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

A few questions for Sunnis on Radical Islam

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, maes said:

Imams narrate one from the other one from Muhammad PBUH. Even if it is not the case, Rasulullah said stick to Quran and Ahlul Bait so that you do not get astray.

The belief of Shia is that not only Fatima but all the 12 imams or caliphs of this Ummah would be nothing without Rasulullah. They are students of Rasulullah.

For example Amr ibn As, this enemy of Ahlul Bait and this hypocrite has narrated that Rasulullah PBUH loved Aisha as the best of women and Abubakr and Umar as the best of men !

- It is very true that Imams (ra) narrate from one another with the chain leading back to Imam Ali (ra) who learned directly from the Prophet (saw).  I also believe in sticking to the Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (ra) though I define Ahlul Bayt (ra) much differently than how you define it.  For example, I revere the opinion, let alone interpretation, of Ibn Abbas (ra) much more than that of Imam Zain ul-Abedeen's (ra).  This is not to take anything away from the Imam (ra).  And they were both Ahlul Bayt (ra).

- You have said a beautiful thing.  May Allah (swt) bless you.  While there is a Shia narration which states that if not for Fatima (ra), Allah (swt) would not have created Imam Ali (ra) or the Prophet (saw), I will take your statement on face-value and give you the benefit of doubt (and think that you really mean, and believe in, what you said).

- There is a hard way to refute any such concerns our Shia brothers may have and then there is an easy way.  The hard way (as I call it) encompasses researching a narration, putting forth a response and waiting for the other side to either accept or refute it.  I know you will never accept our judgment, therefore, I will take the easy route out.

Though I do not know much about Amr ibn Aas (except the few mentions of him during Muharram lectures) or the hadiths which you claim he has narrated, I will take your words on face-value (one more time) to address this concern from our perspective.

You say that Amr ibn Aas hated Ahlul Bayt (ra).  I think you hate Ahlul Bayt (ra).  You hate Aisha (ra), you hate Hafsa (ra), to name a few.  Yet, I do not doubt your honesty.  The science of hadith does not overlook honesty for allegiance.  There are a few narrations in our texts by Shias and even by those who were from the Khawaarij.  In the case of latter, their narrations were accepted because in the case of some, they repented from being a Khariji.  Others were not extreme in their Khariji leanings.  However, lying (according to their ideology) was tantamount to kufr.  Therefore, those compiling hadiths narrated from Khawaarij on matters that did not concern Imam Ali (ra) (since they hated Imam Ali (ra) and other members of the household) provided that they were not too extreme in their Khariji-ism or had repented.

So even if I believe what you said regarding Amr ibn Aas, I have to be fair to him when I consider you my brother in faith.  If I can consider an enemy of Aisha (ra) - who the Prophet (saw) explicitly referred to as part of his Ahlul Bayt - to be truthful and my brother in faith, why should I overlook a narration only because it comes through Amr ibn Aas?  After all, as you said (although I have no knowledge in this realm), his narrations had to do with Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Aisha (ra) and had nothing to do with Imam Ali (ra).

One last point.  I highly doubt him to be an enemy of Ahlul Bayt (ra).  An enemy of Ahlul Bayt (ra) would not narrate good things regarding Aisha (ra).  And I must remind you, one more time, that all the Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saw) considered Aisha (ra) from among the Ahlul Bayt (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, onereligion said:

- You have said a beautiful thing.  May Allah (swt) bless you.  While there is a Shia narration which states that if not for Fatima (ra), Allah (swt) would not have created Imam Ali (ra) or the Prophet (saw), I will take your statement on face-value and give you the benefit of doubt (and think that you really mean, and believe in, what you said).

Thank you that you quote the hadith that if not for Fatima Allah would not have created Ali or the prophet. Well I was not aware of this, I just quoted the true belief of twelvers. I searched a bit and I understood that the chain of narration of this hadith is weak but still twelvers have not interpreted it as if Fatima is better than Rasulullah. This is contrary to many other Sahih hadithes. Some of them have justified that here the hadith wants to highlight the value of a servant of Allah that prophet and imams were sent for the sake of the true believers and servants of Allah like Fatima and to guide those true servants of Allah, however the prophets and imams themselves were servants of Allah too.   

 

Quote

 

- For example, I revere the opinion, let alone interpretation, of Ibn Abbas (ra) much more than that of Imam Zain ul-Abedeen's (ra).  This is not to take anything away from the Imam (ra).  And they were both Ahlul Bayt (ra).

You say that Amr ibn Aas hated Ahlul Bayt (ra).  I think you hate Ahlul Bayt (ra).  You hate Aisha (ra), you hate Hafsa (ra), to name a few.  Yet, I do not doubt your honesty.  The science of hadith does not overlook honesty for allegiance.  There are a few narrations in our texts by Shias and even

 

Well exactly one of our differences is that when you say Ahlul Bait you mean the literal meaning, including all the wives and progeny or some of the relatives of Rasulullah PBUH. But when we say Ahlul Bait we mostly mean Ahlul-Kisa. And we believe according to the last part of verse 33:33 they are cleaned by will of Allah exclusively which this means infallibility for us.

You say I hate umul mumenin Aisha and umul mumenin Hafsa. It depends on what you mean by hatred. I have not seen anything from Ali ibn abi Talib regarding disrespecting them. And most of Shias are never after disrespecting them. However there are evidences that umul mumenin Aisha did not like Ali ibn abi Talib so I can not like her as how you expect me to like.

Bbrother of Umul mumenin Aisha was killed by tyrants like Amr ibn al-As and Muawiah with the worst methods though, because he was one of the lovers and fighters of Ali ibn abi Talib. How can we forget these oppressions. Then umul mumenin Aisha cursed those two oppressors, herself is somehow a victim of the fitnas made by Muawia. Yes curse of Allah be upon the enemies of Allah, those who sell their religion and honor just for their miserable worldly power.

 

Quote

 

- There is a hard way to refute any such concerns our Shia brothers may have and then there is an easy way.  The hard way (as I call it) encompasses researching a narration, putting forth a response and waiting for the other side to either accept or refute it.  I know you will never accept our judgment, therefore, I will take the easy route out.

 

I was not after any debate. My experience shows that one can not change anyone easily, guidance is only in hand of Allah, many Sunnies have tried to guide me and I myself have tried to guide many Sunnies but the outcome was that all of us have still remained unguided ! :) but we can at least learn form each other to know our true beliefs and understand each other then we see we have many things in common. Many of those who fought and became martyred for Ali and the went to heaven In Sha Allah, they can not be classified as twelver Shias.

Quote

- So even if I believe what you said regarding Amr ibn Aas, I have to be fair to him when I consider you my brother in faith.  If I can consider an enemy of Aisha (ra) - who the Prophet (saw) explicitly referred to as part of his Ahlul Bayt - to be truthful and my brother in faith, why should I overlook a narration only because it comes through Amr ibn Aas?

We consider Amr ibn Aas and Muawiah hypocrite Muslims too. But we do not forget their oppressions !

By the way I am not an enemy of Umul Mumenins !!

I do not mean that whatever those unjust people have said are necessary incorrect. As a matter of fact the haidth mentioning the twelve caliphs of this Ummah is narrated from a soft khariji too. For sure I do not say this hadith is wrong because it is reinforced by many other Sahih hadithes and evidences.  

Quote

- And I must remind you, one more time, that all the Muslims at the time of the Prophet (saw) considered Aisha (ra) from among the Ahlul Bayt (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

Yes of course all Umul Mumenins were Ahlul Bait of Rasulullah by it's literal meaning, but when Shias say Ahlul Bait they mostly mean Ahlul Kisa.

Edited by maes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, maes said:

Thank you that you quote the hadith that if not for Fatima Allah would not have created Ali or the prophet. 

Well exactly one of our differences is that when you say Ahlul Bait you mean the literal meaning, including all the wives and progeny or some of the relatives of Rasulullah PBUH. But when we say Ahlul Bait we mostly mean Ahlul-Kisa. And we believe according to the last part of verse 33:33 they are cleaned by will of Allah exclusively which this means infallibility for us.

You say I hate umul mumenin Aisha and umul mumenin Hafsa. It depends on what you mean by hatred. I have not seen anything from Ali ibn abi Talib regarding disrespecting them. And most of Shias are never after disrespecting them. However there are evidences that umul mumenin Aisha did not like Ali ibn abi Talib so I can not like her as how you expect me to like.

I was not after any debate. My experience shows that one can not change anyone easily, guidance is only in hand of Allah, many Sunnies have tried to guide me and I myself have tried to guide many Sunnies but the outcome was that all of us have still remained unguided ! :) but we can at least learn form each other to know our true beliefs and understand each other then we see we have many things in common. 

We consider Amr ibn Aas and Muawiah hypocrite Muslims too. But we do not forget their oppressions !

By the way I am not an enemy of Umul Mumenins !!

I do not mean that whatever those unjust people have said are necessary incorrect. As a matter of fact the haidth mentioning the twelve caliphs of this Ummah is narrated from a soft khariji too. For sure I do not say this hadith is wrong because it is reinforced by many other Sahih hadithes and evidences.  

Yes of course all Umul Mumenins were Ahlul Bait of Rasulullah by it's literal meaning, but when Shias say Ahlul Bait they mostly mean Ahlul Kisa.

- You are welcome brother and I do not doubt the fact that you did your research on the narration.  Moreover, I will agree, for the time being, that it is a weak narration.  However, the first time I heard the narration, it was on an old YouTube video and the narration was quoted by Ammar Nakshawani in a Shia mosque (or gathering).  He did not follow the hadith with "but it is weak".  In other words, such narrations are made mention of in Shia gatherings to elevate Fatima (ra) in her status.

- There is no "literal" definition or "hidden" meaning.  The Qur'an makes mention of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) in Surah Ahzab verse 33.  The context of the verse (the preceding ones) were all for the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  Once the verse was revealed, the Prophet (saw) extended the definition to Ahlul Kisa (ra) or included them in it.  In other words, it is Allah (swt) who declared the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to be members of his household and the Prophet (saw) extended that title to few additional people.  By extending this title to the Ahlul Kisa (ra), the Prophet (saw) did not excommunicate the rest from being members of his household.

- There is no alternative meaning to the word "hate" except the obvious.  It is true that Imam Ali (ra) never disrespected her but his ardent followers cannot seem to get enough of reviling her.  Last year I went to a Muharram lecture at a Shia mosque.  The talk was in praise of Umm Salama (ra).  The brother spent more time degrading Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) than mentioning the merits of Umm Salama (ra).

- You have earned my respect.  Your statement "but we can at least learn form each other to know our true beliefs and understand each other then we see we have many things in common" is gold.  I have always held myself up to this standard which is why I did not even try to contest you when you said that the narration - regarding Fatima (ra) being the reason for the creation of Imam Ali (ra) and the Prophet (saw) - was weak because even if it is not weak, I can see that you are distancing yourself from such a belief.  And that brings you closer to me and rest of the (for the lack of a better term) mainstream Muslims.

Therefore, I have not much to say to you except a good word.  May Allah (swt) bless you and keep you upon Islam no matter which flavor of it you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2016 at 1:18 PM, onereligion said:

The Qur'an makes mention of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) in Surah Ahzab verse 33.  The context of the verse (the preceding ones) were all for the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  Once the verse was revealed, the Prophet (saw) extended the definition to Ahlul Kisa (ra) or included them in it.  In other words, it is Allah (swt) who declared the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to be members of his household and the Prophet (saw) extended that title to few additional people.

1. Narrations from Sahih Muslim and Trimidhi disagree with you. 

2. I didn't know that the holy prophet (sawas) could override Allah's command and include other people whom Allah did not designate.

3. Lastly, even if we agree with you that the wives were indeed the ones that Allah had removed all impurity, then it looks like that the removal of Rijs by Allah (god forbid) did not work for long because of what they did after, as mentioned in your books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

1. Narrations from Sahih Muslim and Trimidhi disagree with you. 

2. I didn't know that the holy prophet (sawas) could override Allah's command and include other people whom Allah did not designate.

3. Lastly, even if we agree with you that the wives were indeed the ones that Allah had removed all impurity, then it looks like that the removal of Rijs by Allah (god forbid) did not work for long because of what they did after, as mentioned in your books.

1.  Disagree that wives were his (saw) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?  What if I show it to you from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?  The Prophet (saw) specifically referred to his wives (ra) (Aisha and Umm Salama, may Allah be pleased with them) as his Ahlul Bayt and there is also another narration in which he (saw) greeted them all using that title.

2.  The Prophet (saw) did not override Allah's (swt) command.  You (Shias) are trying hard to override Allah's (swt) command by denying the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to share that title of "Ahlul Bayt".

3.  The removal of impurity and your understanding of it being the conferring of infallibility is just that, your understanding.  We all know your interpretation of the verse and understanding of it both of which find themselves being absent from the Islamic paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, onereligion said:

1.  Disagree that wives were his (saw) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?  What if I show it to you from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?  The Prophet (saw) specifically referred to his wives (ra) (Aisha and Umm Salama, may Allah be pleased with them) as his Ahlul Bayt and there is also another narration in which he (saw) greeted them all using that title.

I have never rejected the wives were not part of his (sawas) ahulbayt. What i do reject is when the quranic ayah (33:33) was revelaed, it was NOT for them but for other people unless you can show me from muslim and bukhari that they were part of ayat tataheer? I would like to see this. 

 

9 minutes ago, onereligion said:

2.  The Prophet (saw) did not override Allah's (swt) command.  You (Shias) are trying hard to override Allah's (swt) command by denying the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) to share that title of "Ahlul Bayt".

Yes he did according to what you said because Allah only used that ayah for the wives but then the holy prophet (sawas) included other people as well when he does not speak from him own desire? Read your previous post again.

 

9 minutes ago, onereligion said:

3.  The removal of impurity and your understanding of it being the conferring of infallibility is just that, your understanding.

OK, let's suppose I agree your interpretation, then please tell me, what was this removal of RIJS according to your understanding? Why was it removed and how were they (the wives) any different after this ayah was revealed? Please explain. 

Edited by goldenhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goldenhawk said:

I have never rejected the wives were not part of his (sawas) ahulbayt. What i do reject is when the quranic ayah (33:33) was revelaed, it was NOT for them but for other people unless you can show me from muslim and bukhari that they were part of ayat tataheer? I would like to see this. 

 

Yes he did according to what you said because Allah only used that ayah for the wives but then the holy prophet (sawas) included other people as well when he does not speak from him own desire? Read your previous post again.

 

OK, let's suppose I agree your interpretation, then please tell me, what was this removal of RIJS according to your understanding? Why was it removed and how were they (the wives) any different after this ayah was revealed? Please explain. 

- Why do you want it from Sahih Bukhari?  The Qur'an overrides Sahih Bukhari and Allah (swt), in the Qur'an, starts by referring to the "consorts" of the Prophet (saw).  Is that not enough to convince you?

Like Sahih Bukhari can convince you when you are not even willing to adhere to the Qur'an!  Hah!

- Who is talking about desires here?  We are the people of Sunnah so when the Qur'an declares the wives to be from Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet (saw) includes Imam Ali (ra), Fatima (ra), Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra), we hear and we obey.

If the Prophet (saw) - as stated in my previous post - extended that title to four additional people (may Allah be pleased with them) and he (saw) did, what is wrong with it?  His (saw) spoken words were no less than revelation and his actions were in line with the command and pleasure of Allah (swt).

- Actually why don't you explain to me the reason why Imam Ali (ra) and Fatima (ra) - I will leave Hassanain (ra) out of this since they were children and children are masoom - needed purification or cleansing?  You believe that Imams (ra) are infallible and born as such.  Then why did Imam Ali (ra) need cleansing?  Of which sin?

I can let out red-herrings too in case you did not know!

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Why do you want it from Sahih Bukhari?

ermm....because you claimed the following?

1 hour ago, onereligion said:

Disagree that wives were his (saw) Ahlul Bayt (ra)?  What if I show it to you from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?

 

8 minutes ago, onereligion said:

We are the people of Sunnah so when the Qur'an declares the wives to be from Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet (saw) includes Imam Ali (ra), Fatima (ra), Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra), we hear and we obey.

This is the whole problem. you don't hear and obey. You just claim you do like the sahabas but bukhari and muslim can show you that was not always the case. 

 

10 minutes ago, onereligion said:

If the Prophet (saw) - as stated in my previous post - extended that title to four additional people (may Allah be pleased with them) and he (saw) did, what is wrong with it?

I didn't know that you believe the holy prophet (sawas) could add or remove stuff from Allah's commands! WOW

 

12 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Actually why don't you explain to me why did Imam Ali (ra) and Fatima (ra) - I will leave Hassanain (ra) out of this since they were children and children are masoom - need purifying or cleansing?  Don't you believe that Imams (ra) are infallible and born as such?  Then why did Imam Ali (ra) need to be cleansed?  Of which sin?

Very clever maneuver brother. I asked you this question and you cleverly turned it around and threw it back at me! The dark side has taught you well. I have a very good answer to this but I won't respond until you answer my question. Good try bro !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

ermm....because you claimed the following?

This is the whole problem. you don't hear and obey. You just claim you do like the sahabas but bukhari and muslim can show you that was not always the case. 

I didn't know that you believe the holy prophet (sawas) could add or remove stuff from Allah's commands! WOW

Very clever maneuver brother. I asked you this question and you cleverly turned it around and threw it back at me! The dark side has taught you well. I have a very good answer to this but I won't respond until you answer my question. Good try bro !

- Refer to the Qur'an or Sahihain.  The wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw) have been declared to be members of his (saw) household.

The reason why I asked as to why you want it from Sahih Bukhari was because as a Muslim, I thought the Qur'an is sufficient for us in matters that are clearly pronounced.

- Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim give us detailed descriptions of many Sahaba (ra).  That does not change their status because the final judgment on them is the way the Prophet (saw) left them.  As mortal beings, they were prone to error.  However, they were the students of the only perfect human known to mankind.  You can write them off for whoever; I refuse to do so.  

If you want to tarnish the image of a person, you go after his family and friends.  Precisely what some Muslims do.

- You do not have an answer and thank you for acknowledging my tactic.  The dark side has not taught me well.  Being exposed to Shias has taught me these tricks.  For example, and this is not to open another discussion, no one cared for Abu Talib (may Allah deal with him justly) and  his faith until the Shias started maligning the parents of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  When you play dirty, expect to have some dirt thrown at you.

Off-record, if you want my opinion on Abu Talib, I pray to Allah (swt) that He magnifies his good deeds (his service to the Prophet (saw) and Islam) in the Hereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, onereligion said:

Refer to the Qur'an or Sahihain

That's not what you said. Please show me from Bukhari/muslim as you originally claimed. 

 

8 hours ago, onereligion said:

The final judgment on them is the way the Prophet (saw) left them

Bukhari disagree with you. Refer to the hadith of the pond.

 

8 hours ago, onereligion said:

If you want to tarnish the image of a person, you go after his family and friends.  Precisely what some Muslims do.

You mean like more precisely what sahih sitta has written that degrades certain sahabas and the wives?

 

8 hours ago, onereligion said:

no one cared for Abu Talib (may Allah deal with him justly) and his faith until the Shias started maligning the parents of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra)

Again, bukhari disagrees with you. you really should read your own books from time to time.

 

8 hours ago, onereligion said:

Off-record, if you want my opinion on Abu Talib, I pray to Allah (swt) that He magnifies his good deeds (his service to the Prophet (saw) and Islam) in the Hereafter.

Best statement you have said in a long time. May Allah reward you for that. Actually the Quran proves he is a believer but that's for another topic 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, onereligion said:

For example, and this is not to open another discussion, no one cared for Abu Talib (may Allah deal with him justly) and  his faith until the Shias started maligning the parents of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  When you play dirty, expect to have some dirt thrown at you.

hmm so you admit that you are willing to degrade and find faults in Ali (as) and his family in order to protect the image of the companions and 'throw dirt on shia' regardless if the people you are faulting in order to throw dirt at Shia happen to be the Prophets progeny.

at least someone admitted it. you are willing to degrade ANYONE just to raise the status of companions. alhumdililah Shia don't need to resort to this, because our Prophet and Imams merits speak for themselves, and no amount of degrading can make anyone elevate them regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, onereligion said:

 For example, and this is not to open another discussion, no one cared for Abu Talib (may Allah deal with him justly) and  his faith until the Shias started maligning the parents of Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  When you play dirty, expect to have some dirt thrown at you.

In Shia history aka authentic history books, the Prophet cared deeply for Hz Abu Talib (as). Why he even called the year he died "Year of Sorrow" . That is caring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see some regurgitated mention about wives being part of Ahlul Kisa (sigh, here we go again).

Dear Sunnis of this thread, please explain to me why Allah would include, in the verse of purification, two wives who are viciously threatened and condemned in Surah Tahreem after they mocked (refer to the verse about the honey incident, well-documented in your Sahihain) and deceived Rasul Allah (pbuhaf) (refer to the verse about one wife divulging a secret confided by the Prophet (P) to another wife)

I'll give you the number of guesses equal to three quarters of the number of rightly guided caliphs, as to who those two wives were, and who their fathers were. EDIT: Winner gets a free camel and a 10,000 man army.

Edited by Praetorius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

In Shia history aka authentic history books, the Prophet cared deeply for Hz Abu Talib (as). Why he even called the year he died "Year of Sorrow" . That is caring.

Lol AUTHENTIC.......full of zurarah and taqiya laden stories

brilliant hahahaha shiiteman

Edited by Wisdom007
Spelling mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

That's not what you said. Please show me from Bukhari/muslim as you originally claimed. 

Bukhari disagree with you. Refer to the hadith of the pond.

Again, bukhari disagrees with you. you really should read your own books from time to time.

Best statement you have said in a long time. May Allah reward you for that. Actually the Quran proves he is a believer but that's for another topic 

- O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (God), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.  And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey God and His Apostle. And God only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless. (Qur'an 33:32-33)

In Sahih Muslim, we have the following narration:  Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household (Ahlal Bayt), how are you?? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state.

Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

In Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet (saw) refers to Aisha (ra) as "Ahli Baytee".  Quoting the relevant portion, it reads: “…So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me...."

The above narrations are enough to prove to you that we do read our books and to nullify your oft-repeated hollow response of "Bukhari disagrees with you" because you do not understand our texts holistically.

As for your bit regarding Abu Talib's faith being confirmed by the Qur'an, I think you should first find Imamat in the Qur'an.  You have yourself loaded with tasks.  One thing at a time.  First prove Imamat and then move on to other tasks such as proving the "faith" of someone who never accepted Islam.  Establish your own beliefs before you hope to have a conversion ceremony for someone else.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, walaihusaini said:

hmm so you admit that you are willing to degrade and find faults in Ali (as) and his family in order to protect the image of the companions and 'throw dirt on shia' regardless if the people you are faulting in order to throw dirt at Shia happen to be the Prophets progeny.

If the Shias want to judge Muslims (notable Companions) because their parents did not accept Islam, then they should be unbiased in doing so.  Perhaps you were perturbed by what I said.  That was the intention.  We, too, are perturbed.  One, by your arrogance.  And two, by your double-standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, onereligion said:

If the Shias want to judge Muslims (notable Companions) because their parents did not accept Islam, then they should be unbiased in doing so.  Perhaps you were perturbed by what I said.  That was the intention.  We, too, are perturbed.  One, by your arrogance.  And two, by your double-standards.

go ahead and judge Imam Ali (as) based on his parents and lineage. Let's see if you can find any faults other than fabrications which further proves that some notable companions are only notable when Imam Ali (as) is degraded or equaled to them. 

a Sunni talking about double standards and arrogance... double standards!

anyway this isn't about Shias judgment, this is about you. Do you admit you brought up Abu Talib's (ra) faith to degrade Ali (as)? because you felt Abu Bakr and Umar were degraded? so two wrongs make a right? 

alsalamu ala Ali Bin Abi Talib... his father's only crime was being his father. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, walaihusaini said:

go ahead and judge Imam Ali (as) based on his parents and lineage.

alsalamu ala Ali Bin Abi Talib... his father's only crime was being his father. 

- It is for Allah (swt) to judge.  We state the obvious.  If Abu Talib never accepted Islam, then he did not.  And if it pains you to hear that, then stop judging others based on their parents' actions or life decisions.

- boo hoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onereligion said:

In Sahih Muslim, we have the following narration:  Anas said: I also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to their heart’s content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment). He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household (Ahlal Bayt), how are you?? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state.

Ibrahim reported: I said to Aswad if he had asked the Mother of the Believers (in which utensils) he (the Holy Prophet) disapproved the preparation of Nabidh. He (Aswad) said: Yes. I said: Mother of the Believers, inform me about the utensils in which) Allah’s Apostle forbade to prepare Nabidh. She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar. I said to him: Do you remember green pitcher, and pitcher? He said: I narrated to you what I have heard; should I narrate to you which I did not hear?

In Sahih Bukhari, the Prophet (saw) refers to Aisha (ra) as "Ahli Baytee".  Quoting the relevant portion, it reads: “…So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me...."

When did i ever say that his wives are not part of his family? Naturally, any wife, nephew, cousins, uncle, sister, brother as are part of the family. What I wanted from you is the proof in bukhari or in muslim where the 33:33 purification part was for the wives. I'm sure it;s not going to be a difficult task for you as you have all the available resources at your disposal. 

 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

The above narrations are enough to prove to you that we do read our books and to nullify your oft-repeated hollow response of "Bukhari disagrees with you" because you do not understand our texts holistically.

I don't think you read and digest them properly. otherwise I won't say that bukhari disagrees with you. As the above examples prove, you are yet to show me regarding the wives were meant as his ahulbayt in 33:33 purification verse. 

 

On 10/18/2016 at 0:30 PM, onereligion said:

Off-record, if you want my opinion on Abu Talib, I pray to Allah (swt) that He magnifies his good deeds (his service to the Prophet (saw) and Islam) in the Hereafter.

You went from this to this below. 

2 hours ago, onereligion said:

First prove Imamat and then move on to other tasks such as proving the "faith" of someone who never accepted Islam

See, this is exactly what I am talking about! You smell of nasb and are clearly two faced. Your true colours have come out. I rather you be straight and  upfront rather than playing games. Secondly, Imamat is beyond your comprehension because for that you require a couple of things, you need a decent amount of intelligence, and you need to stop being stubborn/brainwashed. P.S. I am still waiting for the narrations from bukhari or muslim. Also you have still not answered my other question: What did Allah mean when he removed rijs from the ahlulbayt? Please give us your answer. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wisdom007 said:

Lol AUTHENTIC.......full of zurarah and taqiya laden stories

brilliant hahahaha shiiteman

So the Prophet did not love Hz. Abu Talib who raised him and protected him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, onereligion said:

It is for Allah (swt) to judge.  We state the obvious.  If Abu Talib never accepted Islam, then he did not.  And if it pains you to hear that, then stop judging others based on their parents' actions or life decisions.

- boo hoo!

And if he did accept Islam? You would've thrown a believer who happened to be the prophets uncle in kufr, again just to save the companions.

and when has anyone here brought up these guys parents? you are not stating the obvious you are only here to throw dirt at Shia without realising who else you might throw dirt on... the prophet (SAW). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, onereligion said:

- It is for Allah (swt) to judge.  We state the obvious.  If Abu Talib never accepted Islam, then he did not.  And if it pains you to hear that, then stop judging others based on their parents' actions or life decisions.

- boo hoo!

at least Hz Abu Talib is in the conversation about whether he was a Muslim or not. For the others, their parents are not even in the conversation - 100% fire bound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

So the Prophet did not love Hz. Abu Talib who raised him and protected him?

What's that gotta do with ......."your authentic hadiths?"

my answer was to a lie you made, nothing to do with Abu talib

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, goldenhawk said:

When did i ever say that his wives are not part of his family? 

As the above examples prove, you are yet to show me regarding the wives were meant as his ahulbayt in 33:33 purification verse. 

What did Allah mean when he removed rijs from the ahlulbayt? Please give us your answer. 

- Ahsant!  Do you love Aisha (ra) as much as you love Imam Ali (ra) since you acknowledge that they are both Ahlul Bayt (ra)?  

- Sahih Bukhari does not need to clarify the obvious in Qur'an 33:33.  The "O Consorts of the Prophet (saw)" bit is explicitly spelled in the Qur'an.  Only a nutcase would require additional texts to support the clearly defined words of Allah (swt).

What I did say was that Allah (swt) declared the wives (ra) to be from Ahlul Bayt (ra) and the Prophet (saw) included four more individuals (ra) to share the honor of that title.  The wives (ra), after having been declared Ahlul Bayt by Allah (swt), do not need any further clarification since there can be no greater certificate than the one issued by Allah (swt).  To identify the four (mentioned in Hadith Kisa), we turn to books of ahadith.  As for the wives (ra), Allah (swt) already took care of them by explicitly declaring them as Ahlul Bayt.  It is another thing that you disobey Allah (swt) and His Prophet (saw).

- Sorry buddy, I posed a question to you.  If you cannot answer it, then don't.  Your outdated tricks are not needed.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wisdom007 said:

What's that gotta do with ......."your authentic hadiths?"

my answer was to a lie you made, nothing to do with Abu talib

LOL

I am still confused - happens a lot. 

Did the Prophet love Hz Abu Talib or not?

Share this post


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

Do you love Aisha (ra) as much as you love Imam Ali (ra) since you acknowledge that they are both Ahlul Bayt (ra)?  

Allah has ordered us to love his ahlulbayt in the quran, as confirmed imam sha'fi. Sorry but such order was given regard his wives, especially when some have been condemned in the quran by Allah!

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

Sahih Bukhari does not need to clarify the obvious in Qur'an 33:33.  The "O Consorts of the Prophet (saw)" bit is explicitly spelled in the Qur'an.  Only a nutcase would require additional texts to support the clearly defined words of Allah (swt).

Only a nut case like you would ignore his own authentic books and say that all of 33:33 was revealed for this wives when your own books contradict you. 

 

9 hours ago, onereligion said:

As for the wives (ra), Allah (swt) already took care of them by explicitly declaring them as Ahlul Bayt

I don't deny that his wives are part of his ahulbayt in the general sense but i am talking about the purification part of the ayah. Are his wives part of the purification ayah?

Also you are either deliberately ignoring my question either out of ignorance or though deviousness. Please answer my question I Keep having to repeat: What did Allah mean when he removed rijs from the ahlulbayt? Please give us your answer.  You don't need to run away, this is not uhud. 

Share this post


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

Allah has ordered us to love his ahlulbayt in the quran, as confirmed imam sha'fi. Sorry but such order was given regard his wives, especially when some have been condemned in the quran by Allah!

I don't deny that his wives are part of his ahulbayt in the general sense but i am talking about the purification part of the ayah. Are his wives part of the purification ayah?

Only a nut case like you would ignore his own authentic books and say that all of 33:33 was revealed for this wives when your own books contradict you.

Also you are either deliberately ignoring my question either out of ignorance or though deviousness. Please answer my question I Keep having to repeat: What did Allah mean when he removed rijs from the ahlulbayt? Please give us your answer.  You don't need to run away, this is not uhud. 

Had to reorder your sentences.  Putting the main themed ones side-by-side expose your tactics.

- Did Imam Shafi (rah) hold the same opinion (on the wives of the Prophet (saw)) as you do?  And if you don't deny that the wives (ra) were Ahlul Bayt (ra), do you love them all?  How about love them in general sense?  And if you do, please send la'ana upon those who are enemies to the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw), in general sense.  I would love to see you curse your own self!

- Of course the wives (ra) are part of the purification ayah.  The context of the verse makes it so clear that you do not need Sahihain or anything else for further clarification.  The relation of the verse to Ahlul Kisa (ra) needs further clarification not the relation of the verse to the wives (ra).  If something half as clear as this was revealed in favor of Imamat, you would have been dancing on all fours right now.

- Undoubtedly this is not Uhud nor do we see a cave nearby to go into hiding.  I asked you a question first which you said you had an answer to.  Asking me for my understanding of the verse is pointless (buying more time for you) when you do not even obey Allah (swt) since you doubt that the verse has to do with the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  To your contention, I asked you what sort of purifying did Imam Ali (ra) need?  You believe Imams (ra) are born sinless; for what sin did Imam Ali (ra) need purification?

 

Share this post


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

- Of course the wives (ra) are part of the purification ayah. 

The hadiths narrated by wives of the prophet clearly indicate and identify Ali, Fatima, Hasan, hussain as as the Ahl labayt of the prophet alone,  covered under the scope of the verse (33:33), They never claimed to be included among them. 

The wives mentioning the names of Ahl albayat from the progeny of the prophet kept pure by this verse 33:33 the following hadith can be mentioned:
1. Narrated Aisha:

One day the Prophet (S) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husayn came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then ‘Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (S), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

2. Another version of the "Tradition of Cloak”is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:

The verse

"Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)"

was revealed to the Prophet (S) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered ‘Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.”Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?”the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

Reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

3.  In the tradition of al-Hakim the wording the last question and answer is as follows:

Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?”The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving."

Reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

Also the wording reported by al-Suyuti and Ibn al-Athir is as follows:

Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: "Am I also one of them?”He replied: "No. You have your own special position and your future is good."

Reference:

• Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p289

• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198

4. "The Tradition of Cloak”which is related to Safiyya who was another wife of the Prophet (S). Ja’far Ibn Abi Talib narrated:

When the Messenger of Allah noticed that a blessing from Allah was to descent, he told Safiyya (one of his wives): "Call for me! Call for me!”Safiyya said: "Call who, O the Messenger of Allah?”He said: "Call for me my Ahlul-Bayt who are ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn.”Thus we sent for them and they came to him.

Then the Prophet (S) spread his cloak over them, and raised his hand (toward sky) saying: "O Allah! These are my family (Aalee), so bless Muhammad and the family (Aal) of Muhammad.”And Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, revealed: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a thorough purification (Qur’an, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)".

References:

• al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, p148. The author then wrote: "This tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim)."

5.  Finally the long term custom of the prophet saww:

Anas Ibn Malik narrated:

The Messenger of Allah (S), from the time the revelation of "Verily Allah intends to... (the last part of Verse 33:33)”and for six (6) months thereafter, stood by the door of the House of Fatimah and said: "Time for Prayer Ahlul-Bayt; No doubt! Allah wished to remove all abomination from you and make you pure and spotless."

References:

• Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v12, p85

• Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p258

• Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p158 who wrote this tradition is authentic as per the criteria of Muslim and Bukhari

6. Abu al-Hamra narrated:

"The Messenger of God continued eight (8) months in Medina, coming to the door of ‘Ali at every morning prayer, putting his two hands on the two sides of the door and exclaiming: "Assalat! Assalat! (prayer! prayer!) Certainly God ward off all uncleanness from you, O Members of the House of Muhammad, and to make you pure and spotless."

References:

• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, pp 198-199

• Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, p6

• Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v3, p483

Wassalam

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

 

15 hours ago, onereligion said:

Did Imam Shafi (rah) hold the same opinion (on the wives of the Prophet (saw)) as you do?

No he did not. But he held the same beleif in regards to 42:23

 

15 hours ago, onereligion said:

And if you don't deny that the wives (ra) were Ahlul Bayt (ra), do you love them all?  How about love them in general sense?  And if you do, please send la'ana upon those who are enemies to the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw), in general sense.  I would love to see you curse your own self!

That's right, I don't deny the wives of the ahulbayt (as) were part of his ahulbayt. Do I love them all? I love them by default unless shown otherwise. I don't hate or dislike anyone unless I have evidence. I send curse on the enemies in the general sense. 

 

15 hours ago, onereligion said:

Of course the wives (ra) are part of the purification ayah.  The context of the verse makes it so clear that you do not need Sahihain or anything else for further clarification.

Your books contradict you regarding the purification part. Also you should know that there is proof that context can be changed even within the same ayah. Go and research this bit if you don't believe me or would you like me to prove it to you?

 

16 hours ago, onereligion said:

If something half as clear as this was revealed in favor of Imamat, you would have been dancing on all fours right now.

If you can't grasp as something as simple as this, then imamate is simply beyond your comprehension. You are still at nursery school at the moment so you need to learn the basics first.

 

16 hours ago, onereligion said:

I asked you a question first which you said you had an answer to.  Asking me for my understanding of the verse is pointless (buying more time for you) when you do not even obey Allah (swt) since you doubt that the verse has to do with the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

Yes but before I answer, I wanted to know what your thoughts were of ayah? I have no doubt that the preceding ayahs were indeed for the wives as anyone can easily see that verses before are speaking of a specific incident where some wives made Allah angry through desiring the world's life and it's adornment. However, I have no doubt that the purification part was nothing to do with the wives as your own books, history and even the quran in other parts show their bad behavior. Brother skamran has kindly provided the references but I have no doubt that those who have a disease in the heart will simply reject them and carry on mimicking the same lines as their ummayad masters. 

 

16 hours ago, onereligion said:

To your contention, I asked you what sort of purifying did Imam Ali (ra) need?  You believe Imams (ra) are born sinless; for what sin did Imam Ali (ra) need purification?

Because you are running way from my question and I realise you can't answer me, i will answer you my understanding on this. The ayah does not mean that these 5 were first impure and filthy and full of sin and then Allah had to remove the rijs from the holy prophet (s) and his ahlulbayt (god forbid). This simply means that Allah desires to KEEP AWAY all rijs from them. This means that the stamp of purity and sinlessness is now evident and will remain with them all their lives. If this was the case for the wives, then history from your own books show that certain wives were far from pure and clean.

Before you attack why shia's do not like certain wives, then you should attack your own books and scholars first for giving the shias the ammunition they need when they provide evidence to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2016 at 2:26 PM, skamran110 said:

The hadiths narrated by wives of the prophet clearly indicate and identify Ali, Fatima, Hasan, hussain as as the Ahl labayt of the prophet alone,  covered under the scope of the verse (33:33), They never claimed to be included among them. 

Instead of bringing "proof" from texts you have never seen in your life, you can do your ignorance a disservice by reading the preceding verse to understand the context of the verse.  In fact, the verse was revealed in the house of one of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  The most appropriate setting since the context of the verse opens with "O Consorts of the Prophet".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2016 at 3:37 AM, goldenhawk said:

If you can't grasp as something as simple as this, then imamate is simply beyond your comprehension. 

I have no doubt that the preceding ayahs were indeed for the wives as anyone can easily see that verses before are speaking of a specific incident where some wives made Allah angry through desiring the world's life and it's adornment.

Because you are running way from my question and I realise you can't answer me, i will answer you my understanding on this. The ayah does not mean that these 5 were first impure and filthy and full of sin and then Allah had to remove the rijs from the holy prophet (s) and his ahlulbayt (god forbid). This simply means that Allah desires to KEEP AWAY all rijs from them. This means that the stamp of purity and sinlessness is now evident and will remain with them all their lives. If this was the case for the wives, then history from your own books show that certain wives were far from pure and clean.

- Imamat needs to be found in the Qur'an before it is understood just like prayer has been commanded in the Qur'an thereby prompting us to look into narrations for its methodology.  However, there is no need to look elsewhere for Imamat if it is not rooted in the Qur'an.  And wallaahi it is not rooted in the Qur'an but in your mind.

- Did Allah (swt) not forgive them?  Or are you saying that the Prophet (saw) insisted on keeping them as his wives (ra) at the expense of angering Allah (swt)?  By the way, thank you for admitting the obvious.

- No one said 5.  The Prophet (saw) was not the person I named.  I specifically mentioned Imam Ali (ra) so I would appreciate it if you abstain from inserting words and names that were not present in my post.  Also, it is your belief that Imams (ra) were born sinless.

As for your pointless explanation, it is sufficient when the Qur'an says that Allah (swt) "wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless" to prove that Allah (swt) was removing "all abomination" in order to "make" them "pure and spotless".  This is a beginning of a process not continuation.  Furthermore, the purification is conditional as made explicit by the verse itself, "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey God and His Apostle. And God only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless." (Qur'an 33:33)

Imam al-Saadiq said: "Al-Rijs (impurity, referred to in 33:33), that is doubt.  By Allah, we never doubt in our Lord." (Al-Kafi, vol. 1, pg. 286-288, h. 1; graded = sahih)  [I am willing to be rectified if you do not wish to accept this narration as authentic]

In fact, you mistranslated the Qur'an by suggesting that the verse says "keep away" not "remove".  The correct translation of the word yudh’hiba is to "remove" or "wipe off" and it comes from the root word “dahaba” which also means to “remove”.  Therefore, the word means to "remove" or "take away" not "keep away".

The same root word "dhahaba" is found in the following references (with only the relevant portions quoted) from the Qur'an.

(2:17) … took away …

(11:10) … “Have gone …

(11:74) … (had) gone away …

(21:87) … he went …

(33:19) … departs …

(75:33) … he went …

If the Imams (ra) never doubted in their Lord, why the need for purification?

Also, the whole "purification to the point of infallibility" argument is baseless when we read the same "rijz" being removed in other instances.

"Remember He covered you with a sort of drowsiness, to give you calm as from Himself, and he caused rain to descend on you from heaven, to clean you therewith, to remove from you the stain (rijz) of Satan, to strengthen your hearts, and to plant your feet firmly therewith." (Qur'an 8:11)  

"Of their goods, take alms, that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them; and pray on their behalf. Verily thy prayers are a source of security for them: And God is One Who heareth and knoweth." (Qur'an 9:103)

"O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favor to you, that ye may be grateful." (Qur'an 5:6)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, onereligion said:

 In fact, the verse was revealed in the house of one of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).  The most appropriate setting since the context of the verse opens with "O Consorts of the Prophet".

The quoted statement is clearly wrong as the verse of purification was revealed more than once to enlighten the importance of the progeny of the prophet saww.

The quoted evidences by the  hadith of the wives of the prophet provide the solid evidence. 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skamran110 said:

The quoted statement is clearly wrong as the verse of purification was revealed more than once to enlighten the importance of the progeny of the prophet saww.

The quoted evidences by the  hadith of the wives of the prophet provide the solid evidence. 

Two things:

1.  Prove that the verse was revealed anywhere but inside the house of one of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

2.  Prove that the verse was revealed "more than once".

You folks are issuing checks with your mouths that your rear ends cannot even cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, onereligion said:

Two things:

1.  Prove that the verse was revealed anywhere but inside the house of one of the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw).

2.  Prove that the verse was revealed "more than once".

You folks are issuing checks with your mouths that your rear ends cannot even cash.

i have mentioned the hadith narrated by the wives of the prophet saww. these are sufficient evidences..

If you think otherwise i like to see your proofs.

Wasalam

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, skamran110 said:

i have mentioned the hadith narrated by the wives of the prophet saww. these are sufficient evidences..

If you think otherwise i like to see your proofs.

Wasalam

You do not ask for proof against a point you have not proven yourself.  Fact of the matter is that the same narration (Hadith of Cloak) is not found in your texts with one authentic chain so you borrow it from our sources.  You are welcome.  And Aisha (ra) was among those who narrated this narration and you still accuse her of nasb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...