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

why Shia hate A'isha ?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, onereligion said:

Why do members here reply with questions or their own conjecture without giving any proof?

Now we are to believe that Aisha (ra) and other Companions (ra) were "key" players in Uthman's (ra) murder....amazing story lines.

It gets even more amazing when I read in books like bukhari what hazrat Aisha and hafsa did to our beloved prophet (sawas) ! 

Edited by goldenhawk
Typing error
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salaam Alaykum, When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!" [2:11] Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they real

The thing is I am not even sure how "man" and imbecile correlate to each other. Is he saying "man" can't be imbecile or is he saying "woman" can be imbecile. What infuriates @onereligion is that

What is that joke of the day ?? Haha she's your mother cause she breastfed your ancestors   

  • Veteran Member

Who died and made Hz Aisha the Chief of Police to where she would go out to seek justice for someone not related to her?

On 9/27/2016 at 10:02 PM, Taufeeq said:

SHe was the prophets(saw) wife chosen by Allah,Muhammad saw loved her,by that juncture she is deserving of all of our respect,not that she needs it.she was a better muslim than we could ever hope to become. who do we think we are"she doesnt deserve our respect",by Allah if we got wat we deserved we would have been destroyed long ago..

Bro - read Surah Tahrim. Allah almost divorced her.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
33 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Who died and made Hz Aisha the Chief of Police to where she would go out to seek justice for someone not related to her?

Bro - read Surah Tahrim. Allah almost divorced her.

Allah gave her a stern warning..look i'm not saying she was perfect, i'm just saying don't dis-respect her. we as muslims cannot afford to be at each others throat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing to say here is that "She don't deserve our love at all".

We have been told by Prophet (PBUH) to love Ali (a.s) not the Aisha, We have been told by the Prophet (PBUH) that make your gatherings lively with the remembrance of Ali (a.s) not the Aisha, We have been told by Prophet (PBUH) that Ali is with Haqq & Haqq is with Ali, not with Aisha, We have been told by Prophet (PBUH) that viewing the face of Ali (a.s) is Ibadah.

We therefore love our master Ali (a.s) & hate all those who fought with him on any front.

How can Aisha deserve the love of those who love Amir-ul-Momineen, Imam-ul-Muttaqeen while she fought a war with him? Should we love her for that she preferred to get out from her house by violating the commands of Allah?
Should we love her for her hatred for Ahlul Bait (a.s)?
Should we love her for overthrowing the commands of Prophet (PBUH)?
Should we love her for not allowing the burial of Imam Hassan in the shoulder of Prophet (PBUH)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Faruk said:

Medina, the heartland of Islam. Full of Sabiqun and armies that fought in Badr as well as Uhud. Sahaba, Al-Ansar amd Al Muhajirun present but Uthman got killed anyway.

Did you never had the slightest thought that Uthman had the majority against him?

Do you know that Aisha called him an old senile fool or man?

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah (sa). So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:

"Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever."

Sunni references:

- History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
- Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
- al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
- Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

...and many Sunni historians are known for collecting reports without verifying them, leaving the verification process (whether a report is authentic, weak or fabrication) upon those qualified.  Hence, the report you have shared with us has serious flaws.

To start with Ibn Abi al-Hadeed was a Mu'tazilite/Shia.  In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab” (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. 

Al-Iqd Al-Farid's work is not a history book but a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it.  

Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary!  This is getting more ridiculous by the minute.  In order to explain the meaning of "nathal" (one with a long beard), the dictionary states the following without any reason, proof or chain, "Na’thal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Na’thal, by Na’thal she was referring to Uthman." (Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mansur, Vol.11, Chapter “Lughuth Na’thal”, p.670)

Lastly, when you quote Ibn Athir (rah), it shows that you are passing along this information which you received second-hand or third-hand.  Ibn Athir's  (rah) work is directly based upon at-Tabari's (rah) work and the latter mentions in his preface, "I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them.  I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded.  The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters.  I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes.  For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters.  This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes.  This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it.  In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.  I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

However, if I know anything about such discussions, tomorrow you will not hesitate to quote the same narration (after having been refuted on every point) to blindside another naive Sunni.

 

13 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

It gets even more amazing when I read in books like bukhari what hazrat Aisha and hafsa did to our beloved prophet (sawas) ! 

I thought we were talking about Aisha's (ra) alleged involvement in the murder of Uthman (ra).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, onereligion said:

I thought we were talking about Aisha's (ra) alleged involvement in the murder of Uthman (ra).

Yes we can brother. However, what I am saying Aisha was known for her anger and jealousy. If Aisha and hafsa can lie, plot and plan and anger the holy prophet (sawas) as mentioned in bukhari, then what chance do other people have against her?

I don't know people allowed her to be a leader during jamal when the following report comes from the bukhari:

حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ الْهَيْثَمِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَوْفٌ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، عَنْ أَبِي بَكْرَةَ، قَالَ لَقَدْ نَفَعَنِي اللَّهُ بِكَلِمَةٍ أَيَّامَ الْجَمَلِ لَمَّا بَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ فَارِسًا مَلَّكُوا ابْنَةَ كِسْرَى قَالَ ‏ "‏ لَنْ يُفْلِحَ قَوْمٌ وَلَّوْا أَمْرَهُمُ امْرَأَةً ‏"‏‏.‏

During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." Sahih Bukhari

Her life was full of her wrong actions especially after the death of the holy prophet (sawas) and that is why she requested that she didn't want to be buried by the side of the holy prophet (sawas). She admits this herself and this report has been authenticated by your scholars.

 

Edited by goldenhawk
More information
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, onereligion said:

...and many Sunni historians are known for collecting reports without verifying them, leaving the verification process (whether a report is authentic, weak or fabrication) upon those qualified.  Hence, the report you have shared with us has serious flaws.

To start with Ibn Abi al-Hadeed was a Mu'tazilite/Shia.  In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab” (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. 

Al-Iqd Al-Farid's work is not a history book but a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it.  

Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary!  This is getting more ridiculous by the minute.  In order to explain the meaning of "nathal" (one with a long beard), the dictionary states the following without any reason, proof or chain, "Na’thal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Na’thal, by Na’thal she was referring to Uthman." (Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mansur, Vol.11, Chapter “Lughuth Na’thal”, p.670)

Lastly, when you quote Ibn Athir (rah), it shows that you are passing along this information which you received second-hand or third-hand.  Ibn Athir's  (rah) work is directly based upon at-Tabari's (rah) work and the latter mentions in his preface, "I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them.  I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded.  The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters.  I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes.  For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters.  This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes.  This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it.  In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.  I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

However, if I know anything about such discussions, tomorrow you will not hesitate to quote the same narration (after having been refuted on every point) to blindside another naive Sunni.

 

I thought we were talking about Aisha's (ra) alleged involvement in the murder of Uthman (ra).

Yes although written by Sunni it is not incorporated in Sunni creed and law books as it is exposing some sahaba and others.

That's what I meant when I said that I cannot take Sunni creed and law books or sources of these books serious because they just serve the creed and ideology of Sunni sect.

Reality most of the time is much harder and controversial than those sahih hadith. I must admit that some reports were kept maybe to reconcile after the extreme nasibi Ummayad era or just because they were too known to be neglected.

I compare such books with the Four Gospels. There is some truth in it but some facts are distorted, others deleted and some things not there were added.

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Faruk said:

Yes although written by Sunni it is not incorporated in Sunni creed and law books as it is exposing some sahaba and others.

That's what I meant when I said that I cannot take Sunni creed and law books or sources of these books serious

I must admit that some reports were kept maybe to reconcile after the extreme nasibi Ummayad era or just because they were too known to be neglected.

I compare such books with the Four Gospels. There is some truth in it but some facts are distorted, others deleted and some things not there were added.

 

- ibn Al-Hadeed was a Mu'tazilite/Shia.  Whether he wrote a book and ascribed it to Sunnis or anyone else, I thought you would be intelligent enough to realize that it would not be binding upon us.  A cliche but it would be like a neo-Nazi writing a book on Judaism.  I am sure your level of comprehension would have you confront a Jew asking him or her to account for what a neo-Nazi wrote.

- What law and sources?  You have quoted a Mu'tazili/Shia, a literary novel and a dictionary!  Do you even know what those are?  I wonder if you will quote "Lord of the Rings" next and use it as proof.

- Before you admit your wishful thinking, you must admit that your point has been refuted and you have no rebuttal.

- One of the closest books to the Four Gospels held in high esteem by a group of Muslims to the point that it is labelled as the "Brother of the Qur'an" is Nahj al-Balagha.  Much like the Four Gospels, it is attributed to someone without any verification.  The entire book has speeches, letters and sermons but no chain (isnad) for any single one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, onereligion said:

- ibn Al-Hadeed was a Mu'tazilite/Shia

Not at all. His creed was Mu'tazili but he was a Shafi'i Sunni.

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

Whether he wrote a book and ascribed it to Sunnis or anyone else, I thought you would be intelligent enough to realize that it would not be binding upon us.

That's what I mean all the time. You people cannot think outside the box. Not really a characteristic of intelligence.
 

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

A cliche but it would be like a neo-Nazi writing a book on Judaism.  I am sure your level of comprehension would have you confront a Jew asking him or her to account for what a neo-Nazi wrote.

It's about muslims with diffirent views on certain personalities after the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. passed away. They weren't angelic nor masumeen.
 

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

- What law and sources?  You have quoted a Mu'tazili/Shia, a literary novel and a dictionary!  Do you even know what those are?  I wonder if you will quote "Lord of the Rings" next and use it as proof.


Ever wondered what Bukhari and Muslim mean for a non-Sunni. I think I don't have to explain you that.
 

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

- Before you admit your wishful thinking, you must admit that your point has been refuted and you have no rebuttal.

In your box maybe yes.
 

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

- One of the closest books to the Four Gospels held in high esteem by a group of Muslims to the point that it is labelled as the "Brother of the Qur'an" is Nahj al-Balagha.  Much like the Four Gospels, it is attributed to someone without any verification.  The entire book has speeches, letters and sermons but no chain (isnad) for any single one of them.

I look at the content of a hadith and not (only) at the isnad. Some hadith are so ridiculous that they indeed need an isnad to make them credible and then still .. Isnads can be fabricated as well and the core of an isnad is the credibility of the mentioned persons which is also a very subjective/sectarian thing.

Look at the content and diffirent reports not only from your own sect. Only then you can make a more unbiased judgment.

For example, you guys don't know how to deal with the fact that Marwan killed Talha.

It has to fit in the "all Sahaba and rulers were good" concept so that's why your scholars are discussing if you should do tardiyya on him or not.

Come on!

 

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 28-9-2016 at 5:02 AM, Taufeeq said:

SHe was the prophets(saw) wife chosen by Allah,Muhammad saw loved her,by that juncture she is deserving of all of our respect,not that she needs it.she was a better muslim than we could ever hope to become. who do we think we are"she doesnt deserve our respect",by Allah if we got wat we deserved we would have been destroyed long ago..

She was prophet Lut's wife, chosen by Allah, Lut loved her, by that juncture she is deserving of...yea, no. We know what happened to her as she was to be remained behind. Relatives and wives are not guaranteed belief as per Al-Quran. Furthermore, the title 'mother of believers' does not guarantee the belief of the mother. To add, verse 66:5 hints at better women. So your argument is rather weak if I had to say it bluntly. Starting a war is a pretty serious matter, especially when it costed so many muslim lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Wing said:

She was prophet Lut's wife, chosen by Allah, Lut loved her, by that juncture she is deserving of...yea, no. We know what happened to her as she was to be remained behind. Relatives and wives are not guaranteed belief as per Al-Quran. Furthermore, the title 'mother of believers' does not guarantee the belief of the mother. To add, verse 66:5 hints at better women. So your argument is rather weak if I had to say it bluntly. Starting a war is a pretty serious matter, especially when it costed so many muslim lives.

A real mother doesn't want her children to fight but to love eachother.

I think the title was created because some pervs expressed that they wanted to marry Aisha if possible.

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
18 hours ago, Faruk said:

I look at the content of a hadith and not (only) at the isnad. Some hadith are so ridiculous that they indeed need an isnad to make them credible and then still

Good point brother. Here is an example of a hadith from sunni sources and with a 100% sound chain and yet the hadith is so ridiculous!

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ هَمَّامِ بْنِ مُنَبِّهٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ يَغْتَسِلُونَ عُرَاةً، يَنْظُرُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ، وَكَانَ مُوسَى يَغْتَسِلُ وَحْدَهُ، فَقَالُوا وَاللَّهِ مَا يَمْنَعُ مُوسَى أَنْ يَغْتَسِلَ مَعَنَا إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ آدَرُ، فَذَهَبَ مَرَّةً يَغْتَسِلُ، فَوَضَعَ ثَوْبَهُ عَلَى حَجَرٍ، فَفَرَّ الْحَجَرُ بِثَوْبِهِ، فَخَرَجَ مُوسَى فِي إِثْرِهِ يَقُولُ ثَوْبِي يَا حَجَرُ‏.‏ حَتَّى نَظَرَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَى مُوسَى، فَقَالُوا وَاللَّهِ مَا بِمُوسَى مِنْ بَأْسٍ‏.‏ وَأَخَذَ ثَوْبَهُ، فَطَفِقَ بِالْحَجَرِ ضَرْبًا ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَنَدَبٌ بِالْحَجَرِ سِتَّةٌ أَوْ سَبْعَةٌ ضَرْبًا بِالْحَجَرِ‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (s) said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet (s) Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating." Sahih Bukhari

Do we really need to comment on this hadith?

Edited by goldenhawk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Faruk said:

Onereligion banned? Why?

 

17 hours ago, Dhulfikar said:

Read the topic of fadak. 

I have read his comments and to be honest, I don't think he said anything that warranted him to be banned. I think it's unfair to ban him. Please bring him back because I liked talking to the brother.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, goldenhawk said:

Good point brother. Here is an example of a hadith from sunni sources and with a 100% sound chain and yet the hadith is so ridiculous!

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ هَمَّامِ بْنِ مُنَبِّهٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ كَانَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ يَغْتَسِلُونَ عُرَاةً، يَنْظُرُ بَعْضُهُمْ إِلَى بَعْضٍ، وَكَانَ مُوسَى يَغْتَسِلُ وَحْدَهُ، فَقَالُوا وَاللَّهِ مَا يَمْنَعُ مُوسَى أَنْ يَغْتَسِلَ مَعَنَا إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ آدَرُ، فَذَهَبَ مَرَّةً يَغْتَسِلُ، فَوَضَعَ ثَوْبَهُ عَلَى حَجَرٍ، فَفَرَّ الْحَجَرُ بِثَوْبِهِ، فَخَرَجَ مُوسَى فِي إِثْرِهِ يَقُولُ ثَوْبِي يَا حَجَرُ‏.‏ حَتَّى نَظَرَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَى مُوسَى، فَقَالُوا وَاللَّهِ مَا بِمُوسَى مِنْ بَأْسٍ‏.‏ وَأَخَذَ ثَوْبَهُ، فَطَفِقَ بِالْحَجَرِ ضَرْبًا ‏"‏‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ وَاللَّهِ إِنَّهُ لَنَدَبٌ بِالْحَجَرِ سِتَّةٌ أَوْ سَبْعَةٌ ضَرْبًا بِالْحَجَرِ‏.‏

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (s) said, 'The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet (s) Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, 'By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia.' So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, "My clothes, O stone! My clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, 'By Allah, Moses has got no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone." Abu Huraira added, "By Allah! There are still six or seven marks present on the stone from that excessive beating."

Do we really need to comment on this hadith?

Indeed no words ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, goldenhawk said:

 

I have read his comments and to be honest, I don't think he said anything that warranted him to be banned. I think it's unfair to ban him. Please bring him back because I liked talking to the brother.. 

I agree with you ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
25 minutes ago, goldenhawk said:

 

I have read his comments and to be honest, I don't think he said anything that warranted him to be banned. I think it's unfair to ban him. Please bring him back because I liked talking to the brother.. 

I disagree with you and I don't think it is unfair to ban a person with such a manners. ShiaChat should be very strict with these kind of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, goldenhawk said:

Could you then please highlight his relevant posts that caused him to be banned?

this part:

Quote

My point stands justified from Shia sources.  Fatima (ra) was able to summon the strength, in spite of having a miscarriage and suffering from broken ribs, to go and deliver a speech.  And while Fatima (ra) spoke intensively about the usurping of Fadak, she did not say a word regarding her miscarried child as though that was not one of her concerns.  A mother had no concern for her miscarried child but she could raise her voice over a piece of land.  Of course all that is fabrication but between the two groups of Muslims, I hope it is clear as to who really disrespects Fatima (ra).

But lucky for you guys, it seems that he is unbanned now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

this part:

But lucky for you guys, it seems that he is unbanned now. 

Yes he's a sunni. He anwsers conform his beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Faruk said:

Yes he's a sunni. He anwsers conform his beliefs.

Brother, there is nothing problem if he express his beliefs but he should also be careful not take an step and go bit far that may insult our beloved personalities or make of statement that include insult to other users, like this statement: " but my anger stemmed from the fact that you bear the word "man" in your username but behave like an imbecile. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

Brother, there is nothing problem if he express his beliefs but he should also be careful not take an step and go bit far that may insult our beloved personalities or make of statement that include insult to other users, like this statement: " but my anger stemmed from the fact that you bear the word "man" in your username but behave like an imbecile. "

Indeed. That's not the way to behave. But he cannot without brother Shiaman. He needs a discussion opponent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Dhulfikar said:

Brother, there is nothing problem if he express his beliefs but he should also be careful not take an step and go bit far that may insult our beloved personalities or make of statement that include insult to other users, like this statement: " but my anger stemmed from the fact that you bear the word "man" in your username but behave like an imbecile. "

The thing is I am not even sure how "man" and imbecile correlate to each other. Is he saying "man" can't be imbecile or is he saying "woman" can be imbecile.

What infuriates @onereligion is that I use basic knowledge and logic to debase their baseless points. Imagine spending hours and hours to bring a point to ShiaChat, then have it repudiated with short sentences. The thing is they think they are bringing new arguments to the discussion but it's there same old worn out garbage repackaged using fancy English or Arabic words.

They get mad at us because they want us to forgive the mistakes of their Caliphs. Far be it from us to overrule the AhlulBayt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

The thing is I am not even sure how "man" and imbecile correlate to each other. Is he saying "man" can't be imbecile or is he saying "woman" can be imbecile.

What infuriates @onereligion is that I use basic knowledge and logic to debase their baseless points. Imagine spending hours and hours to bring a point to ShiaChat, then have it repudiated with short sentences. The thing is they think they are bringing new arguments to the discussion but it's there same old worn out garbage repackaged using fancy English or Arabic words.

They get mad at us because they want us to forgive the mistakes of their Caliphs. Far be it from us to overrule the AhlulBayt.

That's why I like the quote "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" so much.

The sterile academic termnilologic way some people discuss issues nowadays is far from the way the early muslims settled things and made their point clear,

Islam is not academic anyway. It's down to earth, plain and natural yet heart-touching and sent from above.

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Dhulfikar said:

Brother, there is nothing problem if he express his beliefs but he should also be careful not take an step and go bit far that may insult our beloved personalities or make of statement that include insult to other users, like this statement: " but my anger stemmed from the fact that you bear the word "man" in your username but behave like an imbecile. "

I'm a little surprised you think that was an insult towards Fatima (a), since he clearly said that he considered the scenario he put forward as a fabrication. If it was an insult towards anyone, it was towards those who believe such a thing. But it's inevitable that other sects and religions will have beliefs that we may find insulting. Christians say that Jesus is the son of God, which we find insulting towards Allah, but we have to tolerate it if we want to discuss with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
37 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I'm a little surprised you think that was an insult towards Fatima (a), since he clearly said that he considered the scenario he put forward as a fabrication. If it was an insult towards anyone, it was towards those who believe such a thing. But it's inevitable that other sects and religions will have beliefs that we may find insulting. Christians say that Jesus is the son of God, which we find insulting towards Allah, but we have to tolerate it if we want to discuss with them.

I agree. And I have my own reason why I find it somehow insult. I don't like to make logical statement on such scenarios and come to the point as "A mother had no concern for her miscarried child but she could raise her voice over a piece of land", even if one think it is fabrication hadiths. Last time when I checked their forums, these kind of statement happens often there. In reality it maybe not an insult, but sometimes I feel it goes too far. Yes it goes to both of ways, we could go so far and think the same thing about Sunni beloved personalities and truly Sunnis will somehow find it insulting, but I would understand the same way why they would ban us.
 

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

I agree. And I have my own reason why I find it somehow insult. I don't like to make logical statement on such scenarios and come to the point as "A mother had no concern for her miscarried child but she could raise her voice over a piece of land", even if one think it is fabrication hadiths. Last time when I checked their forums, these kind of statement happens often there. In reality it maybe not an insult, but sometimes I feel it goes too far. Yes it goes to both of ways, we could go so far and think the same thing about Sunni beloved personalities and truly Sunnis will somehow find it insulting, but I would understand the same way why they would ban us.
 

I think the difference is if we said it about their personalities, it probably actually would be meant as an insult, whereas here there is no reason to suppose he was trying to insult Sayyida Fatima (a). But let's say I made some sarcastic comment about the angel of death appearing to a Prophet, and the Prophet not accepting it and punching the angel in the eye, and blinding the angel. Do you think that should be taken as an insult towards Musa (a), or is it mocking the absurdity of the scenario? Maybe you would get banned for that on a Sunni forum, I don't know. But do you think rational people should interpret that as an insult?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
29 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

I think the difference is if we said it about their personalities, it probably actually would be meant as an insult, whereas here there is no reason to suppose he was trying to insult Sayyida Fatima (a). But let's say I made some sarcastic comment about the angel of death appearing to a Prophet, and the Prophet not accepting it and punching the angel in the eye, and blinding the angel. Do you think that should be taken as an insult towards Musa (a), or is it mocking the absurdity of the scenario? Maybe you would get banned for that on a Sunni forum, I don't know. But do you think rational people should interpret that as an insult?

Do you think sarcasm is a good thing to comment such an statement? Or the statement of Sayyida Fatimah (a) or About Allah (swt)? I don't mind if the logical proof is presented well and in good manner to prove some claim.

Quote

But do you think rational people should interpret that as an insult?

No. But sometimes people tend to have emotional and rational mixed.

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 minutes ago, Dhulfikar said:

Do you think sarcasm is a good thing to comment such an statement? Or the statement of Sayyida Fatimah (a)?

Perhaps not when you are talking to those that actually believe it, but it still falls short of an insult towards the personality being discussed. In any case, it's better to respond to the point being made, and not get too distracted by the way in which it is said.

 

Quote

No. But sometimes people tend to have emotional and rational mixed.

I know, but if people want to take part in debates, they need to have good control of their emotions. When you lose your cool in a live debate, it looks to others like you are losing. Not only that, but it often leads to emotional, poorly thought out responses, which make things easier for your opponent.

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Haydar Husayn said:

Perhaps not when you are talking to those that actually believe it, but it still falls short of an insult towards the personality being discussed.

Perhaps Brother.

Quote

In any case, it's better to respond to the point being made, and not get too distracted by the way in which it is said.

I totally agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/30/2016 at 4:07 PM, Faruk said:

Not at all. His creed was Mu'tazili but he was a Shafi'i Sunni.

That's what I mean all the time. You people cannot think outside the box. Not really a characteristic of intelligence.


It's about muslims with diffirent views on certain personalities after the Prophet s.a.w.a.s. passed away. They weren't angelic nor masumeen.

Ever wondered what Bukhari and Muslim mean for a non-Sunni. I think I don't have to explain you that.

In your box maybe yes.

I look at the content of a hadith and not (only) at the isnad. Some hadith are so ridiculous that they indeed need an isnad to make them credible and then still .. Isnads can be fabricated as well and the core of an isnad is the credibility of the mentioned persons which is also a very subjective/sectarian thing.

For example, you guys don't know how to deal with the fact that Marwan killed Talha.

It has to fit in the "all Sahaba and rulers were good" concept so that's why your scholars are discussing if you should do tardiyya on him or not.
 

- You can check his creed at: islamic-forum (dot) net / topic/13735-ibn-abi-al-hadid-mutazili-was-he-shia-or-sunni/ (remove spaces and replace dot with "." )

- Think outside the box for what?  To account for any Tom, Richard and Harry's adventurous writings?  You cannot prove Imamat from the Qur'an when you believe it being an usool and you want us to think outside the box and entertain every one with a pen and paper?  You must be asking us to think outside the sanity box which is mostly where your thoughts reside.

- Muslims who are out to write their own thoughts may do so as long as others aren't held accountable for their thrill.  Having said that, I agree that no Muslim (other than Prophets (asws)) is infallible.  Do you?

- What do the Sahihain have to do with what I said?  You quoted a literary novel and a dictionary.  If you do not have the decency to issue an apology, at least make it your New Year (Islamic New Year) resolution not to ever use that farce as your proof.

- Yes within the confines of logic, decency and sanity, you have proven nothing.  Venturing outside, which you always do, you have found a good niche for yourself to launch attacks since you know that having no shame amounts to no loss.

- Okay, so you take whatever you like?  By the way, how do you validate the isnad?  Do you realize that a literary novel and dictionary gives you no isnad?  As such, I can churn out a million narrations.  Oh wait, you beat us to it.

- Marwan killing Talha (ra) is not a matter of aqeedah.  Such an irrelevant comment coming from someone who believes in Imamat but cannot show us one unequivocal verse from the Qur'an regarding Imamat is worth laughing at.

- Marwan was not a Sahabi.  You do not even understand the basic definition of a "sahabi" and you wish to pass judgment on books you have never held in your hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Abī Baṣīr from Abī `Abd Allāh (عليه السلام) that the Banī Isrā`īl used to say Mūsa that he was not like (other) men. Mūsa (عليه السلام) wanted to wash himself, and he went to a place where no one from the people can see him. And it was day, and he was washing himself on the shore of a river and he placed his clothes on a rock. And Allāh commanded the rocket to run away from him until the Banū Isrā`īl saw him, and they knew he is not like what they said, and Allāh revealed, “O those who believe, be not like those who annoyed/harmed Mūsa” (33:69)

Source: al-Qummi, Tafseer, (Qum: Daar al-Kitaab, 3rd ed., 1404), vol. 2, pg. 197

And a learned Shia brother (on this website) commented, "Of course, according to my standard this hadeeth is Da`eef (Weak), but by the standard of 90-95% of scholars this would be classed as SaHeeH".

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235001541-imam-bukhari-is-actually-mentioned-in-the-bukhari/#comment-2389210

 

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...