbuh) are we witnessing these days???

 

 

 

6. Firstly, you will have to prove that a verse exists in Quran which is being modified by this narration. Only then can you ask me for the verse. You still are deliberately acting dumb. You said narrations can modify a Quranic verse. I told you that it cannot as it has to work in conjunction with the verse

 

Can't you see how fragile & childish your argument is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

1.  Allah [swt] choosing a leader is another matter.  The kingdom started with Talut [as].  Can you please address how the kingdom, which was bestowed upon him by Allah [swt] while Talut [as] was poor (according to the Qur'an), was transferred from Talut [as] to Dawud [as]?  Was it inheritance?  By which law of inheritance?

 

2.  You have not proven beyond a shadow of doubt that nothing was left behind as alms, therefore, you cannot pass a judgment on what Abu Bakr [ra] heard from Rasulullah [saw].  Furthermore, it is a lose-lose situation for you.  If there was nothing left as alms (from Dawud a.s.), then it means that he left nothing (that he owned) as inheritance.  The Qur'an testifies that the kingdom was not his.  And if you prove that his kingdom was given in charity, then you have confirmed that Abu Bakr [ra] spoke the truth.  Heads, I win, tails, you lose ;)

 

3.  After I refuted all the narrations that you brought forth (regarding inheritance of horses), you have the audacity to say this?  When you make a claim and use "scholarly" backing as support, the "scholarly" backing must stand or else your claim will collapse.  Your claim has collapsed but you are still pushing on.  Sad!

 

4.  Do you have a verse that identifies Ahlul Kisa [ra]?  Do you have a verse which says that Ahlul Bayt [ra] do not take back that which was usurped (from them)? 

 

5.  No, to modify or make an exception is not to override but make a special case for a particular group, situation or category of people.

 

6.  Really?  Then who is that green-turbaned man a picture of whom I see during Muharram?  Nice try evading that one but failed!

 

7.  Or maybe because your own books do not narrate the merits of Ahlul Kisa [ra] like you find in our books?  From your own books too, it has been established that Prophets [asws] do not leave "dirhams or dinars".  No scholar has held a Prophet [as] responsible for any monetary compensation so it is clear what Kulayni wished to impart upon us.

 

1. The fact that this verse has backfired for your caliphate is quite evident. Your point about Talut is not relevant to our discussion as he was not a prophet. But the kingdom which belonged to Prophet Dawood (as) is as he was a prophet and the fact that everything left behind by him was not left as alms is enough to bring you back to the topic in hand.

 

2. Unfortunately for you I am the one who is in a win-win situation as the Quran states that Prophet Sulaiman (as) was Prophet Dawood's (as) heir which is supported by historical evidences that he indeed inherited everything which Prophet Dawood (as) owned including the kingdom. So if you want to prove that Abu Bakr was not coining a tradition then it is up to you to prove that everything left behind by Prophet Dawood (as) was left behind as alms. Otherwise based on Quranic verses we can safely brand the narration by Abu Bakr a fabrication. So either you prove that the everything left behind by Prophjet Dawood (as) was alms or agree that the narration is a fabrication.

 

 

3. The fact you have copy pasted stuff and think that you have proven something is what is surprising. You have no possible narration to prove that Abu Bakr ever interpreted the verses as you have been doing so it is quite evident that the weakening of hadiths and changing the meaning of the verses started much later. Which is why we see your caliphs going against everything you are trying to state so far.

 

 

4. Yes, the verse which the Prophet recited under the Kisa identified them. You are desperately dragging this to deviate the discussion but it is not helping you one bit. 

 

 

5. Hahaha... Obliviously both are trying to convey the same when you add special cases. Alhumdulillah we do not believe so and are firm that any narration which contradicts the Quran are to be rejected and not the other way around which it looks like is not the case for you. How unfortunate.

 

 

6. Yes really. You cannot justify by bringing in a generic statement and tell me that I believe in it. It doesn't work like that. But we see how your demi-gods have been failing you despite your attempts at defending them even though that has been coming at the cost of insults being thrown at the Prophet (pbuh) and his family.

 

 

7. You think you can get away with lies and not be exposed? Not happening. The narrations you are desperately holding on to have been explained and yet we see you not turning away from deceit. How desperate have you become that you cannot let go of a lie you have been fed by some anti-Shia website?

 

 

 

 

Salaam alaykum,
I did not say that except in defense :)
 
Some brothers have realized that strength-in-numbers have not helped their case so they have resorted to misusing power.  Understandable but pathetic when we realize that I was not the provoker.

 

 

 

And your justification for insulting the family of the Prophet is this? You continuously proclaim lies, evade the questions asked and when exposed you insult the family of the Prophet (pbuh). Then you try playing the minority card. How pathetic are our arguments.

 

 

 

 

 
Every single narration ShiaPen has quoted from every single tafsir - regarding the belt, shirt and horses - have been refuted.  I also explained to you how mufassirun narrate everything and then they substantiate the authentic narrations while rejecting the weak ones.  Therefore, you ought to reach out to ShiaPen and ask them to amend their articles.  They are causing many like yourself to walk into embarrassing situations.

 

 

 

I only see embarrassment for you here as you have no verses to prove your point and to add to that all your caliphs have disagreed your stance. The tafsir seem to be in accordance with the earlier beliefs in Quran evident from the fact that people closer to the era of the Prophet (pbuh) contradict your lies and all you do is wipe your hands clear that you don't agree with them even though they might be your rightly guided caliphs. How convenient??? So you better get back to cleaning your books coz if they don't have alleged lies then it won't be replicated by anyone. Hope at least that would save you further embarrassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

One of the oldest Shia tafsir is Tafsir Furat Al Kufi authored by Furat Ibn Furat Ibn Ibrahim Al-Kufi.  Most of the narrations, in Tafsir Furat Al Kufi, are attributed to Muhammad Baqir [ra] and Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra] and while there are other Shia commentaries, Tafsir Furat Al Kufi is said to be "titled an Imami exegesis in all aspects."  Shia scholars, of later generations, heavily rely upon the narrations found in this work and even Majlisi, in the introduction of Bihar ul Anwar, names it as one of his most important source.

 

Having said a little about the commentary, let me share what I found out. 

 

Tafseer Furaat part-1 page 149 to 150:

 

pMATTVZ.jpg

 

The highlighted part is a narration in which Rasulullah [saw] and Imam Ali [ra] are talking about inheritance.  Imam Ali [ra] questions Rasulullah [saw] as to what the Prophets [asws] before Rasulullah [saw] would inherit.  The Prophet [saw] informs Imam Ali [ra] that Prophets [asws] (before him) only left the Book of Allah [swt] and their sunnah.

 

Once again, we see the message that "Prophets [asws] do not leave inheritance" being echoed in another Shia text only substantiating what Abu Bakr [ra] - and other Sahabas [ra] including Imam Ali [ra] - had heard from Rasulullah [saw].

 

Apologies if I sound rude, but I need to know something. Do you ever try thinking logically using the brain which Allah has blessed you with? 

 

 

I am amazed at how you continuously ignore the context in which the verses are being mentioned or the narrations being spoken of. All because you want to prove that Abu Bakr heard something from the Prophet (pbuh). 

 

The full narration being alluded to is as follows:

 

 

“Zayd bin Abi Awfa said: ‘I went to Allah’s messenger in his mosque, then he (Zaid) mentioned the story of brotherhood amongst the companions of Allah’s messenger. Then Ali said to the Prophet (s): ‘I lost my patience and felt sorrow when I saw you doing that to your companions but not to me, if I have incurred your displeasure I wish to apologise’.
Allah’s messenger said: ‘I swear by He who sent me with the truth, I only left you for myself, your status to me is like the status of Harun to Musa except there is no Prophet after me, you are my brother and my inheritor’. (Ali) said: ‘O Allah’s messenger, what shall I inherit from you?’ (The Prophet) said: ‘You shall inherit from me what the prophets used to inherit’. (Ali) said: ‘What did the Prophets inherit?’ (The Prophet) said: ‘The book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet, you are with me in my palace in paradise along with my daughter Fatima, you are my brother and my friend’. Then Allah’s messenger recited the verse { (they shall be) as brethren, on raised couches, face to face.} 015.047”

 

 

As we see above, the above narration has nothing to do with material inheritance. Just pause a moment and think about these things logically.

 

1) Is the above narration about material wealth?

2) Is Imam Ali (as) , the son or daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) to ask about material inheritance?

3) Wasn't the daughter of the Prophet (pbuh) alive to discuss about material inheritance?

4) Imam Ali (as) always stated that Fadak belonged to Bibi Fatima (s). If we assume that the above narration was about material inheritance, then are you telling us that he knew he wouldn't receive a share and yet he asked for something prohibited for him (Nauzubillah) ?

5) If at all we see anything from this narration, it only proves that Imam Ali (as) was the most knowledgeable after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) as he had inherited his knowledge and he would  be his successor after he departs.

 

Can you deny any of the above points?

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we have answers to two questions. Can you answer the third one please?

 

 

Q. Do you have a verse from Quran which exempts the Prophets from inheritance?

A. NO. There is no verse which excludes the Prophets from the general inheritance laws.

 

Q. Do you have any narration which proves that Abu Bakr interpreted the verses like you are doing now?

A. NO narration is present about Abu Bakr interpreting the Quranic verses like it is being done recently.

 

 

Do you have a narration to prove that Prophet (pbuh) informed his family members that they would not receive anything after his death?

 

 

 

After you answer all the questions, you will see the reason for these questions InshaAllah.

 

 

(wasalam)

Edited by yam_110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

“Zayd bin Abi Awfa said: ‘I went to Allah’s messenger in his mosque, then he (Zaid) mentioned the story of brotherhood amongst the companions of Allah’s messenger. Then Ali said to the Prophet (s): ‘I lost my patience and felt sorrow when I saw you doing that to your companions but not to me, if I have incurred your displeasure I wish to apologise’.
Allah’s messenger said: ‘I swear by He who sent me with the truth, I only left you for myself, your status to me is like the status of Harun to Musa except there is no Prophet after me, you are my brother and my inheritor’. (Ali) said: ‘O Allah’s messenger, what shall I inherit from you?’ (The Prophet) said: ‘You shall inherit from me what the prophets used to inherit’. (Ali) said: ‘What did the Prophets inherit?’ (The Prophet) said: ‘The book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet, you are with me in my palace in paradise along with my daughter Fatima, you are my brother and my friend’. Then Allah’s messenger recited the verse { (they shall be) 

 

 

 

Jazakallah khair bro. Another point is that in their feeble attempt to prove that prophets do not leave material possessions in inheritance  Sunnis/Nawasib shoot themselves in the feet by relying upon the above hadith because the hadith confirms that

(a.) it was Ali (as) who was the heir of prophet  (b.)

  Ali in fact inherited prophet,

 

and hence the humanly appointment caliph (Abu Bakar) looses his eligibility leaving Sunnies no where !!  

Edited by B-N
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...