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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Quote

I am not claiming anything. I just want knowledge. I want to learn. I try not to concern myself with such matters. And I try not to debate because I believe its pointless at times. But everyday I learn something new about the "mother of the believers". First I learned from many Sayed's that she was rude, disrespectful and would yell at our beloved prophet. Then she would talk behind his back and convince others to do the same. Then she would humiliate him in front of the entire village. Then she would disgustingly manipulate him. Example: The Honey Drink Story. I urge you to read the Honey Drink Story. Which then the following verse was sent down from Allah:

“O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee?, Thou seekest to please thy consorts? But God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Then she purposely disobeyed Rasul Allah and started the first Fitnah in all of Islam in the Battle of Jamel which led to the death of Twenty Thousand Muslims when she tried to Kill Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s) and his soldiers. Again, I am not claiming anything but, according to Shia and Sunni sources, Aisha, Hafsa, Abu Bakr, Uthman and Omar plotted against the prophet, in order to attain a position of power over the Muslims. And he was apparently martyred of poisoning. 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. It is believed that "he died of a fever", caused by "flu or pneumonia". But what's the first thing we ask when determining the perpetrator of a crime? Who benefits? And indeed, there was a certain group who benefited immensely from the Prophet's death... 

1) There is literally no evidence that she poisoned him.  
2) There is literally no way (save a time machine) to find out whether or not she poisoned him.  
3) There are plenty of respectable sources that both Shia and Sunni agree on that show that the prophet loved her and showed her a lot of affection.
4) What purpose does it serve to propagate or start rumors about her without evidence that doesn't exist and is unobtainable?
5) How will this information affect how you practice Islam?  If you are Shia you like likely already reject hadiths reported by her, and if you are Sunni you likely accept hadiths reported by her.  And if you're trying to decide whether to be shia or sunni based solely off a matter that is unprovable at this point in time, then I think you need to reevaluate.

Sorry for not answering your question.  My guess would be that I highly doubt it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no evidence that can lead us in proving and accusing the wives of the Prophet (s) and with certainty say what happened and where it happened, who poisoned him, and if Allah azwj delayed the impact of the poison and so on and so forth. 

Any either way, engaging and going into this conspiracy theory will cause the biggest earth-quake and annihilation of us. Thank God such views are not mainstream, but if they ever become mainstream, may Allah hasten the reappearance of Imam Mahdi ajfs.

 

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Qa'im said:

 

وأخبرني جماعة، عن أبي عبد الله محمد بن أحمد الصفواني،  قال: حدثني الشيخ الحسين بن روح رضي الله عنه أن يحيى بن خالد سم موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام في إحدى وعشرين رطبة وبها مات، وأن النبي والائمة عليهم السلام ما ماتوا إلا بالسيف أو السم، وقد ذكر عن الرضا عليه السلام أنه سم، وكذلك ولده وولد ولده.

And a group narrated to me from Abu `Abdillah Muhammad b. Ahmad as-Safwani. He said:

Shaykh al-Hasan b. Ruh رضي الله عنه narrated to me that Yahya b. Khalid poisoned Musa b. Ja`far عليهما السلام with twenty-one unripe dates, by which he died. And [he also narrated] that the Prophet and the Imams عليهم السلام did not die except by the sword or by poison. And he mentioned that ar-Rida عليه السلام was poisoned, as well as his son and his grandson. (Tusi’s Ghayba, Excellence of Husayn b. Ruh, hadith #352)

(sahih) (صحيح)

but this does raise the question of who indeed it was that poisoned the Prophet (PBUH).

This would require a certain level of detective work in deducing the probable suspects, what they have to gain and when would they have done it.

Let's start with a list of who had the most to gain from assassinating the Prophet...do we have any potential suspects?

If we start asking the right questions we might possibly be able to finally put this topic to rest.

 

Edited by Akbar673

Share this post


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

Both Sunni and Shia sources agree that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله died a martyr, by poison.
The disagreement is over who poisoned him.
It is therefore unlikely that the Ummah just simply ignored the culprit,  unless there were grave consequences in revealing who it was, it is perhaps for this very reason that the culprit was best left unnamed, even though the companions and the Imams عليهم السلام knew very well who it was.

The Jews wanted to kill the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) on several occasions before and they failed..wasnt it jews who tried to poison Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ????

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 003, Book 047, Hadith Number 786.

Narated By 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.


Volume 004, Book 053, Hadith Number 394.

Narated By Abu Huraira : When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He siad, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you."


Volume 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 713.

Narated By Ibn Abbas : 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse: "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca..." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand."

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."


That had an impact in causing his death, so he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died as a martyr (shaheed), as Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: 

“If I were to swear by Allaah nine times that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was killed, that is more beloved to me than swearing once, because Allaah made him a Prophet and made him a martyr.” Narrated by Ahmad, 3617. The editors said, its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. 

Al-Sindi said: The words “he was killed” mean by the poison in the meat of the sheep’s foreleg that he ate, when the effects of that appeared when he was dying. 

Quoted from Haashiyat al-Musnad, 6/116… 

The conquest of Khaybar took place in Muharram or Rabee’ al-Awwal of the year 7 AH. So this event took place four years before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died. (Source)

 This is the whole miracle of it all. The fact that Allah protected the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from dying from the poison right away and had him live long enough in order to finish his duty of spreading the message of Islam and then Allah had the Prophet die from the poison four years later so that the Prophet could die as a martyr, which is the most honorable death that a person in Islam could have proves that he was a Prophet. Truly such an amazing person as our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could only deserve such an honorable death. The fact that the Prophet survived that poison for four years and then die a martyr could mean nothing else except that he was a true Prophet of God. Such a thing is medically impossible and is therefore a miracle. Surely the most honorable of man should deserve a most honorable of deaths. THE PROPHET DIED FROM THE POISON FOUR YEARS LATER!  thing to notice is that

            Subhannallah. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it does not become haram when prepared by a non-Muslim.

There are five simple conditions that must be met for meat to be considered halal. 

  • Intention: He has to understand and intend to slaughter, on purpose. (This excludes accidental/unintentional slaughtering.)
  • Religion: He has to be a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Jew. No other religion.
  • Instrument Used: It must be slaughtered by a sharp tool, such as a knife. No blunt objects, bludgeoning, stunning to death, etc.
  • Cut the four veins: There are four "veins" that make up the "perfect" cut -- esophagus, two jugular veins, and trachea. There's a difference about if you don't get all four.
  • You must say "bismillah" (in the name of Allah/God Almighty) before slaughtering. Yes, even if you're a Christian or Jew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, we have a mystery on our hands and perhaps we have the historical references (i.e. Hadith) to maybe solve this once and for all.

So anytime a mystery is to be solved you have to break it down into 6 parts...

  1. Who?
    1. Who benefits from the poisoning?
      1. Whom in Medina (or Mecca, for that matter) would benefit the most from the leader of this new, upstart religion that was quickly gaining power, territory and money being killed?
  2. What?
    1. What type of poison was administered?
      1. Can we determine what type of poison was given to him based on his signs of pain and suffering?
        1. If we can determine what type of poison was given we can then attempt to figure out who had access to this type of poison.
  3. When?
    1. When was he given the poison?
      1. Was it a poison that works quickly or is it one that slowly effects the body?
        1. This also would go far in determining who gave it to him since if its a fast working poison it would have to be someone in Medina.
  4. Where?
    1. Where was it given to him?
      1. If we determine when it was given to him we can then determine where it was given to him based on its reaction time.
  5. How?
    1. How was it given to him?
      1. Food based?
      2. Water based?
      3. Put on his clothing?
  6. Why?
    1. Why was he poisoned?
      1. Well, this is the main reason for the whole discussion, isn't it?

I think if this discussion is to be taken to a proper academic and detective level then we need to research out the answers to this as well as any other questions that may come up while researching. 

I would say that this would go a long way in determining if Aisha (or anyone else, for that matter) was responsible for poisoning the Prophet (PBUH).

This, I believe, will also go a long way in determining if he was even poisoned at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zeesh_ali110 said:

But I think that every Muslim (Shias in particular) should know that who were Prophet's killers.

There is no reliable evidence about this issue, and the best position is therefore, not to adhere to conspiracy theories that cause more harm than anything else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, uponthesunnah said:

There is no reliable evidence about this issue, and the best position is therefore, not to adhere to conspiracy theories that cause more harm than anything else.

 

Why is there no evidence, it is impossible that no one knows who was the killer of Prophet (PBUH), when we know the names of all those people who poisoned/martyred our Imams (PBUT), then it is impossible that Prophet's killer is still anonymous unless you hide. By the way, no matter how much you try to please sunnis, they will always find the way to humiliate us and then we will be fighting each other for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with the aorta being cut by poison hypothesis is doesn't it say in the Quran

we will cut his aorta if the prophet fabricates Quran. Couldn't that Hadith be used as an argument by non Muslims saying hey this is the natural means by which God cut his aorta for inventing a false message which is why I have a problem with that Hadith in Bukhari 

plus its in bukhari for crying out loud. 

I always thought it was done by one of the munafiqeen cause that's how all the ahlul bayt died a Jew or Christian never killed any member of ahlul bayt. why only him?makes no sense to me.

 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, zeesh_ali110 said:

Bro Bakris can do anything to prove their mamas innocent.

Even deny prophethood?

because according to the hadith, the jews poisoned the meat to test whether the prophet (S) was sent by Allah or not, because if he was divinely inspired, he would know its poisoned.

since he didnt (according to their hadith), this means that they believe the Holy Prophet (S) was not really a prophet 

Their entire madhab is a joke. 

"praise be to the Lord who has made our enemies idiots"

- Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (as)

Share this post


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

Even deny prophethood?

because according to the hadith, the jews poisoned the meat to test whether the prophet (S) was sent by Allah or not, because if he was divinely inspired, he would know its poisoned.

since he didnt (according to their hadith), this means that they believe the Holy Prophet (S) was not really a prophet 

Their entire madhab is a joke. 

"praise be to the Lord who has made our enemies idiots"

- Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (as)

Bro this is really the reason that all non Muslims insult our Prophet using most authentic Sunni Ahadith books as proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Even deny prophethood?

because according to the hadith, the jews poisoned the meat to test whether the prophet (S) was sent by Allah or not, because if he was divinely inspired, he would know its poisoned.

since he didnt (according to their hadith), this means that they believe the Holy Prophet (S) was not really a prophet 

Their entire madhab is a joke. 

"praise be to the Lord who has made our enemies idiots"

- Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (as)

But what's more troubling about this is that quote about the "aorta" being cut. It almost sounds like that Hadith was made by someone who read the Quran and the verse which talks about the Aorta and mentioned it. now this person clearly was anti islam. Do you see ththis connection here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zeesh_ali110 said:

Why is there no evidence, it is impossible that no one knows who was the killer of Prophet (PBUH), when we know the names of all those people who poisoned/martyred our Imams (PBUT), then it is impossible that Prophet's killer is still anonymous unless you hide. By the way, no matter how much you try to please sunnis, they will always find the way to humiliate us and then we will be fighting each other for them.

Are you not aware that there is no reliable evidence we have to know exactly what happened? And so, it is better not to speculate and leave this discussion alone.

How can i debate someone who does not know what is contained reliably in our own books and sources, considers me a sunni, and considers Ayatullah Khomeini a deviant sufi? 

I am not here to 'please' the sunni's. I am here to argue that the beliefs we hold should be based on evidence, not speculation.

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Even deny prophethood?

because according to the hadith, the jews poisoned the meat to test whether the prophet (S) was sent by Allah or not, because if he was divinely inspired, he would know its poisoned.

since he didnt (according to their hadith), this means that they believe the Holy Prophet (S) was not really a prophet 

Their entire madhab is a joke. 

"praise be to the Lord who has made our enemies idiots"

- Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (as)

Brother, try to think about your post a little bit more. Do you feel it is really this easy to 'debunk' sunni Islam?

Are you aware that according to them, the women believed he would not die from the poision if he was a Prophet?(s)? No sunni believes that to prove Prophethood, the jewish ladies test is the right one.

Furthermore, the Quran clearly admonishes those of banu israel who slew the prophet of God. A 'jew' or someone from that background and society killing a prophet of God is no indication that the prophet was not the real one.

Furthermore, as they believe eating meat of an ahlul-kitabi is permissible, to them, it is actually miraculous that despite being poisoned, Allah azwj delayed his death and the effect of poison, whereas another companion who ate the meat with him died instantly.

I ofcourse, don't ascribe to the sunni belief on the issue, but this very volatile and inflammatory manner of referring to sunni brothers and sisters only incites further hatred and animosity. Let us refrain from calling them bakri's or using sarcasm.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, zeesh_ali110 said:

Bro this is really the reason that all non Muslims insult our Prophet using most authentic Sunni Ahadith books as proof.

We have narrations about the young age of the wife of the Prophet (s) upon marriage [even if there is dispute on them]. We have very similar narrations to what they have. In fact, in our books, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s burned the ones who called him 'our lord' [may Allah curse the ghulat]. Isn't that what people claim Daesh do, and so if they knew what was in our books, they could equally attack us ? 

The reason why non-muslims focus on sunni works is:

1. They comprise of vast majority of muslims and do far more Dawah work. 

2. They bother to translate and disseminate their works into english and hence it is easily accesible.

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Qa'im said:

I wouldn't say that there is absolutely no evidence. Yes, the case requires some speculation, but for example we do have this from the third ambassador of the Twelfth Imam:

وأخبرني جماعة، عن أبي عبد الله محمد بن أحمد الصفواني،  قال: حدثني الشيخ الحسين بن روح رضي الله عنه أن يحيى بن خالد سم موسى بن جعفر عليهما السلام في إحدى وعشرين رطبة وبها مات، وأن النبي والائمة عليهم السلام ما ماتوا إلا بالسيف أو السم، وقد ذكر عن الرضا عليه السلام أنه سم، وكذلك ولده وولد ولده.

And a group narrated to me from Abu `Abdillah Muhammad b. Ahmad as-Safwani. He said:

Shaykh al-Hasan b. Ruh رضي الله عنه narrated to me that Yahya b. Khalid poisoned Musa b. Ja`far عليهما السلام with twenty-one unripe dates, by which he died. And [he also narrated] that the Prophet and the Imams عليهم السلام did not die except by the sword or by poison. And he mentioned that ar-Rida عليه السلام was poisoned, as well as his son and his grandson. (Tusi’s Ghayba, Excellence of Husayn b. Ruh, hadith #352)

(sahih) (صحيح)

Of course, Shaykh as-Saduq believed that the Jewish lady at Khaybar was the one who poisoned him (which is unlikely, because that was four years before the Prophet's passing): http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk37

Are there any reliable narrations from a M'asum stating this and including the prophet(s.a.w)? 

JazakAllah Khayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zeesh_ali110 said:

Bro Bakris can do anything to prove their mamas innocent.

why provoke dispute among shias and sunni while we have same  Allah , Prophet , Quran ,Qibla , ways of praying and despite all these commonalities we create enmity among ourselves.

Share this post


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

Brother, try to think about your post a little bit more. Do you feel it is really this easy to 'debunk' sunni Islam?

Are you aware that according to them, the women believed he would not die from the poision if he was a Prophet?(s)? No sunni believes that to prove Prophethood, the jewish ladies test is the right one.

Furthermore, the Quran clearly admonishes those of banu israel who slew the prophet of God. A 'jew' or someone from that background and society killing a prophet of God is no indication that the prophet was not the real one.

Furthermore, as they believe eating meat of an ahlul-kitabi is permissible, to them, it is actually miraculous that despite being poisoned, Allah azwj delayed his death and the effect of poison, whereas another companion who ate the meat with him died instantly.

I ofcourse, don't ascribe to the sunni belief on the issue, but this very volatile and inflammatory manner of referring to sunni brothers and sisters only incites further hatred and animosity. Let us refrain from calling them bakri's or using sarcasm.

jesus christ.

Share this post


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

Are there any reliable narrations from a M'asum stating this and including the prophet(s.a.w)? 

There's this hadith qudsi from Rawdat al-Kafi, speaking about the Prophet (s), "His living is more honourable than any life, and he will pass away as a martyr (shahid)." ( يعيش أكرم من عاش ويقبض شهيدا ) Of course, shahid can mean "witness", but in this context it appears to mean martyr.

A hadith about `A'isha poisoning the Prophet (s) can be found in Tafsir al-`Ayashi and Tafsir al-Qummi. However there are some question marks on the reliability of the current versions of those two books.

Another source that mentions the `A'isha poisoning is Sayyari's Kitab al-Qira'at, the author however is controversial.

There are two narrations in Basa'ir al-Darajat that narrate the Khaybar poisoning story:

حدثنا ابراهيم بن هاشم عن جعفر بن محمد عن عبد الله بن ميمون القداح عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال سمت اليهودية النبي صلى الله عليه وآله في ذراع قال وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يحب الذراع والكتف ويكره الورك لقربها من المبال قال لما اوتى بالشوا اكل من الذراع وكان يحبها فاكل ما شاء الله ثم قال الذراع يا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله انى مسموم فتركه وما ذاك ينتقض به سمه حتى مات صلى الله عليه وآله.

حدثنا احمد بن محمد عن الحسين بن سعيد عن القاسم بن محمد عن على عن ابى بصير عن ابى عبد الله عليه السلام قال سم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم خيبر فتكلم اللحم فقال يارسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله انى مسموم قال فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وآله عند موته اليوم قطعت مطاياى الاكلة التى اكلت بخيبر وما من نبى ولا وصى والا شهيد.

So take it for what it's worth. Our sources are not unanimous or too strong on this issue, but in my mind there is still a good chance that `A'isha did poison the Prophet. Perhaps it's not true, and even if it isn't, what `A'isha actually did in reality is not much better.

Share this post


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

Are there any reliable narrations from a M'asum stating this and including the prophet(s.a.w)? 

JazakAllah Khayr

Shaykh Ibn Ruh's (RA) words certainly cannot be put aside easily though, he is hujjah in one way or another, just look at how the Imams (AS) praise him. This is strong evidence of poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically a safir's words are not hujja, but they can be considered a strong qareena/daleel towards an issue. But yes, since Shaykh Husayn ibn Ruh (ra) was a safir, and was probably the most knowledgeable of the sufara', his words cannot easily be cast aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Technically a safir's words are not hujja, but they can be considered a strong qareena/daleel towards an issue. But yes, since Shaykh Husayn ibn Ruh (ra) was a safir, and was probably the most knowledgeable of the sufara', his words cannot easily be cast aside.

Abu `Ali Ahmad b. Is`haq has narrated to me from Abu’l Hassan عليه السلام. 

He said: I said to him: From whom should I deal with, from whom should I take, and whose saying should I accept [after you]? He said to him: al-`Amri is trustworthy to me. Whatever he will deliver to you is from me. Whatever he would say is from me, from me he says it. Listen to him and obey him because he is reliable and trustworthy. (al-Kafi) 

(sahih) (صحيح)

I know this is about a different safir, but isn't that the point of the safir? Wouldn't the standards be the same? Whatever the safir says is akin to the Imam' s words, or no?

Also, when the Imam says: whatever he will deliver to you is from me, is that only for Fiqh issues?

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, E.L King said:

I know this is about a different safir, but isn't that the point of the safir? Wouldn't the standards be the same? Whatever the safir says is akin to the Imam' s words, or no?

Also, when the Imam says: whatever he will deliver to you is from me, is that only for Fiqh issues?

It is a long technical discussion that we can get into elsewhere inshaAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, E.L King said:

Abu `Ali Ahmad b. Is`haq has narrated to me from Abu’l Hassan عليه السلام. 

He said: I said to him: From whom should I deal with, from whom should I take, and whose saying should I accept [after you]? He said to him: al-`Amri is trustworthy to me. Whatever he will deliver to you is from me. Whatever he would say is from me, from me he says it. Listen to him and obey him because he is reliable and trustworthy. (al-Kafi) 

(sahih) (صحيح)

I know this is about a different safir, but isn't that the point of the safir? Wouldn't the standards be the same? Whatever the safir says is akin to the Imam' s words, or no?

Also, when the Imam says: whatever he will deliver to you is from me, is that only for Fiqh issues?

You could bring up this example of the Age at which the wife of the Prophet (s) married him. But the person narrating this is actually  Ismail bin Jaffar(ra), the eldest son of Imam Jaffer as Sadiq a.s

إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ص دَخَلَ بِعَائِشَةَ وَ هِيَ بِنْتُ عَشْرِ سِنِينَ وَ لَيْسَ يُدْخَلُ بِالْجَارِيَةِ حَتَّى تَكُونَ امْرَأَةً 
“The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله entered upon (had sexual intercourse with) `Aa’ishah when she was 10 years old, and that one doesn’t enter (upon) a jaariyah (girl) until she became a woman.”
Source:

 

1.       Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol.7, pg. 388, hadeeth # 1
2.       Al-Toosi, Tahdheeb Al-aHkaam, vol. 6, ch. 91, pg. 251, hadeeth # 49
3.       Al-`Aamilee, Wasaa’il Al-Shee`ah, vol. 1, ch. 4, pg. 44, hadeeth # 75
Grading:

 

1.       Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH

 

è  Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 24, pg. 235
2.       Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH Mawqoof (Authentic Halted)

 

è Milaadh Al-Akhyaar, vol. 10, pg. 102

 

 

 

Brother Islamic Salvation writes: " This is a Sahih Hadith as its Rijal are Thiqat but is it A Hujjiyah for us> We dont believe that Ismail bin Jafar is Masum (we are not Ismailis) nor does the Hadith quote any of our Imams."

"Certainly Brother this Hadith is relevant

But I don't think there is any Hadith from Shia sources that can identify Aisha's age accurately at the time of marriage with the prophet and be defendable

As this Hadith gives us a view attributed to Ismail bin Jafar alone

You can say that it reflects the opinion of Ahlulbayt in some ways as Ismail bin Jafar was close and knowledgeable son of Imam Sadiq (a.s)

But those against such a position will simply say it is a word of a Non Masoom followed or discarded no difference"

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234973476-authentic-shia-hadith-on-aishas-age/?page=3

 

I don't think i am in the position to affirm or deny anything, or discount anyones opinion or hadith, i'm just interested in knowing the evidence. Maybe it is likely he was poisoned. Either way, to accuse anybody of committing arguably the worst possible crime of murder, there needs to be solid evidence, or it is better to allude to an opinion but refrain from speculating in my view. We don't even know the exact age at which she married the Prophet (s) to say with certianity, let alone enough evidence to reliably claim she committed murder. We must also reflect on the reasons why our aimmah a.s seemed to not delve on such an important issue, and the consequences it may have on the ummah today. As brother @Ozzy said, L'anat on whoever it was, and let us move on and leave such matters to Allah azwj, as our aimmah asws have, for reasons known to them, elucidated on the details of his death [or martydom].

Shaykh Mansour Leghaei has his own view as well: http://www.askthesheikh.com/was-the-holy-prophet-poisoned-or-killed-did-he-die-a-natural-death/

 

 

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

^^ so you are starting to change your views now, that it isn't all a giant evil conspiracy of lies to malign your beloved mother aisha?

Please let us discuss in a more civil way than this. I never said she was my 'beloved mother'. I gave her the title the Quran gives her, which is less honorific, and more a title of duty and further responsibility. 

Additionally, i have not 'changed' my views on the issue in the way you are insinuating. There is a debate and disagreement whether or not the prophet (s) was even poisoned. I think it maybe he likely he was, but i can also see the argument that he wasn't, as is made by Sheikh Mansour Leghai:

http://www.askthesheikh.com/was-the-holy-prophet-poisoned-or-killed-did-he-die-a-natural-death/

Now, for someone to come out and claim the two wives of the Prophet(s) committed murder would be creating a conspiracy theory, because it relies on speculation and dhann. There is no reliable proof from any of our Aimmah asws or evidence we can hold reliably. You can only try to indirectly infer it.

Is it impossible such a thing occurred? We just don't know. And so the best option is to refrain and let Allah azwj inform us of the truth. There is more harm [on the Ummah] and our madhab than good on further pursuing this discussion, but i'm not going to stop anyone from doing so.

You can have your view, but promoting the notion that the wives of the Prophet(s) slaughtered him on the pulpit is like lighting barrels of gasoline on the safety of your brothers and sisters the world over. 

Edited by uponthesunnah

Share this post


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

 

Ismai'l b. Ja'far wasn't a safir, Shaykh Ibn Ruh was. Just look at how the Imam (AS) described another safir (RA) in the Hadith I posted. Big difference.

Also, add to that our Ulama like Al-Saduq, Al-Mufid, Al-Tusi, Al-Hilli say he was poisoned.

Edited by E.L King

Share this post


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

why provoke dispute among shias and sunni while we have same  Allah , Prophet , Quran ,Qibla , ways of praying and despite all these commonalities we create enmity among ourselves.

You think all that but sunnis do not even consider shias muslim,although if you say that We have same Allah, Quran, Prophet, etc they will consider it taqiyya and their way of praying is different than ours. Here is the proof that Sunnis (BAKRIS) do not even consider Shias Muslims or sect of Islam :

 

NOW SEE HOW I CALL YOUR SUNNI BROTHERS AND HOW THEY CALL ME :

ZEESH MEDIA (ME) and MUSLIM PALBUU (Your sunni brother)

Screenshot (1).png

He calls shia islam shia satanic sect, kufr, catholic conception with judaism mythology and etc !! But you people are dying when someone call Sunnis even Bakris

Edited by zeesh_ali110

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.


×
×
  • Create New...