Challenge To Debate Sheikh Asrar Rashid Accepted.

[Ali_Hussain]

5 hours ago, Hasan50 said:

Yasir Habib and Allahyaari are a joke. Numerous Shia have exposed them.

 

 

This is just embarrassing.

[Sumerian]

On 08/11/2016 at 11:53 PM, uponthesunnah said:

Inform him that Allahyari is not representative of shia's, and is more an outcast, a man who abuses and reviles a number of our own ulema. 

Furthermore, inform him that we wish to unite with him where we can, against the salafi's, and against salafi Islam , since shia's and the dominant view of the ahlus-sunnah wal jamaah are considered mushriks for the belief in waseelah / tawassul/ and istigatha.

Having reflected on this issue, while i agree with SAN on a number of issues, from Muawiyah to the official shi'i positions on the caliphs [though not everything], i fail to see how Daesh and Alqaeda and bokkoharram take direct inspiration from the Caliphs.

1. Daesh members are more vigilante-type khawarij, and have little grounding in the Quran and Sunnah, and distort even the official sunni positions. Even if Ali ibn abi talib a.s would have been the caliph first, he had many enemies that would have been akin to terrorist groups in existence.

2. According to our own ahadith, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was the one who actually burned people who worshipped him and bowed down to him alive. Such was the disgust Ali a.s had towards people who exaggerated him. The hadith is actually authentic in our own books. So using examples from sunni's as Daesh's inspiration...is actually an attack on Ali ibn abi talib a.s. But i'll watch the video if it ever comes back on, so i can find the real context.

@Haydar Husayn I agree with you on this issue now, i change my earlier position.

 

Now the debate is on the 'uprightness of the Sahaba'. I want to advise Sheikh Asrar why it would be better for both sides to maintain respect when discussing the others revered symbols, and not engage in a debate publicly about this, in the current climate, and ultimately, allow Allah azwj to be the judge.

It's not about them taking inspiration from these guys, but more about that we are reeling the consequences of the usurpation of the Caliphate to this very day.

[Hasan50]

as a non Shia I feel the religion is built on a conspiracy. This is why I feel conspiracy theorists gravitate to shiism like Abdullah Hashem and others.

 

i dont by yasir habibs bogus narrative that the wife of the prophet poisoned him and he passed away.

 

or that Hazrat Fatima had a miscarriage due to Umar being violent. These are all fairytales and conspiracy theories from forgeries like the famous forged khutba e fatima.

 

if nahjul balagha is so authentic why does it have no chains of narration and it was written over three hundred years after Jaazrat Ali!

 

[guest050817]

 

26 minutes ago, Hasan50 said:

as a non Shia I feel the religion is built on a conspiracy. This is why I feel conspiracy theorists gravitate to shiism like Abdullah Hashem and others.

 

i dont by yasir habibs bogus narrative that the wife of the prophet poisoned him and he passed away.

 

or that Hazrat Fatima had a miscarriage due to Umar being violent. These are all fairytales and conspiracy theories from forgeries like the famous forged khutba e fatima.

 

if nahjul balagha is so authentic why does it have no chains of narration and it was written over three hundred years after Jaazrat Ali!

 

 

Dear brother, not even i nor the majority of shia's i know, ascribe to the belief Rasulullah s.a.w was poisoned by his wives. This was and is not the view of the majority of our scholars. Please have a look at this thread i created, which refutes the weak narrations put forth in favour of this:

As for Umar hitting Fatima a.s, the shia views are divided on this. Some say he only threatened the house, because we both accept that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, along with members of the banu-hashim opposed Abu Bakr [as said in Bukhari]. Tabari narrates that Umar threatened to burn down the house, despite declaring his love for Fatima a.s. This matches with what we know about the character of Umar, who, with due respect, was known as a strict, and stern individual. Even before joining Islam, he was about to kill Rasulullah s.a.w himself. Therefore, given his strictness, sternness [which is not an insult, and accepted as his personality], and given the fact he would have sought to ensure everyone pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, without causing discord, it is not illogical to thus, follow the evidence and believe there is good evidence that matches historicity which suggests , yes, he did threaten to burn down the house.

Now, did he actually go ahead and burn it down, and was Fatima a.s behind the door and injured at attempts to break into the house and force them not to oppose Abu Bakr? Allah knows best, i have not seen compelling evidence yet, and in my eyes, it is not an aqeedah issue, you are not any more or less a shia for believing it. Furthermore, the fact that a threat was made is enough to condemn it, whether or not he went ahead and carried it out.

As for Nahjul Balagha, it may surprise you to know that we do not consider it our most authentic book. In fact, it isn't even one of our main books of narrations. Our top four books are actually Kitab Al Kafi, manyaradul Faqih, Tahbib al akham, al ibsitar. 

Furthermore, though the chains are not given in nahjul balagha, a very large number of the sermons/sayings are actually only taken from hadith books or sources of literature , and we are able to look into them to find the chains. Additionally, we have hundreds if not thousands of ahadith from Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with the full chain in our main books of ahadith.

Furthermore, if you are to examine the Matn i.e content of the actual ahadith and sermons and sayings, a lot of it is corroborated with reliable sources.

Edited November 10, 2016 by uponthesunnah

[ShiaMan14]

10 hours ago, Hasan50 said:

or that Hazrat Fatima had a miscarriage due to Umar being violent. These are all fairytales and conspiracy theories from forgeries like the famous forged khutba e fatima.

Taken from Shibli Al-Nomani's book, Al-Farouk The Great:

 

[ShiaMan14]

10 hours ago, Hasan50 said:

i dont by yasir habibs bogus narrative that the wife of the prophet poisoned him and he passed away.

Do you believe the Prophet (saw) was poisoned?

[Hasan50]

11 hours ago, uponthesunnah said:

 

 

Dear brother, not even i nor the majority of shia's i know, ascribe to the belief Rasulullah s.a.w was poisoned by his wives. This was and is not the view of the majority of our scholars. Please have a look at this thread i created, which refutes the weak narrations put forth in favour of this:

As for Umar hitting Fatima a.s, the shia views are divided on this. Some say he only threatened the house, because we both accept that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, along with members of the banu-hashim opposed Abu Bakr [as said in Bukhari]. Tabari narrates that Umar threatened to burn down the house, despite declaring his love for Fatima a.s. This matches with what we know about the character of Umar, who, with due respect, was known as a strict, and stern individual. Even before joining Islam, he was about to kill Rasulullah s.a.w himself. Therefore, given his strictness, sternness [which is not an insult, and accepted as his personality], and given the fact he would have sought to ensure everyone pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, without causing discord, it is not illogical to thus, follow the evidence and believe there is good evidence that matches historicity which suggests , yes, he did threaten to burn down the house.

Now, did he actually go ahead and burn it down, and was Fatima a.s behind the door and injured at attempts to break into the house and force them not to oppose Abu Bakr? Allah knows best, i have not seen compelling evidence yet, and in my eyes, it is not an aqeedah issue, you are not any more or less a shia for believing it. Furthermore, the fact that a threat was made is enough to condemn it, whether or not he went ahead and carried it out.

As for Nahjul Balagha, it may surprise you to know that we do not consider it our most authentic book. In fact, it isn't even one of our main books of narrations. Our top four books are actually Kitab Al Kafi, manyaradul Faqih, Tahbib al akham, al ibsitar. 

Furthermore, though the chains are not given in nahjul balagha, a very large number of the sermons/sayings are actually only taken from hadith books or sources of literature , and we are able to look into them to find the chains. Additionally, we have hundreds if not thousands of ahadith from Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with the full chain in our main books of ahadith.

Furthermore, if you are to examine the Matn i.e content of the actual ahadith and sermons and sayings, a lot of it is corroborated with reliable sources.

The narration of Hazrat Umar radiyAllahu anhu is khabr e wahid and therefore dismissed. Both Shia and Sunnis agree factts are in agreement that aqeeda is built on mutawatir. Therefore any hadith which is khabr e ahad which contradicts mutawatir we reject it.

 

it is mutawatir  That Hazrat Ali and Umar radiyAllahu anhuma got on. So we rject the one narration which contradicts this.

 

if alKafi is the most authentic how many hadith of its 16000 narrations are authentic?

[DigitalUmmah]

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Do you believe the Prophet (saw) was poisoned?

bakris believe that the holy prophet (S) ate meat prepared by a jewish woman (i.e. the prophet ate haram meat, MashaAllah) who poisoned the dish. a few years (???) later, he died from the poison.

because sunni logic. 

its totally absurd to believe that he was poisoned a litttle after ghadeer, and died soon after. then his plan hijacked by the munafiqoon for personal gain.

lets go with jewish haram meat poison. makes way more sense 2bh. 

[ShiaMan14]

21 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

bakris believe that the holy prophet (S) ate meat prepared by a jewish woman (i.e. the prophet ate haram meat, MashaAllah) who poisoned the dish. a few years (???) later, he died from the poison.

because sunni logic. 

its totally absurd to believe that he was poisoned a litttle after ghadeer, and died soon after. then his plan hijacked by the munafiqoon for personal gain.

lets go with jewish haram meat poison. makes way more sense 2bh. 

Right and this magical posion was administered at Khaybar in around 7AH. The Prophet (saw) died in 10AH.

Slowest-acting poison ever!

[DigitalUmmah]

15 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

Right and this magical posion was administered at Khaybar in around 7AH. The Prophet (saw) died in 10AH.

Slowest-acting poison ever!

These tricksy jews and their magic poisons!

[haideriam]

2 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Right and this magical posion was administered at Khaybar in around 7AH. The Prophet (saw) died in 10AH.

Slowest-acting poison ever!

 

1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

These tricksy jews and their magic poisons!

The 3 year release minuscule capsules with intestinal clingers. 

On a serious note then it is our brothers books that the Holy Prophet(sawws) was poisoned and passed away because of it. 

[DigitalUmmah]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:40 PM, uponthesunnah said:

 

listen to me VERY carefully. 

remove your mouth from the shoes of the bakris, and close it. 

shia and bakris from all over the world are watching this thread, and facebook, and other social media. you in particular are being named and cursed and sworn at all over the planet. I tried to tell you before to not get involved. but of course you did not listen, because you never miss an opportunity to tell bakris how much you love them at the expense of shia.  

this is not your fight. this is nothing to do with you. all you are doing is disgracing yourself, and other shia. 

that user @Hasan50 is not your "beloved brother", abu musa al ashari. he is one of asrars bumboys who is using muppets like you to find info.

I am telling you again, remain silent you fool. you are nothing to do with this, and your interference already has caused much damage, more than you even know because you can only see a chance to tell bakris how much you love them,

I know shias mean nothing to you. BUT STAY OUT OF THIS.  

 

[guest050817]

6 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

.

 

Imam Hussain as died so that the true sunnah of his grandfather, Rasulullah s.a.w would be upheld and preserved. And it is in honour of that Sunnah that i will not return your bad manners with like.

Peace be with you, i hold no grudge against you, and i have forgiven you.

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by uponthesunnah

[DigitalUmmah]

Just now, uponthesunnah said:

Imam Hussain as died so that the true sunnah of his grandfather, Rasulullah s.a.w would be upheld and preserved. And it is in honour of that Sunnah that i will not return your bad manners with like.

Peace be with you, i hold no grudge against you, and i have forgiven you.

I'm not asking for your forgiveness, you numpty. I am telling you that your stupid views are being used by the bakris and the shia now have to defend against both the bakris AND the batri views because of people like you. 

so stay quiet. don't even post in this thread any more. don't talk about this debate again. and stop PMing @hasan50 love notes.

can you do that, tawheed? are you capable of that? or is your desire to hug a bakri too strong even now?

[guest050817]

On 11/10/2016 at 11:49 PM, Hasan50 said:

if alKafi is the most authentic how many hadith of its 16000 narrations are authentic?

The science of hadith is more complex than this. Generally, even the ahadith that are not saheeh or hasan, often corroborate or are corroborated. In this sense, the vast majority of Al Kafi is generally consistent. 

Check out my thread in the signature. You'll find that i quote ahadith with weak isnaads, but the reality is, i found a similar or identical hadith with a stronger isnaad. Hence, both ahadith can be taken, and pure % of saheeh isnads vs Dai'f isnads does not paint the real and true picture.

But, Al Kafi has more reliable ahadith than Bukhari, with respect, going purely by the isnaads.

 

[Guest]

@uponthesunnah 

The Source of the Doubts

It is surprising that for almost 250 years, no voice was raised to question the authenticity of Nahjul Balaghah. Indeed, many sunni scholars wrote commentaries on it. For example: Abul Hasan al-Baihaqi d. 565 AH, Ibn Abi al-Hahdid d. 655AH and Taftazani and others.

It may be that because of the above commentaries, Nahjul Balaghah became known throughout the Islamic world. However, since its contents cover the issue of Khilafah it drew extreme reaction from followers of the School of Khilafah. They, determined to deter general readership, did all they could to cast doubt of its authenticity. Thus, it was that Ibn Khallakan d. 681AH, who made the first attempt to question its authorship.

When we look into Ibn Khallakan’s actions, it is clear that he was fond of Yazid ibn Muawiyah. He admits this, ‘In the year 633, when I was in Damascus, I memorised the whole collection of Yazid’s poems because I was extremely fond of him. I was thus able to recognise his authentic poems from those of fabricators.’ See Wafayat al-Ayan Vol 1 pp. 507. It is apparently due to this fondness that Ibn Khallakan felt he should attack all those whom Yazid had disliked. Yazid is notable for being the worst ever enemy of Ahl al-Bayt.

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/authenticity-nahjul-balaghah-sayyid-fadhil-milani

The first person to cast doubts on the authencity of nahjul balagha was a yazid lover.........

[The Green Knight]

Always, ALWAYS in the history of Shiachat there is a "shia" sitting on the fence with his back towards where he supposedly belongs. Sometimes its a "oh its too mainstream" sort of a youth, trying to make the sense of it all after 1400 years and "resuscitating" the "true religion". Sometimes one of these fellows will become the twist in their own story and apostate. But almost all of the times I just don't put any stock in any drama taking place over the internetz because nothing over here is ever certain.

So at least I don't care about the demonstrations of "the true path", all the pretty words, the bold prodigal true claims, the truest truth relived. Probably I am too old for it and certainly it is all meant for the young and naive anyway. Be it the ultimate true answer from the research of the rijal, or the latest 99.99% true and authentic pure sectless neutral Muslim practicing the truest and oldest Muslim code (tm), whatever. I wish I could be bothered or at least be able to enjoy all these fun threads and munch popcorn while at it.

But over the years I have seen one amazing thing which always really does hold true and that is the sad ending of the guy sitting on the fence bordering Yazidism.

[Soldiers and Saffron]

Everybody calm down please.

I dont understand, some random dude throws out a challenge to another dude and now everybody is riled up, just calm down.

[guest050817]

17 hours ago, starlight said:

@uponthesunnah 

The Source of the Doubts

It is surprising that for almost 250 years, no voice was raised to question the authenticity of Nahjul Balaghah. Indeed, many sunni scholars wrote commentaries on it. For example: Abul Hasan al-Baihaqi d. 565 AH, Ibn Abi al-Hahdid d. 655AH and Taftazani and others.

It may be that because of the above commentaries, Nahjul Balaghah became known throughout the Islamic world. However, since its contents cover the issue of Khilafah it drew extreme reaction from followers of the School of Khilafah. They, determined to deter general readership, did all they could to cast doubt of its authenticity. Thus, it was that Ibn Khallakan d. 681AH, who made the first attempt to question its authorship.

When we look into Ibn Khallakan’s actions, it is clear that he was fond of Yazid ibn Muawiyah. He admits this, ‘In the year 633, when I was in Damascus, I memorised the whole collection of Yazid’s poems because I was extremely fond of him. I was thus able to recognise his authentic poems from those of fabricators.’ See Wafayat al-Ayan Vol 1 pp. 507. It is apparently due to this fondness that Ibn Khallakan felt he should attack all those whom Yazid had disliked. Yazid is notable for being the worst ever enemy of Ahl al-Bayt.

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/authenticity-nahjul-balaghah-sayyid-fadhil-milani

The first person to cast doubts on the authencity of nahjul balagha was a yazid lover.........

I love Nahjul Balagha, and i was not raising a question on or of its general authenticity.  In islam , and in shia islam as well, we have a concept called ilm al rijal. For instance, if someone claims an Imam said or did something, then they need to prove that the Imam actually had done or said what they claim. This is how books of ahadith are compiled.

In shia islam, our main four books of ahadith - our most reliable being Al Kafi, work like this: Thiqat al islam, shayk al kulayni, heard from someone, who heard from someone, who heard from someone, who heard from someone who heard from the Imam a.s. 

We therefore have an unconnected chain of narrators from the compiler of the hadith book, to the Imam a.s. As we have this chain, we can use the sciences of hadith, i.e what is known about every single individual in the chain - debates on whether or not they were trustworthy, honest, had good memory, shia's or sunni's etc to judge whether a chain is reliable or not. Furthermore, we also look at the Matn -i.e actual text, because chain is not everything.

What the sunni brother was stating is as follows: How do you even know any of what Nahjul Balagha is authentic, if no chains of narrators are given?

In reply, i wanted the brother to understand firstly, the main four books of ahadiths for we, the shia, all contain isnads. Furthermore, although Nahjul Balagha does not contain the chains, if you perform research, you will be able to cite many of the primary sources the author used to compile nahjulbalagha. I.E a number of the sayings and narrations can be found with their chains in Al Kafi -which is our real, true and authoritative source of hadith. Furthermore, much of what nahjul balagha contains in terms of the matn is corroborated.  However, Nahjul Balagha is not 'saheeh'. Not everything in it can be attributed reliably to Imam Ali a.s, and it is likely some of the material in it may never have originated from Imam Ali a.s.  Similarly, even in Al Kafi, an actual compilation of hadith, it is not 'saheeh al kafi' as there are many reports in there we do not rely on either.

As we are on the topic of Nahjul Balagha, i would like to share a sermon on the Tawheed of Allah azwj that is so profoundly beautiful:

 

[Hasan50]

going back to the debate. The guy who was calling sh Asrar a fasiq and liar has now apologised for all the lies he spread. He is the individual who spread many false rumours. Sh Abu Zaynnab has ordered him to apologise. Have a look on FB:

https://m.facebook.com/1582270502061139/photos/a.1583562981931891.1073741829.1582270502061139/1807914442830076/?type=3

 

This guy Sayed Ali from Slough has embarassed genuine shia

 

 

[guest050817]

13 minutes ago, Hasan50 said:

going back to the debate. The guy who was calling sh Asrar a fasiq and liar has now apologised for all the lies he spread. He is the individual who spread many false rumours. Sh Abu Zaynnab has ordered him to apologise. Have a look on FB:

https://m.facebook.com/1582270502061139/photos/a.1583562981931891.1073741829.1582270502061139/1807914442830076/?type=3

 

This guy Sayed Ali from Slough has embarassed genuine shia

 

 

We are innocent from what individuals who act in such ways do, in the same way as sh Asrar is innocent from lies and propaganda against him. Judge us not by the worst behaved among us brother.

 

[DigitalUmmah]

44 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

sh Asrar is innocent from lies and propaganda against him.

 

Sigh. 

Is asrar also innocent of calling all shia nasibi? Or that he will subjugate shia like salauddin?

How far will you go in kissing the bakris feet? And betraying your fellow shia? You disgust me.

May you go to your beloved asrars destination on qiyamat.

Edited November 12, 2016 by DigitalUmmah

[Hasan50]

The guy on here in earler posts was saying to you stay out of this and he was threatening with malangs. 

That same person was calling Sh Asrar names due to the propaganda of Sayed Ali. 

Now all the drama is over we hope that the shaykhs deal with this alone with no laymen involved.

 

[guest050817]

10 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Sigh. 

Is asrar also innocent of calling all shia nasibi? Or that he will subjugate shia like salauddin?

How far will you go in kissing the bakris feet? And betraying your fellow shia? You disgust me.

May you go to your beloved asrars destination on qiyamat.

May Allah preserve him of all the false rumours. As for the things he has really said - has he actually called all shia's nasibi's? I only ask because you have previously spread absolutely false rumours and beliefs about shia scholars [which turned out to be false], and so i ask you for evidence?

They are not 'bakri's', but sunni muslims. 

And continue to use such akhlaq towards me. You voice-narrated the entire nahjul balagha in terms of its sermons, surely you ought to realise there are better and more eloquent ways of getting your point across than abusing someone?

[The Green Knight]

 

[DigitalUmmah]

25 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

May Allah preserve him of all the false rumours. As for the things he has really said - has he actually called all shia's nasibi's? I only ask because you have previously spread absolutely false rumours and beliefs about shia scholars [which turned out to be false], and so i ask you for evidence?

They are not 'bakri's', but sunni muslims. 

And continue to use such akhlaq towards me. You voice-narrated the entire nahjul balagha in terms of its sermons, surely you ought to realise there are better and more eloquent ways of getting your point across than abusing someone?

 

Go on. Keep defending bakris, abu musa al ashari. The same ones who call you nasibi, then read your posts & give them to asrar as evidence of the weakness of shias that we even doubt nahjul balagha & the attack on sayyeda Fatima (sa). You are being used like a stray donkey whos only loyalty is to whoever gives it a carrot 

I didnt lie, you bakri loving traitor. I provided a fatwa from a scholar from his official website. Ive not responded because im working on fifty things at once and cant chase you around shiachat 

[guest050817]

2 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

 

 

@Hasan50

Should Brother Asrar really be using such divisive language like that, referring to us as rafidha's and nasibi's ? Furthermore, what he is saying is also factually incorrect:

1. We absolutely love and adore Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhu). In fact, Ibn Abbas (r.a) was one of the close companions of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s 

2. We do not loathe and despite Muhammed ibn Hanafiyya.

His post is just full of errors. I am very disappointed Brother Asrar used this tone, and erroneous facts like this.

 

8 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

 

 asrar as evidence of the weakness of shias that we even doubt nahjul balagha & the attack on sayyeda Fatima (sa). You are being used like a stray donkey whos only loyalty is to whoever gives it a carrot 

 

Brother, do not take my words out of their place. The people who have tried to distort my statements on Nahjul Balagha, with the fullest of respects, do not seem to understand anything i stated on the issue, nor are even willing to read what i have written.

Brother, while it is an excellent book, it is not 'saheeh' nahjul Balagha. While many of the things within it can be corroborated and chains found from other sources, not everything in it can be said for certain to originate from the mouth of Amirul mumineen a.s. It is not even one of our four cannocial works. Sunni brothers/sisters seem to think it is our greatest work after the Quran, whereas actually, our main sources of knowledge after the Quran are our four cannocial books, and the best of which being Kitab Al Kafi.

So actually, i was defending nahjul balagha, not attacking it.

 

[guest050817]

12 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

I didnt lie, you bakri loving traitor. I provided a fatwa from a scholar from his official website. Ive not responded because im working on fifty things at once and cant chase you around shiachat 

You provided a Fatwah which was of a lie you have yourself been spreading. 

 

34 minutes ago, Darth Vader said:

 

The last people we need to be responding to Dawah man are these kinds of people, with respect. This is not the approach that is needed, and i know Dawah-mans type, they will absolutely love responses like this, and it will only fuel them. 

Dawahman needs shia's who reply with respect, tolerance, who do not call revered symbols 'tyrants' and academically pin him down.

Sigh. 

[DigitalUmmah]

1 minute ago, uponthesunnah said:

So actually, i was defending nahjul balagha, not attacking it.

Er, actually, what would have been better, was if you kept your ridiculous bakri hugging views to yourself and never posted in this thread. like i kept warning you this matter is wider than shiachat.

You benefitted no one but our enemies and earned the hatred of shia. 

You know, i have never seen you side with shia. Always bakris. Every single time. 

[Hasan50]

How could you love Abdullah Ibn Abbas when he was very close to Amir Muawiya and would keep good ties with him?

 

in Nahj ulBalagha Hazrat Ali condemns Abdullah Ibn Abbas and Aquil Ibn Abi Talib.

In Kafi Muhammad Ibn Hanafiyya rejects the Imamat of Zayn alAbidin and declares hinself Iamm.

Sh Asrar is correct and you guys do not know your own sources.

[ShiaMan14]

On 11/11/2016 at 5:46 PM, haideriam said:

 

The 3 year release minuscule capsules with intestinal clingers. 

On a serious note then it is our brothers books that the Holy Prophet(sawws) was poisoned and passed away because of it. 

Yes brother. In sahih-e-sitta, it clearly states from Hz Aisha that the Prophet (saw) was poisoned. Moreover, there is mention of another incident that the Prophet the people around him not to feed him any medicine but they did. The Prophet (saw) made everyone except Ibn Abbas drink it. Very suspicious!!!

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/474

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/25

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/76/29

[goldenhawk]

8 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

In sahih-e-sitta, it clearly states from Hz Aisha that the Prophet (saw) was poisoned. Moreover, there is mention of another incident that the Prophet the people around him not to feed him any medicine but they did. The Prophet (saw) made everyone except Ibn Abbas drink it. Very suspicious!!!

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/474

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/87/25

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/76/29

I don't believe it was poison brother because the narration does not state it. We can't accuse without proof or have a real good reason. However, what this narration does state is that hazrat Aisha disobeyed the holy prophet (sawas) in spite of clear instructions from the the messenger of Allah (sawas). Of course nasbi's will say she had good intentions. If that was the case, then why did the holy prophet (sawas) say: ""Didn't I forbid you to pour medicine in my mouth?" Why did he then FORCE others (except abbas) to drink the same medicine? I would love to hear the excuses and justifications from the nasbi's regarding this issue. 

[ShiaMan14]

5 minutes ago, goldenhawk said:

I don't believe it was poison brother because the narration does not state it. We can't accuse without proof or have a real good reason. However, what this narration does state is that hazrat Aisha disobeyed the holy prophet (sawas) in spite of clear instructions from the the messenger of Allah (sawas). Of course nasbi's will say she had good intentions. If that was the case, then why did the holy prophet (sawas) say: ""Didn't I forbid you to pour medicine in my mouth?" Why did he then FORCE others (except abbas) to drink the same medicine? I would love to hear the excuses and justifications from the nasbi's regarding this issue. 

Salaam.

I didn't provide the poison links so here are two:

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/450

http://sunnah.com/abudawud/41/19

I am definitely not saying who poisoned the Prophet but things were a little suspect - that's all.

[haideriam]

Thanks bro, was looking for the 3 year timed release ones like the ones below.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle .    Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786

Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."        Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713

[DigitalUmmah]

6 hours ago, haideriam said:

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle .    Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786

so the prophet (S) ate haram meat?