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

Those Who Oppose Ammar Bin Yasser (R) Oppose Allah

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I know very well the science of Hadith dear brother and that is why I asked you for the original source OR the isnaad.

Does this chain begin with ammar (ra) or some eye witness and end with a pure and Undisturbed chain all the way don't to the author OR has he taken this literature from another source ie; copied it? This is what I asked before.

 

 

1- First of all, in the person in the end of the narration Jun'thub Bin Abdul'llah Al-Azdi ( جندب بن عبد الله الأزدي) is the one who witnessed, and he is a companion and Thiqah, and died in the War of Suffin (link).

 

2- The source of narration cannot be identified at the "Origin" level, as I explained earlier narrations are "Transmitted" from one scholar to the next, on the bases of the scholar who are his teachers that establish the guidelines of the narrations. Narrated. If I asked you were did Bukhari copy his narrations from? There is 250 year gap between him and the prohet (s.a.w.a.s), and the answer to that would be his previous scholar who are of trust in his criteria.

 

You are trying hard to refute this, however, reality is clear.

 

_________________________________________

(wasalam)

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

@wisdom

just look how calm, safe, documented and well ordered get your answers!!

where you could find a Sunni scholar who present his idea based on shia evidences to prove a controversial topic??

more than twenty references you have already received from your own showing the accuracy of what @The Islam History claims and you even did not provide one Shia reference supporting your Idea?

make up your mind that what and whom you are defending from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Incase later you try to come up with an excuse to criticize the chain, the chain is already reliable, since the investigator of the book, has already established that if a weak narration was present, he would point out in the footnotes, however the narration mentioned, in the footnotes he did not criticize it.

 

 

Chain Analysis:

 

1- Abu'-Al-Hakim A'wanah, bin Al-Hakam bin Iya'ath ( أبو الحكم عوانة بن الحكم بن عوانة بن عياض), a Scholar in narrations (Akh'bari), and is trusted his narrating, transmission of narration. Imam Al-Dahabi approved this in Siyar-Al'-Lam Am-Nubala'h (سير أعلام النبلاء). (link

 

2- Isma'ail Bin Abi Khalid (إسماعيل بن أبي خالد), Al-Hafith, the High Imam, (High ranked), Yahab bin Ma'een, and Abu-Hatim, stated that he is trustworthy, and Al-Bukhari narrates from him and states that he is of the most trustful, Imam Al-Dahabi records this. (link

 

3- Amm'ar Al-Shu'abi (عامر الشعبي), who has witnessed Imam Ali (a.s) and prayed behind him, and heard (narrated) from many companions, one of the highest scholars, narrators of Ahlul-Sunnah, he has heard from 48 companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and was highly knowledgeable and approved of. Imam Al-Dahabi records this. (link)  

 

4- Ab'd-Al-Rahman bin Jubthub (عبد الرحمن بن جندب), the son of Junth'ub Abdullah Al-Azdi  ( جندب بن عبد الله الأزدي), his (5-) father as said earlier, is a companion and Thiqah, and died in the War of Suffin (link). 

 

Note: it is also said: The son of "Jun'thub, is one of the companions of Imam Ali (a.s) (in our case, one of the trusted men of Shikeh Al-Tusi).

Note: In our last topic: "Shia or Sunni" I quoted from several historical books that are approved by Ahlul-Sunnah, that Ammar bin Yasser, was one of the groups who opposed, and now you have one reliable narrations, and one narrations from our literature, which shows that Ammar bin Yasser, have never given a true allegiance to the Shaykhain (Abu bakr & Umar). If we assume that such reports are weak, you still would need to bring a statement from one of your ranked scholars, that he Ammar bin yasser, later gave allegiance wholeheartedly. This I am sure of does not exist. As I have said earlier, even if such gave an allegiance, it is not proof that Abu bakr, was accepted as caliphate. As we read in Sahih Muslim the following narration (previously stated):

 

 

We read in "Sahih Muslim (صحيح مسلم)" By Muslim bin Al-Hajj'aaj (مسلم بن الحجاج القشيري النيسابوري), The book of: "Alimar'ah ( كتاب الإمارة), Chapter: Obligatory holding the majority of Muslims in the time of "Fita'an" (باب وجوب ملازمة جماعة المسلمين عند ظهور الفتن), page, 772, narration #1847:
 
 
 
 وحدثني محمد بن سهل بن عسكر التميمي حدثنا يحيى بن حسان ح وحدثنا عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي أخبرنا يحيى وهو ابن حسان حدثنا معاوية يعني ابن سلام حدثنا زيد بن سلام عن أبي سلام قال قال حذيفة بن اليمان  قلت يا رسول الله إنا كنا بشر فجاء الله بخير فنحن فيه فهل من وراء هذا الخير شر قال نعم قلت هل وراء ذلك الشر خير قال نعم قلت فهل وراء ذلك الخير شر قال نعم قلت كيف قال يكون بعدي أئمة لا يهتدون بهداي ولا يستنون بسنتي وسيقوم فيهم رجال قلوبهم قلوب الشياطين في جثمان إنس قال قلت كيف أصنع يا رسول الله إن أدركت ذلك قال تسمع وتطيع للأمير وإن ضرب ظهرك وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع 
 
 


It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. Al-Yaman who said: "Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living. Will there be a bad time after this good time?" He (the Holy Prophet) said: "Yes." I said: "Will there be a good time after this bad time?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Will there be a bad time after good time?" He said: "Yes." I said: "How?" Whereupon he said: "There will be leaders who will not lead by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways. There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings." I said: "What should I do Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time?" He replied: "You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey."
 
 
 
post-83202-0-74612500-1410518485_thumb.jpost-83202-0-75659800-1410615769_thumb.j

 

 
Conclusion: The "he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr" argument is not of worth. 

 



 

______________________________________________________

(wasalam)

 

post-83202-0-74612500-1410518485_thumb.j

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

(bismillah)

Incase later you try to come up with an excuse to criticize the chain, the chain is already reliable, since the investigator of the book, has already established that if a weak narration was present, he would point out in the footnotes, however the narration mentioned, in the footnotes he did not criticize it.

Chain Analysis:

1- Abu'-Al-Hakim A'wanah, bin Al-Hakam bin Iya'ath ( أبو الحكم عوانة بن الحكم بن عوانة بن عياض), a Scholar in narrations (Akh'bari), and is trusted his narrating, transmission of narration. Imam Al-Dahabi approved this in Siyar-Al'-Lam Am-Nubala'h (سير أعلام النبلاء). (link)

2- Isma'ail Bin Abi Khalid (إسماعيل بن أبي خالد), Al-Hafith, the High Imam, (High ranked), Yahab bin Ma'een, and Abu-Hatim, stated that he is trustworthy, and Al-Bukhari narrates from him and states that he is of the most trustful, Imam Al-Dahabi records this. (link)

3- Amm'ar Al-Shu'abi (عامر الشعبي), who has witnessed Imam Ali (a.s) and prayed behind him, and heard (narrated) from many companions, one of the highest scholars, narrators of Ahlul-Sunnah, he has heard from 48 companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and was highly knowledgeable and approved of. Imam Al-Dahabi records this. (link)

4- Ab'd-Al-Rahman bin Jubthub (عبد الرحمن بن جندب), the son of Junth'ub Abdullah Al-Azdi ( جندب بن عبد الله الأزدي), his (5-) father as said earlier, is a companion and Thiqah, and died in the War of Suffin (link).

Note: it is also said: The son of "Jun'thub, is one of the companions of Imam Ali (a.s) (in our case, one of the trusted men of Shikeh Al-Tusi).

Note: In our last topic: "Shia or Sunni" I quoted from several historical books that are approved by Ahlul-Sunnah, that Ammar bin Yasser, was one of the groups who opposed, and now you have one reliable narrations, and one narrations from our literature, which shows that Ammar bin Yasser, have never given a true allegiance to the Shaykhain (Abu bakr & Umar). If we assume that such reports are weak, you still would need to bring a statement from one of your ranked scholars, that he Ammar bin yasser, later gave allegiance wholeheartedly. This I am sure of does not exist. As I have said earlier, even if such gave an allegiance, it is not proof that Abu bakr, was accepted as caliphate. As we read in Sahih Muslim the following narration (previously stated):

We read in "Sahih Muslim (صحيح مسلم)" By Muslim bin Al-Hajj'aaj (مسلم بن الحجاج القشيري النيسابوري), The book of: "Alimar'ah ( كتاب الإمارة), Chapter: Obligatory holding the majority of Muslims in the time of "Fita'an" (باب وجوب ملازمة جماعة المسلمين عند ظهور الفتن), page, 772, narration #1847:

وحدثني محمد بن سهل بن عسكر التميمي حدثنا يحيى بن حسان ح وحدثنا عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن الدارمي أخبرنا يحيى وهو ابن حسان حدثنا معاوية يعني ابن سلام حدثنا زيد بن سلام عن أبي سلام قال قال حذيفة بن اليمان قلت يا رسول الله إنا كنا بشر فجاء الله بخير فنحن فيه فهل من وراء هذا الخير شر قال نعم قلت هل وراء ذلك الشر خير قال نعم قلت فهل وراء ذلك الخير شر قال نعم قلت كيف قال يكون بعدي أئمة لا يهتدون بهداي ولا يستنون بسنتي وسيقوم فيهم رجال قلوبهم قلوب الشياطين في جثمان إنس قال قلت كيف أصنع يا رسول الله إن أدركت ذلك قال تسمع وتطيع للأمير وإن ضرب ظهرك وأخذ مالك فاسمع وأطع

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. Al-Yaman who said: "Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living. Will there be a bad time after this good time?" He (the Holy Prophet) said: "Yes." I said: "Will there be a good time after this bad time?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Will there be a bad time after good time?" He said: "Yes." I said: "How?" Whereupon he said: "There will be leaders who will not lead by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways. There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings." I said: "What should I do Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time?" He replied: "You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey."

Sahih Muslim.jpg

Conclusion: The "he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr" argument is not of worth.

______________________________________________________

(wasalam)

1. If one scholar says a Hadith is authentic it doesn't mean it is there has to be agreement on this. The only time you can't disagree with a Hadith is when the Hadith is muthawathir and this Hadith is an ahad Hadith. This Hadith on it's own is not sufficient proof since there are many other Hadith which disagree with what ammar (ra) apparently said in this Hadith.

Now about the other Hadith you bought about obeying the evil Amir well this cannot be talking about 1 and 2 because there are praises of 1 and 2 in our books so you trying to call them devils in the form of humans is straight out of the window.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1. If one scholar says a Hadith is authentic it doesn't mean it is there has to be agreement on this. The only time you can't disagree with a Hadith is when the Hadith is muthawathir and this Hadith is an ahad Hadith. This Hadith on it's own is not sufficient proof since there are many other Hadith which disagree with what ammar (ra) apparently said in this Hadith.

Now about the other Hadith you bought about obeying the evil Amir well this cannot be talking about 1 and 2 because there are praises of 1 and 2 in our books so you trying to call them devils in the form of humans is straight out of the window.

Lol

Wisdom set your criteria first. But even then you'll come up with some new excuse because it's people like you which Quran says

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and hearing and their vision is veiled; a great punishment awaits them. (Al-Baqara 2:7, English - Muhammed Sarwar)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Lol

Wisdom set your criteria first. But even then you'll come up with some new excuse because it's people like you which Quran says

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. God has sealed their hearts and hearing and their vision is veiled; a great punishment awaits them. (Al-Baqara 2:7, English - Muhammed Sarwar)

What criteria? What are you talking about? Do you know anything about Hadith sciences if you do you wouldn't talk such foolishness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If one scholar says a Hadith is authentic it doesn't mean it is there has to be agreement on this. The only time you can't disagree with a Hadith is when the Hadith is muthawathir and this Hadith is an ahad Hadith. This Hadith on it's own is not sufficient proof since there are many other Hadith which disagree with what ammar (ra) apparently said in this Hadith.

Now about the other Hadith you bought about obeying the evil Amir well this cannot be talking about 1 and 2 because there are praises of 1 and 2 in our books so you trying to call them devils in the form of humans is straight out of the window.

 

 

First of all, the issue does not make a difference, whether that scholar (I mentioned) says that such a narration is Authentic or not, because above the chain is reliable through "Junth'ub Ibn Ka'ab" (Companion) and the other narrators are also reliable as I have showed above. Brother, Its very sad, to see that even after all this, you think of any way to criticize the narration. However it does not make a difference, the highest of your scholar, of stated those who opposes the caliphate of Abu bakr, and when returning to the history books, we have no narrations where they gave allegiance willingly. Now, let us see what your scholar say about the "Narration" that are only "One" (A'had):

 

1- Imam Al-Bukhari, Him self in his Sahih-Al-Bukhari, has a chapter for only "A'had" narrations. In Book: "Ak'bar A'ha'ad (كتاب أخبار الآحاد)": One rare narrations.". Chapter: "What came in allowing one report" (باب ما جاء في إجازة خبر الواحد)". And he mentions a narration to support his reasoning for allowing "One" narrations. Part #6, page #2647 (link) (Note: Under this Chapter he mentioned 25 narrations) Meaning they are to be taken from, as they are "Authentic".

 

2- We read in "Fat'h-Al-Ba'ari Fe Sharh Sahih-Al-Bukhari  (فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري)" By Ibn Hijir Al-Askal'ani (بن حجر أبو الفضل العسقلاني الشافعي), Association: Da'ar Al-Marifa (دار المعرفة): volume 13, page 321: After a the meeting between the scholars on: "One" narrations:

وانعقد الإجماع على القول بالعمل بأخبار الآحاد

 

And we established the agreement on saying to act upon the reports that are "One (Ah'ad)".

 

 

 

3- Now, When Bukhari stated that he allowed the "One (Ah'ad)" narrations, what did he mean? Ibn Hijir Answers the Question: We read in "Fat'h-Al-Ba'ari Fe Sharh Sahih-Al-Bukhari  (فتح الباري شرح صحيح البخاري)" By Ibn Hijir Al-Askal'ani (بن حجر أبو الفضل العسقلاني الشافعي), Chapter:  What came in allowing one reports ( باب ما جاء في إجازة خبر الواحد ), page 244-46:

 

 

المراد " بالإجازة " جواز العمل به والقول بأنه حجة و " بالواحد " هنا حقيقة الوحدة وأما في اصطلاح الأصوليين فالمراد به ما لم يتواتر ، وقصد الترجمة الرد به على من يقول : إن الخبر لا يحتج به إلا إذا رواه أكثر من شخص واحد

 

The wanted meaning of: "Al-Jawa'z (Allowing), is taking from it, and saying that it is a "Hujja (Evidence)", ...and the reason in "Al-Tarjamah", is a reply to those who say: "That The one reports are not used as proof only if it has been narrated from more than one person." (link)

 

 

4- Ibn' Abd'Al-Ba'ar (ابن عبد البر) Said in his book "Al-Tamh'eed (التمهيد)", volume 1, page #34:

 وكلهم يرون خبر الواحد العدل في الاعتقادات، ويعادي ويوالي عليها، ويجعلها شرعاً وحكماً وديناً في معتقده، على ذلك جماعة أهل السنة ولهم في الأحكام ما ذكرناه

 

And all of them, see that, the "One" (Wa'id) narrations, with justice in the beliefs, and oppose and accept on it, and makes it lawfully, justly, religiously, in his beliefs, on the that the people of Ahlul-Sunnah, and they have of "Ah'ad (one narrations)" what we mentioned ..

 

 

 

 

I can continue quoting, however there is no need, as many scholars (Ahlul-Sunnah) have verified what I said above. At any case, for you to claim "Scientifically" that the narration is "Ah'ad" is wrong in terms of "Meaning" and the meaning is that Ammar Ibn Yasser, what never satisfied with the allegiance of Abu bakr, this issues exist as we have stated in our books: The narration which we had, and in your books, the narrations that I stated, On this we find that your historians have verified that Amm'ar bin Yasser, in many historical evidence has opposed Abu bakr, now, if they stated that he "Opposed" do you act "Surprised" to the narrations we stated? If so, there is no reason to, since it is a historical authentic event that took place. Now, in terms of exact wording or happening in the narrations, yes it is "Ah'ad", and such if reliable it is not to be rejected in the accordance to the opinion of your highest scholars. So when is an "Ah'ad" Narrations rejected? That is when it comes into conflict with another Authentic narrations, or it comes into conflict with other narrations, or many narrations. And that is why the narrations of those that praise Abu bakr, are not of worth in our case since many narrations have come against its claims. that is in our case.

 

Second of all, concerning the "Evil" Amir, the narrations as I previously quoted it n page #1 reply, was in the case of one is forced to give allegiance, and in the case, that we are to give allegiance even if such that we are oppressed, for your claim that the Ahlul-Bayt (a.s) are not oppressed is false in terms, that we have stated Authentic narrations, where the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) stated that the Umm'ah (nation) will betray Imam Ali (a.s) and he will face a struggle in the peace of his religion, and we stated from a historical context, of how they came to raid His wife's house, threatening to burn it down, and only after such that "He" imam Ali (a.s) gave allegiance, and you will find there are "Zero" narrations where Imam Ali (a.s) himself went and approached Abu bakr, right after the happening of Saqifa and gave allegiance wholeheartedly, it took months, and in that period they oppressed him, without doubt, as he refers to them: "Traitors, Sinful, Liars" (Sahih Muslim). If such he thought of them, it makes clear the allegiance is not given based on the commands of Allah (Az'Wa'Jal) to satisfy him. I have quoted repeatedly where the pure "Truth" and the Book of Allah "Quran" is always with Imam Ali (a.s) where ever his goes and surrounds, and many narrations that affirm his divine status with the Book of Allah Az'a Wa'Jal. The most Knowledgeable of the Nation, the most patient, the most wise, oppressed, and history speaks. However the reason why you try hard to reject the narration is due to that fact, that you cannot believe that the companions where against those who you hold so dearly, and the fact that you put them infront of Ahlul-bayt (a.s), and this is falsehood from what the events of history speaks of. Brother, If you cannot comprehend with this, then do not bother creating weak criticisms, I have said this before: "Research and think deeply, and then ask for guidance, and decide.". Insh'Allah, if it is truth you seek, May Allah be at your support and guidance it"

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________            

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Now, Let us turn to a very important case. But first let us revise, what we have authenticity proven: The first, is that Imam Ali's (a.s) actions are hand in hand with the Qur'an and the commands of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and that is, he cannot act upon: "ignorantly" on any issue. And this is supported by the authentic narrations, which states that the Imam Ali (a.s) is the one whom will fight for the interpretation of the "Qur'an" Just as the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s) has fought for its revelation. In this a part of the meaning it shows is that Imam Ali (a.s) is the most knowledgeable after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s) about the interpretation of the book of Allah, so how can we find faults in his actions when he knows the pure truth? In this case, when he thinks of the two Shaykhain (Abu bakr & Umar) as lairs, traitors, sinners, it is not based on his ignorance, but rather the truth which he knows, in that, the actions they took are of falsehood. Imam Ali (a.s) himself has stated the he knows what none of them know. Before we get to our crucial case, let us support this (Bear in mind, that he (a.s) is the guardian of the interpretation of the Qur'an and has fought for it, just as the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s) has fought for its revelations):

 

 

 

We read in "Mustadrak-Ala-Sahehain (المستدرك على الصحيحين) By- Al-Hakim-Al-Nisaburi (أبو عبد الله الحاكم محمد بن عبد الله بن محمد بن حمدويه بن نُعيم بن الحكم الضبي الطهماني النيسابوري المعروف بابن البيع), Investigated by Mustafa Ab'd Al-qad'r Att'ah (مصطفى عبد القادر عطا), Association: Da'r Al-Kutub-Al-imiyah (دار الكتب العلمية), first print, volume 3, page 136:
 

Narration #4633:

 

 

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ الْفَقِيهُ، ثنا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الدَّارِمِيُّ، ثنا النُّفَيْلِيُّ، ثنا زُهَيْرٌ، ثنا أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ عُثْمَانُ، وَحَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَكِيمٍ الْأَوْدِيُّ، وَعَمْرُو بْنُ عَوْنٍ الْوَاسِطِيُّ، قَالَا: ثنا شَرِيكُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ قُثَمَ بْنَ الْعَبَّاسِ: كَيْفَ وَرِثَ عَلِيٌّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دُونَكُمْ؟ قَالَ: «لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ أَوَّلَنَا بِهِ لُحُوقًا، وَأَشَدَّنَا بِهِ لُزُوقًا

 

 

 

Narrated Aboo Nadhr Muhammad ibn Yusuf Al-Faqih from Uthman ibn Sa'eed Al-Darami from Al-Nufaily from Zuhayr from Aboo Is'haq, and Uthman said: Narrated to us also Alee ibn Hakim Al-Awdi and Amr ibn Awn Al-Wasity both from Shareek ibn Abdullah from Abi Is'haq who said: I asked Qutham ibn Al-Abbas: How is that Alee (a.s) inherited from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s) instead of you? He said: "Because he was the first one of us who joined Him (saw) and the most intense one of us in following him and accompanying him." 

 

 

هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ، وَلَمْ يُخَرِّجَاهُ

Al-Hakim: This hadeeth's chain is Saheeh, and Bukhari and Muslim did not release it.

 

التعليق - من تلخيص الذهبي صحيح

 

Al-Dhahabi: It is Saheeh (Authentic).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Narration #4634:

 

 
 
 
سَمِعْتُ قَاضِي الْقُضَاةَ أَبَا الْحَسَنِ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ صَالِحٍ الْهَاشِمِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عُمَرَ الْقَاضِي يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنَ إِسْحَاقَ الْقَاضِي يَقُولُ: وَذُكِرَ لَهُ قَوْلُ قُثَمَ هَذَا، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّمَا يَرِثُ الْوَارِثُ بِالنَّسَبِ أَوْ بِالْوَلَاءِ، وَلَا خِلَافَ بَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ أَنَّ ابْنَ الْعَمِّ لَا يَرِثُ مَعَ الْعَمِّ، فَقَدْ ظَهَرَ بِهَذَا الِإِجْمَاعِ أَنَّ عَلِيًّا وَرِثَ الْعِلْمَ مِنَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دُونَهُمْ، وَبِصِحَّةِ مَا ذَكَرَهُ الْقَاضِي
 
 
I heard the high jurist Abal Hassan Muhammad ibn Saleh Al-Hashemi who said: I heard Aba Umar Al-Qadhi who said: I heard Isma'eel ibn Is'haq Al-Qadhi when this statement of Qutham was mentioned to him, so he said: "The heir inherit through their lineage or through guardianship and there is no dispute among the people of knowledge that cousin does not inherit when the uncle is alive, so by this consensus it is revealed that Alee (a.s) inherited the knowledge from the Prophet (saw) and the others were excluded."
 
 
 
post-83202-0-53918700-1410693146_thumb.jpost-83202-0-04257800-1410693155_thumb.j
Link to post
Share on other sites

We read in "Maj'mah-Al-Zawa'id Wa Man'nah Al-Faw'aid ( مجمع الزوائد ومنبع الفوائد)" By "Ali bin Abi bakr bin Suliyman Al-Haythami (علي بن أبي بكر بن سليمان الهيثمي نور الدين)" Investigated by Muhammad bin Al-Qader Ah'mad Att'ah  (محمد عبد القادر أحمد عطا), Al-ilmiyah (العلمية) print: volume 9, page #102-103, Narration 14669:

 

 

قد تقدم في إسلامه أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال لفاطمة  أما ترضين أن زوجتك أقدم أمتي سلما وأكثرهم علما وأعظمهم حلما ؟ 
 
 
Narrated by A'isha: Sayeda Faatimah (s.a) the daughter of Muhammad (saw), told me that the Messenger of Allah (saw), said to her, "Your husband is the most knowledgeable of the believers, and the first of them to accept Islam, and the most clement of them."
 
 رواه أحمد والطبراني برجال وثقوا
 
 
Al-Haythami: Ahmad and Al-Ṭabarani recorded it with narrators who have (all) been graded thiqah (trustworthy).
 
 
 
post-83202-0-01914900-1410694237_thumb.jpost-83202-0-93887200-1410694219_thumb.jpost-83202-0-07044700-1410694340_thumb.j
Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

We read in "Tafseer Al-Qur'an Al-Ath'eem (تفسير القرآن العظيم)", By Ibn Kath'eer (إسماعيل بن عمر بن كثير القرشي الدمشقي), Association: Da'ar Al-Tay'ibah (دار طيبة), Investigated by mix of scholar, Volume 13, page #207:
 



 قال شعبة بن الحجاج ، عن سماك ، عن خالد بن عرعرة أنه سمع عليا وشعبة أيضا ، عن القاسم بن أبي بزة ، عن أبي الطفيل ، سمع عليا . وثبت أيضا من غير وجه ، عن أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب : أنه صعد منبر الكوفة فقال : لا تسألوني عن آية في كتاب الله ، ولا عن سنة عن رسول الله ، إلا أنبأتكم بذلك 

 

 

Ans said: Shub'ah bin Al-Hajjaj, from Sam'aak, from Khalid bin Ar'ar'ah, that he heard Ali, and Su'aba Also, from Al-Qasim, bin Abi Bazz'ah, from Abi Al-Tufiyal, heard Ali. And It has been proven without doubt that Amir ul Momineen Ali (a.s) ascended the platform in Kufa and said, "There is not a verse in the book of Allah (Aza'Wa'Jal) or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (Aza'Wa'Jal) except that I can tell you about it."

 

 

 

 

post-83202-0-42817000-1410695337_thumb.jpost-83202-0-17013200-1410695317_thumb.j

Link to post
Share on other sites

ًWe read in: "Al-Faqeeh Wa Al-Mutaffiqh (الفقيه و المتفقه)" By Aby bakr, Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi (أبو بكر أحمد بن علي بن ثابت بن أحمد بن مهدي الخطيب البغدادي), Investigated by: Ad'el Bin Yusud Al-Ghizazi ( أبو عبد الرحمن عادل بن يوسف الغرازي), Association: "Dar Ibn Al-Jawzi (دار ابن الجوزي), Saudi Arabia, Volume 3, page 351-353:

 

Narration #1081:

 

أناه أَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ بْنِ رَوْحٍ , وَأَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ فَهْدٍ النَّهْرَوَانِيَّانِ بِهَا , قَالَا: أنا أَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ الْكُهَيْلِيُّ بِالْكُوفَةِ , أنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سُلَيْمَانَ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ , نا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْمَرْوَزِيُّ , نا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ , نا مَعْمَرٌ , عَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي دُبَيٍّ , عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ , قَالَ: شَهِدْتُ عَلِيًّا , وَهُوَ يَخْطُبُ , وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: «سَلُونِي , وَاللَّهِ لَا تَسْأَلُونِي عَنْ شَيْءٍ يَكُونُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ إِلَّا حَدَّثْتُكُمْ بِهِ»

 

 

Narrated Abu Tufayl, from Imam Ali (a.s) who said: "Ask me, for I swear by Allah (Aza'Wa'Jal) there is not a single thing that you can ask me about the day of Judgement except that I can tell you about it."

 

 

Footnotes: Hadeeth is Saheeh (Authentic).

 

 

Narration #1082:

 

 

بِإِسْنَادِهِ , قَالَ: قَالَ عَلِيٌّ: «سَلُونِي عَنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ , فَوَاللَّهِ , مَا مِنْ آيَةٍ إِلَّا أَنِّي أَعْلَمُ أَبِلَيْلٍ نَزَلَتْ أَمْ بِنَهَارٍ , أَمْ فِي سَهْلٍ أَمْ فِي جَبَلٍ»

 

 

Narrated Abu Tufayl from Imam Ali (a.s) who said, "Ask me about the book of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, for I swear there is not a single verse in it except that I know whether it was revealed during the night or day, whether it was revealed in a plain or on a mountain."

 

 

وأنا ابْنُ رَوْحٍ , وَابْنُ فَهْدٍ قَالَا: أنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْكُهَيْلِيُّ , أنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ , نا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ , نا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ , عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ , قَالَ: أُرَاهُ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ , قَالَ: " لَمْ يَكُنْ أَحَدٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: سَلُونِي إِلَّا عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ

 

 

Narrated from Yahya ibn Sa'eed: "There was not even a single man from the companions of the Prophet (saw) who could say, 'Ask me' except Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s)."

 

 

Footnotes:

 

(1) Hadeeth is Saheeh (Authentic).

(2) Hadeeth is Hasan (Reliable).
 
 
post-83202-0-60995000-1410697001_thumb.jpost-83202-0-17721000-1410696862_thumb.jpost-83202-0-26046100-1410696867_thumb.j
Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

So, now that we have authentically, established the following: 

(1) Imam Ali (a.s) is he guardian of the interpretation of the book of Allah, and has fought for it, just as the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s) has fought for its revelation.

 

(2) Imam Ali (a.s), is always with the truth, and truth surrounds him, where ever he goes (Surrounds), and this applies, that all his actions cannot depart from truth, and truth cannot depart from it, at all times.

 

(3) The book of Alllah (Aza'Wa'Jal), the Qu'ran is always with Ali (a.s) and Ali (a.s) is with it at all times, this adds to the "Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with Ali, narration", which now becomes: The Absolute truth in his actions.

 

(4) Imam Ali (a.s), is the most knowledgeable after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and in the above narrations as we have proven hes knowledge suppresses all the companions and therefore, when he takes an action it is in accordance to the absolute Truth.

 

 

Now that these critical facts have been established, we will now proceed and continue with, whether Imam Ali (a.s) gave a true allegiance to Abu bak and Umar. Even though that we have proven this earlier on page one of this topic, from the evidence of: (1) That Imam Ali (a.s) was forced, after they had raided his house, and (2) After they had sent over to him, (3) That Imam Ali (a.s) has thought and acknowledges the two Shaykain (Abu bakr & Umar) as sinners, Traitors, and perpetrators, and he the Imam (a.s) whom has the knowledge of the interpretation of the book of Allah (Aza'Wa'Jal) cannot give an allegiance based on the Quran and the Sunnah, when he finds them to be traitors and Sinners. So what other evidence do we have? Well the most and perhaps greatest evidence, is that he Imam Ali (a.s) when they had the Shur'aa (Meeting) after Umar ibn Al-Khattabs death, when they offered him to accept the the criteria (list of beliefs), which is (1) The book of Allah, (2) The Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and (3) The Sunnah of Abu bakr and Umar. So, he Imam Ali (a.s) stated that he accepts the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s),, but rejects the Sunnah of Abu bakr and Umar, so therefore, they gave the Caliphate to Uthman.

 

 

We read in "Musn'ad Ahm'ad Bin Hanbal (أحمد بن حنبل), Imam Ah'mad (أبو عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل بن هلال بن أسد الشيباني), Investigate by Ah;mad Shakir (أحمد محمد شاكر), Association: D'ar Al-hadith, Al-Qahera (دار الحديث - القاهرة), volume 1, page 402, narration #557:

 

حَدَّثَنَا حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد اللَّهِ ، حَدَّثَنِي سُفْيَانُ بْنُ وَكِيعٍ ، حَدَّثَنِي قَبِيصَةُ ، عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرِ بْنِ عَيَّاشٍ ، عَنْ عَاصِمٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ ، قَالَ : قُلْتُ لِعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ : " كَيْفَ بَايَعْتُمْ عُثْمَانَ وَتَرَكْتُمْ عَلِيًّا ؟ قَالَ : مَا ذَنْبِي ؟ قَدْ بَدَأْتُ بِعَلِيٍّ ، فَقُلْتُ : أُبَايِعُكَ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ ، وَسِيرَةِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، وَعُمَرَ ، قَالَ : فَقَالَ : فِيمَا اسْتَطَعْتُ ، قَالَ : ثُمَّ عَرَضْتُهَا عَلَى عُثْمَانَ ، فَقَبِلَهَا "

 

 

Told us Ab'dullah (Ahmad), told us Sufiyan bin Wak'ee,h', told us Quth'iyba, from Abi bakr bin Ay'ash, from As'em, from Abi Wa'el, said: I said to Abd'-Al-Rahman bin Aw'f: "How did you (they) give allegiance to Uth'man, and left Ali? Said: "What is my burden?, It started with Ali, so I said: " I Give you allegiance on the Book Of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), and the path of Abu bakr and Umar." So (Ali) said: "In What I can", Then I offered it to Uthman, so he accepted it..


 
  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"If you two swore allegiance to me obediently, come back and offer REPENTANCE TO Allah soon, but if you swore allegiance to me reluctantly you have certainly given me cause for action, by showing your obedience and concealing your disobedience. 2 By my life, you were not more entitled than other Muhajirun to conceal and hide the matter. Your refusing allegiance before entering into it would have been easier than getting out of it after having accepted it."

This letter along with letter 6

Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance 1 to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider), and he who was absent has no right to reject; and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.

If any one keeps away by way of objection or innovation they will return him to the position from where he kept away. If he refuses they will fight him for following a course other than that of the believers and Allah will put him back from where he had run away.

Let me break down these two letters for you.

Letter 54.

"If you two swore allegiance to me obediently, come back and offer REPENTANCE TO Allah soon

Letter 6

If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah'S PLEASURE

pleasure of Allah is in Sunni caliphate not Shia Imamate hence the reason imam Ali (as) calls them to repentance in letter 54.

Letter 54

but if you swore allegiance to me reluctantly you have certainly given me CAUSE FOR ACTION, by showing your obedience and

Letter 6

If any one keeps away by way of objection or innovation they will return him to the position from where he kept away. If he refuses they will FIGHT HIM for following a course other than that of the believers and Allah will put him back from where he had run away.

Imam Ali (as) fought them on these bases (letter 6 and letter 54 :)

The most astonishing thing is that to prove a fundamental belief of yours (Imamate) you are only referring to Hadith :)..makes one wonder!!!

Edited by Wisdom007
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

"By Allah, 1 Mu`awiyah is not more cunning than I am, but he deceives and commits evil deeds. Had it not been for the reprehensibility of deceit, I would have been the most cunning of all men. But (the fact is that) every deceit is a sin and every sin is disobedience (of Allah), and every deceitful person will have a banner by which he will be recognised on the Day of Judgement. By Allah, I cannot be made forgetful by strategy, nor can I be overpowered by hardships."

 

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-200-Allah-muawiyah-not-more-cunning-i-am%E2%80%A6

 

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

 

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah1

 

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-abu-quhafah

 

 

Delivered when the Holy Prophet died and `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib and Abu Sufyan ibn Harb offered to pay allegiance to Amir al-mu’minin for the Caliphate

 

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-5-o-people-steer-clear-through-waves-mischief

 

Letter 6: To Mu`awiyah (ibn Abi Sufyan)

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-6-muawiyah-ibn-abi-sufyan

 

  • (1) 
  • When all the people of Medina unanimously swore allegiance to Amir al-mu`minin, Mu`awiyah refused to acquiesce apprehending danger for his own power, and in order to contest Amir al-mu'minin's caliphate he concocted the excuse that it had not been agreed to unaulmously and that there fore after cancelling it there should be another general election, although the caliphate from which (the process of) election was started was the result of a timely situation. There was no question of the common vote therein so that it could be called the result of the people's election. However, it was imposed on the people and assumed to be their verdict. From then it became a principle that whomever the nobles of Medina elected would be deemed to represent the entire world of Islam and no person would be allowed to question it, whether he was present at the time of election or not. In any case, after the establishment of the principle, Mu`awiyah had no right to propose a re-election nor to refuse allegiance when he had in practice recognized these caliphates which, it was alleged, had been settled by the important people of Medina. That is why when he held this election to be invalid and refused allegiance,

  • Amir al-mu'minin pointed out to him the (recognized) way of election and demolished his argument. It was a method known as arguing with the adversary on the basis of his wrong premises so as to demolish his argument, since Amir al-mu'minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate. Otherwise, in connection with the caliphate about which it is alleged that they were based on the unanimity of the muhajirun and the ansar, he would have regarded that unanimity of vote as a good authority and held them as valid; but his refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate. That is why at all times he continued pressing his own case for the caliphate, which was also established on the basis of the Prophet's saying and deeds. However, to place it before Mu`awiyah meant opening the door to questions and answers. He therefore attempted to convince him with his own premises and beliefs so that there could be no scope for interpretation or for confusing the matter, in fact Mu'awiyah's real aim was to prolong the matter so that at some point his own authority might get support.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

@S.M.H.A

 

 

Thank you for your reply Dear brother. However, Insha'Allah, I will reply to the objection in much detail, and rooting the letter back to its original source, which in reality is much longer than the one established in Nahjul-balagha. With it, some analytic approach towards the events that took places after the Prophets (s.a.w.a.s) death.

___________________________

(wasalam) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ S.M.H.A @ Islamic history

I knew you both would reply in such a manner so I will do exactly what you did. You can also bring whatever other evidence you like I will just direct you to Hadith in bukhari etc which prove prophet did not leave a sucessor :)

Oh and SMHA your explanation of letter 6 or should I say your copy and paste for explanation if letter 6 manes no sense and can be easily refuted :)

Edited by Wisdom007
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ S.M.H.A @ Islamic history

I knew you both would reply in such a manner so I will do exactly what you did. You can also bring whatever other evidence you like I will just direct you to Hadith in bukhari etc which prove prophet did not leave a sucessor :)

Oh and SMHA your explanation of letter 6 or should I say your copy and paste for explanation if letter 6 manes no sense and can be easily refuted :)

 

 

 

(bismillah)

 

 

(salam)

Dear brother, I would first like to say: "Please behave properly". You are now clearly deviating from the topic, stating the issues of the "Leadership/Successor", is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. The reasons are clear, since this was not the Original topic we were trying to analyse. The issue as you have first asked was: (1) whether Ammar Bin yasser gave allegiance and whether Imam Ali (a.s) gave allegiance. In this we have stated clear Authentic evidence from the books of Ahu-Sunnah, which some you have previously ignored, and some which you acknowledged (Hopefully), since no satisfactory objections with authentic premises was given. Now you have simply now left everything else, and went to the letters in Nahjul-Balagha I have no problem with this type of fallacy, which you have laid, as I will take the letter out of its original source and take an analytic approach to examine the issues your stating. In this there is no reason for you to state that we are committing an argument from ignorance, Because the previous sources, which we have laid-out are authentic in terms of your literature and your scholars, and most importantly we did not mentioned anything out of context, however I will tell you that you have in fact mentioned "Letter 6" out of context, but its not your fault since it has not all been mentioned in Nahjul-Balagha, but we Insha'Allah, I will quote the direct source with a Isn'ad (chain), to give us more clear picture. To this point where is our fallacy? You are stating that "No matter what we mention, you will refer us back to Bukhari". This is ignorance by dear brother, which I hope that you will detach from. As you know, in this form of argumentation, one provides a source from the opponent, which is accepted by that opponents religious sect (ideas), thus if such an opinions, narrations, idea, is held by the majority of your scholars and including narrations, then it is an authentic source of evidence in the argument that is taking place between two different schools of thought. To direct everything to Sahih Bukhari is a fallacy, and even when we used sources from Bukhari, you consist to object. Bukhari as you know has not recorded much of the historical events, nor any events that are important before and after the prophets (s.a..w.a.s) death, nor did Sahih Muslim, but many scholars before them and after them have, if you were to depend solely on Bukhari in a historical and narrations context, you would need to discard some of your own beliefs, since Isma'il bukhari did  not establish all ideas or laws, from a narrative and historical context, your scholars and ours also have deepened on many, of variety of sources to establish their strict beliefs depending on what was present in the sources at the time. So please, if you cannot present an argument or a valid objection, please do not waste your time and mine. We are taking a scientific analytic approach, and not words from here and there.

Yours:

IH

 

_________

(wasalam)

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

(bismillah)

(salam)

Dear brother, I would first like to say: "Please behave properly". You are now clearly deviating from the topic, stating the issues of the "Leadership/Successor", is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance. The reasons are clear, since this was not the Original topic we were trying to analyse. The issue as you have first asked was: (1) whether Ammar Bin yasser gave allegiance and whether Imam Ali (a.s) gave allegiance. In this we have stated clear Authentic evidence from the books of Ahu-Sunnah, which some you have previously ignored, and some which you acknowledged (Hopefully), since no satisfactory objections with authentic premises was given. Now you have simply now left everything else, and went to the letters in Nahjul-Balagha I have no problem with this type of fallacy, which you have laid, as I will take the letter out of its original source and take an analytic approach to examine the issues your stating. In this there is no reason for you to state that we are committing an argument from ignorance, Because the previous sources, which we have laid-out are authentic in terms of your literature and your scholars, and most importantly we did not mentioned anything out of context, however I will tell you that you have in fact mentioned "Letter 6" out of context, but its not your fault since it has not all been mentioned in Nahjul-Balagha, but we Insha'Allah, I will quote the direct source with a Isn'ad (chain), to give us more clear picture. To this point where is our fallacy? You are stating that "No matter what we mention, you will refer us back to Bukhari". This is ignorance by dear brother, which I hope that you will detach from. As you know, in this form of argumentation, one provides a source from the opponent, which is accepted by that opponents religious sect (ideas), thus if such an opinions, narrations, idea, is held by the majority of your scholars and including narrations, then it is an authentic source of evidence in the argument that is taking place between two different schools of thought. To direct everything to Sahih Bukhari is a fallacy, and even when we used sources from Bukhari, you consist to object. Bukhari as you know has not recorded much of the historical events, nor any events that are important before and after the prophets (s.a..w.a.s) death, nor did Sahih Muslim, but many scholars before them and after them have, if you were to depend solely on Bukhari in a historical and narrations context, you would need to discard some of your own beliefs, since Isma'il bukhari did not establish all ideas or laws, from a narrative and historical context, your scholars and ours also have deepened on many, of variety of sources to establish their strict beliefs depending on what was present in the sources at the time. So please, if you cannot present an argument or a valid objection, please do not waste your time and mine. We are taking a scientific analytic approach, and not words from here and there.

Yours:

IH

_________

(wasalam)

I am behaving properly :) as usual. The issue here us that you're trying to prove ammar bin yasser (ra) did not give allegiance because he believed that the ahle bayt were already appointed but our books say some what different :) so YOU behave properly dear brother :) there's enough evidence in bukhari Muslim to stop you in your tracks for your claims

I have not taken letter 6 out of context as history supports my view of letter 6 not yours. Letter 54 is also clear enough for my opinion dear brother.

Also you seem to refer strictly with Hadith in regards to Imamate I wonder why?

Edited by Wisdom007
Link to post
Share on other sites

2- We read in "Tareekh Al-Sagheer (التاريخ الصغير)" By Muhammad Bin Isma'ail Al-Bukhari  (محمد بن اسماعيل البخاري), Investigated by "Muhammad Ibrahim Za'ye'id (محمود ابراهيم زايد), volume 1, page #178:



حدثنا موسى ثنا سليمان بن مسلم أبو المعلي العجلي قال سمعت أبي أن الحسين لما نزل كربلاء فأول من طعن في سرادقه عمر بن سعد فرأيت عمر بن سعد وابنيه قد ضربت أعناقهم علقوا على الخشب ثم ألهبت فيهم النار

 

 

Abع Al-Muaali Al-Ijlli narrated from his father that he said: "When Hussain arrived in Karbala, Umar bin Sa'ad was the first individual who cut the ropes of the tents."

 

 

 

 

post-83202-0-65193500-1410783993_thumb.jpost-83202-0-37303700-1410783986_thumb.j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ٍIn this, The Letter cannot be taken for granted.

 

_____________________________________

(Wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

 

(bismillah)

 

 

In "Muj'am Sayed Al-Khoei (q.s), We read:




روى عن علي بن حماد، وروى عنه نصر بن مزاحم كامل الزيارات:
الباب 23، في قول أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام في قتل الحسين عليه السلام،
الحديث 2

 

Narrated from him Ali bin Ham'ad, and narrated from him Nas'er bin Muz'ahim (Kamel-Al-Ziyarat), Chapter 23, in the saying of Imam Ali (a.s) in the murder of Imam Al-Hussain (a.s).

 

Fix:

He is not Umar Bin Sa'ad Bin Al-Waqqas (My apologies) , His Umar Bin Sa'ad Al-Mad'a'ini,

 

 

Conclusion: This leaves us With:

 

Numair Bin Wa'lah (نمير بن وعلة) Who is Unknown. (Majhool)

 

This Letter in this Context: Is Weak. And not Established Authentically.

 

 

_________________________________________________

(wasalam)

 

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Also this is according to Ahlul-Sunnah in Al-Miz'an: Ibn Hijir Al-Askalani:

 


 

 نمير بن وعلة.عن الشعبي. وعنه أبو مخنف لوط فقط.
مجهول.
 
Numair Bin Wa'lah (نمير بن وعلة) is Majhool (unkown).
Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

Hasan `Abd Allah al-`Ajami has discussed this narration in his reply to `Uthman al-Khamees:

 

 من طريق نصر بن مزاحم، عن عمر بن سعد الأسدي عن نمير بن وعلة ، عن عامر الشعبي، وقد رواه نصر بن مزاحم في وقعة صفين(65)، عن عمر بن سعد الأسدي بنفس باقي السند، وليس له سند آخر غير هذا السند ، فمصدره الشعبي وهو من رواة أهل السنة ولم يوثقه الشيعة، وفي نهج البلاغة لابن أبي الحديد المعتزلي عن أبي إسحاق قال: ( ثلاثة لا يؤمنون على علي بن أبي طالب، مسروق ومرة وشريح وروي أن الشعبي رابعهم)، وفي السند نمير بن وعلة وهو مجهول ، صرّح بذلك الرازي في الجرح والتعديل والذهبي في ميزان الاعتدال، وفي السند عمر بن سعد الأسدي ولا يعرف من هو تحديداً ، فهو مجهول .
From the Tareeq of Nasr b. Mazaahim from `Umar b. Sa`ad al-Asadi from Numayr b. Wa`lah from `Aamir al-Shu`bi and Nasr b. Mazaahim has narrated it in Waqi`ah Siffeen from `Umar b. Sa`ad al-Asadi by the same remaining Sanad, and there is not another Sanad other than this sanad. And the origins of al-Shu`bi is that he is from the narrators of Ahl al-Sunnah and he is not authenticated by the Shee`ah.
 
And in [sharh] Nahj al-Balaaghah of Ibn Abi al-Hadeed al-Mu`tazali from Abi Ishaaq said: "Three did not believe in Ali b. Abi Talib: Masrooq, Murrah, and Shurayh, and it is narrated that al-Shu`bi was the fourth of them"
 
And in the sanad there is Numayr b. Wa`lah and he is Majhool, al-Razi declared that in al-Jarh wa al-Ta`deel and al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal. And in the Sanad is `Umar b. Sa`ad al-Asadi, and he is not specifically known, so he is Majhool
 
 
 
(salam)
Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(salam)

(bismillah)

 

Hasan `Abd Allah al-`Ajami has discussed this narration in his reply to `Uthman al-Khamees:

 

(salam)

 

 

 

(salam)

 

 

Thank you dear brother, kind of you. I am currently making a post on similar to your on the issues. Thanks for mentioning.

 

 

Update:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235025328-letter-6-nahjul-balagha-weak-chain/

 

______________________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

@Wizdom

 

 

In relation to the narration we authenticated about Ammar bin Yasser, has few issues that we need to address, I have been researching on the Source (Isn'aad) carefully, and so we must state was true. First of all, we mentioned in the book: Al-Saqeefah Wa Al-Fadak (السقيفة وفدك), By Ab'a bakr Ahmad bin Abd'all-Aziz Al-Jawharu Al-Basri (لأبي بكر أحمد بن عبدالعزيز الجوهري البصري البغدادي), the narration where Amm'ar after they gave the caliphate to Uthman condemn the people of Quryash, and others and has stated that the caliphate has been taken from Ahlulbayt (a.s). We look again at the Isn'aad of the narration:

 

 

قال عوانة: قال إسماعيل: قال الشعبي: فحدثني عبد الرحمن بن جندب، عن أبيه جندب بن عبد الله الأزدي،

 

Said: Awa'na: Said Isma'eel, Said: Al-Shuabi: told us Ab'd Al-Rahman Bin Jundub, from his father, Jundum bin Abdulah Al-Azdi said: 

 

 

1- First source: (?)

 

Awa'na and Isma'eel are trusted and approved of. And Also Al-Shuabi, who is more than just trustworthy by a high scholar of the first level according to Ahlul-Sunnah, and the narrator is the companion Jundub Bin Abdullah Al-Azdi, however in the narrations: "Ab'dull-Rahman bin Jundub," is Majhool (unknown), among the Ahlul-Sunnah to some degree, however, he is as it seems from history to be the son of Jundub Bin Abdullah Al-Azadi the companion, and this is evident from History of Tabari.

 

Now, the critical issue here is that Al-Shuabi, narrates from him. What does this mean? Well, Let us first read who ِAhmad bin Abdullah Al-Ijili, is:

 

 

We read in Siy'ar Al-Al'am Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), By Imam Al-Dahabi (محمد بن أحمد بن عثمان الذهبي), Volume #12, page #505, Person number, #185- and forward : Abu Al-Hassan Ahmad Bin Abd'ullah Al-I'j'ili (أبو الحسن أحمد بن عبد الله العجلي):
 

وقال المؤرخ العالم أبو العرب محمد بن أحمد بن تميم القيرواني : سألت مالك بن عيسى العفصي الحافظ : من أعلم من رأيت بالحديث ؟ قال : أما في الشيوخ فأحمد بن عبد الله العجلي . 
 
 
..And said Al-M'ur'kh The Scholar Abu Al-Arab Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Tam'eem Al-Q'ayruni: I asked Malik Bin Is'aa Al-Ith'si Al-Hafith: "Who is the most knowledgeable (of scholars) in Narrations?" Said: "as for in the scholars, Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-I'j'li.
 
 
 
وقال محمد بن أحمد بن غانم الحافظ : سمعت أحمد بن معتب -مغربي ثقة- يقول : سئل يحيى بن معين عن أحمد بن عبد الله بن صالح ، فقال : هو ثقة ابن ثقة . 

 

 

And said Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Gha'im Al-hafith: I heard Ahmad bin M'u'tba, Maghribi: "Trusted", saying: He asked Yah'ya bin Ma'een from Ahmad bin abdullah Bin Saleh, so he said: "He is Trusted the son of trusted."

 

 

 

So, We turn to page 296-301# in the Second section (الطبقة الثانية), and Se what he says About Al-Shu'bi:

 

 

قال أحمد بن عبد الله العجلي : سمع الشعبي من ثمانية وأربعين من أصحاب رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - قال : ولا يكاد يرسل إلا صحيحا . 

 

 

Said Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-I'j'li: " Al-Shu'bi has heard from forty eight companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), said: "and to the point (almost) does not transmit, only what is Authentic.

 

 

 

2- Second Source (Weak)

 

 

 

In this we expect the narration (above) to me of some sort of acceptance, however we would like to state what is authentically genuine (Which we will), and before we do, we also point out that the narration exist in "Tareekh Al-Tabari" volume 4, under the story of Al-Shurah, However this one is very weak, because of  Abu Al-Mukha''af (ابو المخنف), who is one of the prominent and high scholars of the School of Ahlulbayt (Shi'e), who was close to the time of Imam Ja'far Al-Sadiq (a.s), however scholars such as "Al-Tabari, (الطبري), And Ibn-Ath'eer (ابن الأثير), have depended on him in history, and he has many works and books, and is known to record the Tragedy of Karbala. Till now, the new scholars have discarded him due to his being as a "Shi'e", which in reality is a weak excuse to weaken a mans trust. 

 

 

 

 

 

3- Third source (Strongly Authentic)

 

 

 

The third source, which we will now mentioned, that is authentically genuine, and more reliable than the rest: 

 

We read In "Tareekh Al-Madin'ah Al-Munawara (تاريخ المدينة المنورة)", By "Umar bin Sha'bah (عمر بن شبه النميري البصري أبو زيد), Investigated by Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Ahmad Al-Dawish (  عبد الله بن محمد بن أحمد الدويش), volume 3, page# 140-146:
 

 

 

وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ ، قال : حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ عُقْبَةَ ، قال : حَدَّثَنَا نَافِعٌ ، أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَخْبَرَهُ ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ غُسِّلَ وَكُفِّنَ وَصُلِّيَ عَلَيْهِ ، وَكَانَ شَهِيدًا ، وَقَالَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

 

 

 

Told us Muhammad (ibn Abi Kath'eer): Said: Told us Mus'a Bin A'qbah, Said: Told us Naf'h (Mawla Ibn Umar): That Abdullah bin Umar may Allah be pleased with him:.......(1)
 

 

_______________________

 

Footnotes (1): Authentic. Men of Trust, and narrated it Ibn Sa'ad.

 

______________________

 

 

 

 

فَلَمَّا صَلُّوا الصُّبْحَ جَمَعَ الرَّهْطَ وَبَعَثَ إِلَى مَنْ حَضَرَهُ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَالْفَضْلِ مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ ، وَإِلَى أُمَرَاءِ الأَجْنَادِ فَاجْتَمَعُوا حَتَّى الْتَجَّ الْمَسْجِدُ بِأَهْلِهِ ، فَقَالَ : أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ، إِنَّ النَّاسَ قَدْ أَحَبُّوا أَنْ يَلْحَقَ أَهْلُ الأَمْصَارِ بِأَمْصَارِهِمْ ، وَقَدْ عَلِمُوا مَنْ أَمِيرُهُمْ ، فَقَالَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ : إِنَّا نَرَاكَ لَهَا أَهْلا ، فَقَالَ : أَشِيرُوا عَلَيَّ بِغَيْرِ هَذَا ، فَقَالَ عَمَّارٌ : إِنْ أَرَدْتَ أَنْ لا يَخْتَلِفَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ فَبَايِعْ عَلِيًّا ، فَقَالَ الْمِقْدَادُ بْنُ الأَسْوَدِ : صَدَقَ عَمَّارٌ ، إِنْ بَايَعْتَ عَلِيًّا قُلْنَا : سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ، قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ : إِنْ أَرَدْتَ أَنْ لا تَخْتَلِفَ قُرَيْشٌ فَبَايِعْ عُثْمَانَ ، فَقَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَبِي رَبِيعَةَ : صَدَقَ ، إِنْ بَايَعْتَ عُثْمَانَ ، قُلْنَا : سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ، فَشَتَمَ عَمَّارٌ ابْنَ أَبِي سَرْحٍ ، وَقَالَ : مَتَى كُنْتَ تَنْصَحُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ، فَتَكَلَّمَ بَنُو هَاشِمٍ وَبَنُو أُمَيَّةَ

 

 

 

 

...And When they prayed the prayer of the mourning (Fajr), the people gathered, and sent to whom was present from the Muhaj'reen and Al-Asn'ar, and the people of the Sunnah, the respect of the Ans'ar, and to the Um'ara (judges) of the soldiers, until the Mosque (Masjed) was full with its people, so he said: "O people, the people have loved for the people of "Ams'ar" to catch up with their "Ams'ar", and they have known who is their prince." So said Sa'eed bin Zay'd: "We see that you are for it, its people" so he said: "Reckon Ali without that," So said Ammar: "If you wanted for the Muslims to not differ, then give allegiance (Bay'ah) to Ali." So said Al-Miqd'ad Bin Al-Aswad: "Ammar has spoke truth, if you give allegiance (Bay'ah) to Ali, We say: We hear, We serve". Said Ibn Abi Sar'h: "if you wanted for the Muslims to not differ, then give allegiance to Uthman," then said Abdullah Bin Abi Rubay'h: he has said truth, if you give allegiance to Uthman, we say: We heard, and We serve." Then Ammar reviled (Swore) at Ibn Abi Sar'h and said: "Since when did you give advice to the Muslims?" Then Banu Hashim and Abu Ummiyah Talked..

 

 

 

 

، فَقَالَ عَمَّارٌ : أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ أَكْرَمَنَا بِنَبِيِّهِ وَأَعَزَّنَا بِدِينِهِ ، فَأَنَّى تَصْرِفُونَ هَذَا الأَمْرَ عَنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِ نَبِيِّكُمْ ؟ ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي مَخْزُومٍ : لَقَدْ عَدَوْتَ طَوْرَكَ يَا ابْنَ سُمَيَّةَ ، وَمَا أَنْتَ وَتَأْمِيرُ قُرَيْشٍ لأَنْفُسِهَا ؟ ، فَقَالَ سَعْدُ بْنُ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ : يَا عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ ، افْرُغْ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَفْتَتِنَ النَّاسُ ، فَقَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ : إِنِّي قَدْ نَظَرْتُ وَشَاوَرْتُ ، فَلا تَجْعَلَنَّ أَيُّهَا الرَّهْطُ عَلَى أَنْفُسِكُمْ سَبِيلا 

 

 

So said Ammar: "O People, Allah (Aza'Wa'Jal) Almighty has blessed us with his Prophet (s) and has favored us with his religion, So how can you turn away this Order (Authority) from the households of the prophet (s.a.w.a.s)?" So a man from Bani Mahz'oom said: " O Son of Samiyah, you have went over your bounds, what are you and and leading Quryash for it self?" So said Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas: "O Abdull-Rahman release (Speak out), before the people tempt, So Said Abdull-Rahman: "I have sought and discussed, So O, people of the place, do not make on your selves a way..."

 

 

 وَدَعَا عَلِيًّا فَقَالَ : عَلَيْكَ عَهْدُ اللَّهِ وَمِيثَاقُهُ لَتَعْمَلَنَّ بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَسُنَّةِ رَسُولِهِ وَسِيرَةِ الْخَلِيفَتَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِهِ ، قَالَ : أَرْجُو أَنْ أَفْعَلَ وَأَعْمَلَ بِمَبْلَغِ عِلْمِي وَطَاقَتِي ، وَدَعَا عُثْمَانَ فَقَالَ لَهُ مِثْلَ مَا قَالَ لِعَلِيٍّ ، قَالَ : نَعَمْ ، فَبَايَعَهُ ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ : حَبْوَتَهُ حَبْو دَهْرٍ ، لَيْسَ هَذَا أَوَّلَ يَوْمٍ تَظَاهَرْتُمْ فِيهِ عَلَيْنَا ، فَصَبْرٌ جَمِيلٌ وَاللَّهُ الْمُسْتَعَانُ عَلَى مَا تَصِفُونَ سورة يوسف آية 18 ، وَاللَّهِ مَا وَلَّيْتَ عُثْمَانَ إِلا لِيَرُدَّ الأَمْرَ إِلَيْكَ ، وَاللَّهِ كُلَّ يَوْمٍ هُوَ فِي شَأْنٍ سورة الرحمن آية 29 ، فَقَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ : يَا عَلِيُّ ، لا تَجْعَلْ عَلَى نَفْسِكَ سَبِيلا ، فَإِنِّي قَدْ نَظَرْتُ وَشَاوَرْتُ النَّاسَ فَإِذَا هُمْ لا يَعْدِلُونَ بِعُثْمَانَ ، فَخَرَجَ عَلِيٌّ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ : سَيَبْلُغُ الْكِتَابُ أَجَلَهُ

 

 

And then he invited Ali and said: "On you is the promise of Allah and his treaty, for you to act upon the book of Allah, and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), and the path (Sir'ah) of the two caliphs after him." So he said: "I hope to act and work with what reached my knowledge." And then he invited Uthman and said: Then he said what he said to Ali, so he (Uthman) said: "Yes". So we gave allegiance to him."  So Ali Said: "You have loved him, the love of an aeon, and this is not the first time (day) you have protested against us, so patience is most fitting. And Allah is the one sought for help against that which you describe, By Allah you have not crowned Uthman only so that the issue (order) would return to you, And Allah every day He exerciseth (universal) power." Then Said Abull-Rahman: "O Ali, do not make on your self a way, for I have sought and discussed with the people, and they do not equate others with Him (Uthman)." Then Ali left (went out) and saying: "...the decreed period will reach its end...."

 

 

 

 فَقَالَ الْمِقْدَادُ : يَا عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ ، أَمَا وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ تَرَكْتُهُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ يَقْضُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ ، فَقَالَ : يَا مِقْدَادُ ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدِ اجْتَهَدْتُ لِلْمُسْلِمِينَ ، قَالَ : إِنْ كُنْتَ أَرَدْتَ بِذَلِكَ اللَّهَ فَأَثَابَكَ اللَّهُ ثَوَابَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ ، فَقَالَ الْمِقْدَادُ : مَا رَأَيْتُ مِثْلَ مَا أُوتِيَ إِلَى أَهْلِ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ بَعْدَ نَبِيِّهِمْ ، إِنِّي لأَعْجَبُ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ أَنَّهُمْ تَرَكُوا رَجُلا مَا أَقُولُ إِنَّ أَحَدًا أَعْلَمُ وَلا أَقْضَى مِنْهُ بِالْعَدْلِ ، أَمَا وَاللَّهِ لَوْ أَجِدُ عَلَيْهِ أَعْوَانًا ، فَقَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ : يَا مِقْدَادُ اتَّقِ اللَّهَ فَإِنِّي خَائِفٌ عَلَيْكَ الْفِتْنَةَ ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ لِلْمِقْدَادِ : رَحِمَكَ اللَّهُ ، مَنْ أَهْلُ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ وَمَنْ هَذَا الرَّجُلُ ؟ ، قَالَ : أَهْلُ الْبَيْتِ بَنُو عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ وَالرَّجُلُ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ 

 

 

So said Al-Miqd'ad: " O Abdullah-Rahman, By Allah you have left whom judges with truth and with him they Just (justice)," so he said: "O Miqd'ad, By Allah you have I have endeavoured for the Muslims, said: If you wanted with that (for) Allah, then may Allah reward you the reward of the the good-doers." So Al-Miqd'ad said: "I have never seen ever, what has come upon this Ahlulbayt after their prophet (s), I am not surprised from Qur'yash, they have left a man, whom I never say that is more knowledgeable and fair (just) than him in justice, And By Allah if I find for him supporters..." Then said Abdull-Rahman: "O Miqd'ad, Fear (be pious) in Allah, For I am afraid for you of Fitn'ah." So a man said to Al-Miqd'ad: "May Allah have mercy on you, Who is the household of this House?", Said: "The Ahlulbayt sons of Abdull-Mutalib, and the man Ali bin Abi Talib." 

 

 

 فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ : إِنَّ النَّاسَ يَنْظُرُونَ إِلَى قُرَيْشٍ ، وَقُرَيْشٌ تَنْظُرُ إِلَى بَيْتِهَا ، فَتَقُولُ : إِنْ وَلِيَ عَلَيْكُمْ بَنُو هَاشِمٍ لَمْ تَخْرُجْ مِنْهُمْ أَبَدًا وَإِنْ كَانَتْ فِي غَيْرِهِمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ تَدَاوَلْتُمُوهَا بَيْنَكُمْ

 

 

So said Ali: "The people look at Quryash, and Quryash looks at its house: The Wali (Guardian) on you, Bani-Hashim, did not come from them at all, and it it was in others (other than them), in Quryash, you have transferred it between yourselves...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

post-83202-0-26981800-1410961652_thumb.jpost-83202-0-74156200-1410961659_thumb.jpost-83202-0-59404500-1410961879_thumb.j

 

 

post-83202-0-16356600-1410961926_thumb.jpost-83202-0-51769400-1410961946_thumb.j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This shows:

(1) Ammar and Al-Miqdad have refused the caliphate of Umar and Abu bakr by objecting to decision made..since:
(2) Imam Ali (a.s) has refused to accept the conditions, and in reality, of course he would accept the book of Allah and the Quran, but he refused the Sunnah of the Shaykhain (Abu bakr and Umar.

(3) Imam Ali (a.s) tells them of their betrayal, and their refusal is unjust.

(4) The Waliyah is played with between the people.

(5) this was not the first time they protest against him in Caliphate.

____________________________________


Your welcome.

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

Brother Islamic history I've started an Arabic course because I don't see the point of debating if my Arabic is weak.. Inshallah inshallah inshallah when I have learned Arabic to the level where I can read and understand Arabic I will definitely be more than happy to have a debate with you. I understand Arabic but not on the level where I can read narrations myself.

When I have learnt Arabic i will definitely invite you to a debate but until then.....take care

(Wasalam)

Edited by Wisdom007
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Islamic history I've started an Arabic course because I don't see the point of debating if my Arabic is weak.. Inshallah inshallah inshallah when I have learned Arabic to the level where I can read and understand Arabic I will definitely be more than happy to have a debate with you. I understand Arabic but not on the level where I can read narrations myself.

When I have learnt Arabic it will definitely invite you to a debate but until then.....take care

(wasalam)

 

 

Best of Luck. But Please, I urge you to revise both opinions and sides. May Allah guide you be on the straight path, I think mastering Arabic will be a huge step, especially when it comes with dealing and understanding the the content (mat'n) of the narrations. I hope the best for you, Insha'Allah. Ask in your Du'as for Truth. And seek it.

_________________

(wasalam)  

Edited by TheIslamHistory
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...