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
just a muslim

question again

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, just a muslim said:

also, with all due respect and no offense, your post in the link you shared is absolute non-sense. i say this because if this is how the quran portrays its miracle, then i would recommend you to look into the number 19 instead of 14, and then come and tell me that the muslim brotherhood is not false, because they have much stronger "miracles" and "proofs" in the quran like what you showed in your post.

if you are referring to something other than your argument for number 14 in your post, please enlighten me.

You are just trying to reject he truth explained  in the hadiths that have been verified  and confirmed inline with the evidence from the quran.

Why should i look for number 19?  Rashid khalifa a sunni scholar conducted the research about this number 19 and after some years of his research he claimed himself to be prophet saaw.Yyou can find  about him and his research at internet. I certainly reject such nonsense suggested from your side.

I have not conduced the research about then number 14 but i have docudted for the 1 out of 73 saved sect and Quran provided number 47, and from there number 14 was evolved and further proofs have been given in that thread. Since you were not able to mention any reasonable / logical  objection on it so that was not digested by your slef. I quote the link for  your words in that thread to make my point clear:

My posts well responded your illogical approach: like the one given below:

Just to make the final words from my side the other thread that provides that Shia are the right path followers. The link is given below and in this thread you are almost speechless about the truth explained in its posts:

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

 

salam.

you are slightly mistaken about the way sunnis view the quran and abrogation. there are 3 types of abrogations: 1. verse and ruling both abrogated. 2. verse abrogated but ruling stays. 3. verse stays but ruling abrogated. the third kind remain in the quran today as well ofc, for example the verses of khumr being permissible under certain conditions. the first and second types are the ones that are mentioned in the ahadith. but this conversation has slightly derailed. i hope you dont mind my going back to the original point.

 

Apply any one of the three conditions and explain how this justifies that Caliph Umar wanted to add something to the Quran but did not out of fear of the people. One would think, fear of Allah would prevent him from adding/deleting/editing the Quran.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

question was, how can we trust the shia narrators/versions of ahadith? i will do you one good. i will stop presenting the sanad argument. and even though you said i believe in the quran because of sunni hadith, i dont. ofc not. anyway, i will ask the same question about the sunni narrators. how can we trust them? so that we have no reason to trust either of the narrators. fair enough? all we have and believe in is the quran.

you were pretty explicit in saying your belief in the Quran is based on sunni hadith. I can quote you if needed.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

so the next questions that comes up are two: 1) which version should we trust and accept, the sunni or the shia? and 2) without relying on either shia or sunni hadith, how can we justify different variants of the quran available today or how do we know which is the actual quran? 

Neither. You should not accept shia sources nor sunni sources simply because they are shia or sunni. Each narration deserves to be evaluated on it's own merit.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

i know you might think i am repeating myself. but i am not. also, i want to outline one possible response from you before hand. you might say that the quran itself says that Allah wants to rid the ahlul bayt of rijs. to purify them. and the ahlul bayt tell us that the quran which is prevalent among the masses is the actual quran. but the problem with that answer is that the verse of purification is for the 5, or the ahlul kisa, not for the remaining imams. and the only way you know that the remaining imams are included in this verse is because of ahadith narrated by shia narrators. which we decided, along with sunni narrators, cant be trusted. and hence this response to the second question doesnt hold.

well, how about this then. Once all Sunnis and Shias decide to follow Allah in the tradition of the Prophet and explanations of the Ahlul-Kisa, then we can discuss how and who else this applies to.

On 11/21/2017 at 5:20 AM, just a muslim said:

P.S. i dont believe uthman arranged the order of the surahs. i believe the order of the surahs was decided by the prophet pbuh, not by the companions. as for the hadith in abu dawud and tirmidhi which basically says uthman placed surah taubah and anfal together of his own, it is a weak hadith.

This we can agree upon.

Share this post


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

Apply any one of the three conditions and explain how this justifies that Caliph Umar wanted to add something to the Quran but did not out of fear of the people. One would think, fear of Allah would prevent him from adding/deleting/editing the Quran

'Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn't dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it."
Grade Sahih (Darussalam)  
Reference  : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1431
In-book reference  : Book 17, Hadith 11
English translation

 : Vol. 3, Book 15, Hadith 1431

 

1. the hadith above, speaking of the same event/occasion, has no mention of the fear of people. 

2. it says here clearly that he would have written it in the mushaf, not "added" to the quran. one can still write in the mushaf without adding the quran, like adding footnotes, which i believe ibn abbas also did in his personal mushaf(adding footnotes). even the hadith you quoted from sunan abi dawud says that "i would have written it". it doesnt say i would have "added" it, just that the people would've feared that. 

3. even if we were to take the "fear of people" issue, it could easily refer to the ignorant uneducated class of people who would say that the quran has been changed simply because there were footnotes in the mushaf. the quran is the book of Allah as well as the speech of Allah. writing something in the mushaf doesnt mean changing/adding to the quran. 

hope that clears it.

9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

you were pretty explicit in saying your belief in the Quran is based on sunni hadith. I can quote you if needed.

please do. i cant remember where i said it if i did. i believe in the quran because of it's miraculous nature. not because of sunni hadith. but, if one were to ask me to prove that the book today is the same as that revealed to the messenger pbuh, i would be unable to do so without sunni RIJAL(still not sunni hadith).

9 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Neither. You should not accept shia sources nor sunni sources simply because they are shia or sunni. Each narration deserves to be evaluated on it's own merit.

what do you mean? who decides if the narration is good on its own merit? 

also, i disagree. we should accept each narration based on whether it is true or not. whether it actually happened or is a lie. cant use "aql" or reason to judge the authenticity of a hadith. because if it actually is from the messenger pbuh, and a revelation from Allah, then it doesnt necessarily have to satisfy our reason or logic. just like there are miraculous stories in the quran, which dont make sense and seem illogical. but we believe in them because they are from Allah. if you were to reject things based on reason/logic, we would end up reject a big part of quran.

10 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

well, how about this then. Once all Sunnis and Shias decide to follow Allah in the tradition of the Prophet and explanations of the Ahlul-Kisa, then we can discuss how and who else this applies to.

excellent. just one question though. how will we know what is the tradition of the prophet pbuh and the explanations of ahlul kisa? i mean, if somebody claims X is a tradition or explanation, how will we determine whether it truly is what he says or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi at that era nobody write footnote on Holy Quran

this is not just about Holy Quran in many Sunni Narrations the Umar tried to change everything that he could change it as Athan/Azan

way of praying & etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
'Umar bin Al-Khattab said:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned. If I didn't dislike that I add to the Book of Allah. I would have written it in the Mushaf, for I fear that there will come a people and they will not find it in the Book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it."
Grade Sahih (Darussalam)  
Reference  : Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1431
In-book reference  : Book 17, Hadith 11
English translation

 : Vol. 3, Book 15, Hadith 1431

 

1. the hadith above, speaking of the same event/occasion, has no mention of the fear of people. 

2. it says here clearly that he would have written it in the mushaf, not "added" to the quran. one can still write in the mushaf without adding the quran, like adding footnotes, which i believe ibn abbas also did in his personal mushaf(adding footnotes). even the hadith you quoted from sunan abi dawud says that "i would have written it". it doesnt say i would have "added" it, just that the people would've feared that. 

3. even if we were to take the "fear of people" issue, it could easily refer to the ignorant uneducated class of people who would say that the quran has been changed simply because there were footnotes in the mushaf. the quran is the book of Allah as well as the speech of Allah. writing something in the mushaf doesnt mean changing/adding to the quran. 

hope that clears it.

Well, you've quoted a sahih hadith and so did I.

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).
Sunan Abi Dawud
Book 40, Hadith 68
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/68

1) Both can be wrong but both can't be right. Thereby throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith argument into the garbage.

2) The one quoted makes no mention of mushaf. "added it", "written it" - no difference.

3) Didnt Caliph Umar walk around Medina with a sword ready to punish people. Wasnt he the one who loved the Prophet (saw) so much that he was ready to kill sahaba who dared to say the Prophet (saw) was dead. He feared people???

All you have cleared is that Sunni criteria for "sahih" leaves much to be desired.

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
please do. i cant remember where i said it if i did. i believe in the quran because of it's miraculous nature. not because of sunni hadith. but, if one were to ask me to prove that the book today is the same as that revealed to the messenger pbuh, i would be unable to do so without sunni RIJAL(still not sunni hadith).
On 10/20/2017 at 9:11 PM, just a muslim said:

3. i believe if i dont trust the sunni version, i cant have the quran. simple as that.

On 10/25/2017 at 9:22 PM, just a muslim said:

what i mean is, if i dont believe the sunni rijal system, i cant be sure that the quran is preserved even to the dot.

 

14 hours ago, just a muslim said:
what do you mean? who decides if the narration is good on its own merit? 

also, i disagree. we should accept each narration based on whether it is true or not. whether it actually happened or is a lie. cant use "aql" or reason to judge the authenticity of a hadith. because if it actually is from the messenger pbuh, and a revelation from Allah, then it doesnt necessarily have to satisfy our reason or logic. just like there are miraculous stories in the quran, which dont make sense and seem illogical. but we believe in them because they are from Allah. if you were to reject things based on reason/logic, we would end up reject a big part of quran.

Bold is what I mean by merit.So are we agreeing that that there are no such things as sahih books. Every hadith deserves to be evaluated on its own to verify its veracity.

15 hours ago, just a muslim said:
excellent. just one question though. how will we know what is the tradition of the prophet pbuh and the explanations of ahlul kisa? i mean, if somebody claims X is a tradition or explanation, how will we determine whether it truly is what he says or not?

 Easy enough - every tradition is measured against the Quran and only accepted if it agrees with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Well, you've quoted a sahih hadith and so did I.

‘Abd Allah b. ‘Abbas said:
‘Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (ﷺ) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death. I am afraid the people might say with the passage of time: We do not find the verse of stoning in the Books of Allah, and thus they stray by abandoning a duty which Allah had received. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. I swear by Allah, had it not been so that the people might say: ‘Umar made an addition to Allah’s Book, I would have written it (there).
Sunan Abi Dawud
Book 40, Hadith 68
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/68

1) Both can be wrong but both can't be right. Thereby throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith argument into the garbage.

you are unaware of how ahadith work. i dont know about how the shia hadith sciences work. but in sunni sciences, unlike the quran, ahadith are not preserved word for word. the general meaning of the ahadith is preserved. the same event can be narrated by multiple people, causing multiple chains. those chains can have slight differences in wording but not in meaening. to pick up those word differences and throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith into the garbage is not correct. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

2) The one quoted makes no mention of mushaf. "added it", "written it" - no difference.

like i said, general meaning is taken.

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

3) Didnt Caliph Umar walk around Medina with a sword ready to punish people. Wasnt he the one who loved the Prophet (saw) so much that he was ready to kill sahaba who dared to say the Prophet (saw) was dead. He feared people???

All you have cleared is that Sunni criteria for "sahih" leaves much to be desired.

again. wordings dont matter. general meaning matters. and even if we say that he did say fear of people, it doesnt have to be taken literally. it could easily be interpreted as something acceptable. 

the reason i am going to "such great lengths" to protect this narration and the person in question is because there are numerous other narrations which bear witness to the goodness of Umar. you may not believe those narrations. but try to understand it from a sunni perspective(because you are trying to show me how the sunni perspective is illogical i think), like for examplle such a narration, or anything of the like, existed about any of the imams, the shias would either reject it by saying that it goes against the quran, or they would make taweel of the hadith. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Bold is what I mean by merit.So are we agreeing that that there are no such things as sahih books. Every hadith deserves to be evaluated on its own to verify its veracity.

on a side note, the two books are called sahih because an over whelming majority of hadith scholars have verified those books and every narration with a full chain in it and found it to be authentic, according to sunni standards. that is why these two books have been accepted, as a whole, generally, by the sunni community. there are at least two more books by the name of sahih, called sahih ibn hibban and sahih ibn khuzaimah. but none of them have been accepted as sahih books on the whole because they have false narrations in them. 

On 11/30/2017 at 11:02 PM, shiaman14 said:

Easy enough - every tradition is measured against the Quran and only accepted if it agrees with it.

three problems with it. 

1. the quran doesnt discuss EVERY issue.  so for example, and i put a simple one forward to explain my point, whether to fold hands in prayer or to leave them by the side. the quran is silent about this matter. so if we come across two ahadith each claiming one of the two things, how will we judge which one is correct?

2. by doing so, we might end up rejecting something which in our eyes is going against the quran but in reality it actually isnt. how will we know that a hadith really IS going against the quran and we are not just mistaken about it?

3. that sort of defeats the purpose of a hadith. hadith is something attributed to the prophet pbuh, right? if we treat his words the same as we would anyone else's, what makes his words any better? and how can then it be the basis of islamic law? 

also, and you can make this point number 4, if we are judging a hadith by the quran, we are admitting that a good sanad alone is not sufficient to provide knowledge of a certain event. how can then we be sure that a hadith, even if it agrees with the quran, is actually the saying of the prophet pbuh? someone could have made it up. or rather, someone could have messed up since the chain is authentic, eliminating chances of fabrication. for example, we have a hadith saying to recite surah ikhlas thrice every night. even though you may say this is a good deed and agrees with the quran in general, how can we be sure that the prophet said thrice and not twice? since twice would also have been in agreement with the quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi when you compare shia hadiths with sunni hadiths the shia hadiths have the least contradictton between all shia books there may be some weak hadiths

But generally true & non of narrators doesn't accept each other but in Sunni hadith even in Sahih books there is contadictions between them & they reject each other  too & everything that says something positive about Shia Islam is hides by most of sunni scholars & at the end shia scholars can even show the shia islam from sunni hadiths beside the Holy Quran & other religious books but nowadays sunni muslims  says that there is no sunni or shia in Holy Quran just be muslim but Shias can prove themselves from Holy Quran .

Share this post


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

Hi when you compare shia hadiths with sunni hadiths the shia hadiths have the least contradictton between all shia books there may be some weak hadiths

But generally true & non of narrators doesn't accept each other but in Sunni hadith even in Sahih books there is contadictions between them & they reject each other  too & everything that says something positive about Shia Islam is hides by most of sunni scholars & at the end shia scholars can even show the shia islam from sunni hadiths beside the Holy Quran & other religious books but nowadays sunni muslims  says that there is no sunni or shia in Holy Quran just be muslim but Shias can prove themselves from Holy Quran .

salam brother. you are making bold and general claims there which cant be discussed here. but i will make a separate thread for you if you want so we can talk about it. i think i can respond to most of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

you are unaware of how ahadith work. i dont know about how the shia hadith sciences work. but in sunni sciences, unlike the quran, ahadith are not preserved word for word. the general meaning of the ahadith is preserved. the same event can be narrated by multiple people, causing multiple chains. those chains can have slight differences in wording but not in meaening. to pick up those word differences and throwing the whole authenticity of sunni hadith into the garbage is not correct. 

like i said, general meaning is taken.

Lol. you are simply flip-flopping to get around the fact that 2 hadith about the same event are different. "Fearing people" is different from 'fearing Allah".

Mighty convenient and dare I say typical MO of sunnis. When it suits you, you take the literal and exact meaning of a hadith. Other times, you take a general meaning.

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

the reason i am going to "such great lengths" to protect this narration and the person in question is because there are numerous other narrations which bear witness to the goodness of Umar. you may not believe those narrations. but try to understand it from a sunni perspective(because you are trying to show me how the sunni perspective is illogical i think), like for examplle such a narration, or anything of the like, existed about any of the imams, the shias would either reject it by saying that it goes against the quran, or they would make taweel of the hadith. 

Conveniently, you and sunnis in general forget that no other sahabi was more rude and insulting to the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime than Caliph Umar. There is absolutely no hadith (even fake ones) that show our Imams saying or doing anything insulting towards the Prophet (saw).

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

on a side note, the two books are called sahih because an over whelming majority of hadith scholars have verified those books and every narration with a full chain in it and found it to be authentic, according to sunni standards. that is why these two books have been accepted, as a whole, generally, by the sunni community. there are at least two more books by the name of sahih, called sahih ibn hibban and sahih ibn khuzaimah. but none of them have been accepted as sahih books on the whole because they have false narrations in them. 

maybe they mean generally sahih but not literally sahih.

5 hours ago, just a muslim said:

three problems with it. 

1. the quran doesnt discuss EVERY issue.  so for example, and i put a simple one forward to explain my point, whether to fold hands in prayer or to leave them by the side. the quran is silent about this matter. so if we come across two ahadith each claiming one of the two things, how will we judge which one is correct?

2. by doing so, we might end up rejecting something which in our eyes is going against the quran but in reality it actually isnt. how will we know that a hadith really IS going against the quran and we are not just mistaken about it?

3. that sort of defeats the purpose of a hadith. hadith is something attributed to the prophet pbuh, right? if we treat his words the same as we would anyone else's, what makes his words any better? and how can then it be the basis of islamic law? 

also, and you can make this point number 4, if we are judging a hadith by the quran, we are admitting that a good sanad alone is not sufficient to provide knowledge of a certain event. how can then we be sure that a hadith, even if it agrees with the quran, is actually the saying of the prophet pbuh? someone could have made it up. or rather, someone could have messed up since the chain is authentic, eliminating chances of fabrication. for example, we have a hadith saying to recite surah ikhlas thrice every night. even though you may say this is a good deed and agrees with the quran in general, how can we be sure that the prophet said thrice and not twice? since twice would also have been in agreement with the quran.

1) What? The Quran does not discuss every issue? Then which sahabi made the call that "hasbonallah kitaballah" - the Book of Allah is enough. Clearly, he was clueless about islam. So you don't take islam from him but from the people whom the Prophet (saw) mentioned he is leaving behind aka AhlulBayt.

2) Refer to #1.

3) Only my sunni brothers would have this dilemma. "The Prophet spoke naught but what was revealed to him" - so you dont treat his words like the words of ordinary men. Moreover, He didn't contradict the Quran.

4) That is exactly my point. You can't take all hadith at face value. In your case, reciting surah iklaas 2 or 3 times will be the fine because you are not going against the Quran. Remember, everything is allowed unless it is forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

Lol. you are simply flip-flopping to get around the fact that 2 hadith about the same event are different. "Fearing people" is different from 'fearing Allah".

Mighty convenient and dare I say typical MO of sunnis. When it suits you, you take the literal and exact meaning of a hadith. Other times, you take a general meaning.

and if i were to bring you two ahadith from shia literature talking about the same thing with differences in the wordings, one mentioning something extra or the other missing something? i really think you dont know how hadith sciences work.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

Conveniently, you and sunnis in general forget that no other sahabi was more rude and insulting to the Prophet (saw) during his lifetime than Caliph Umar. There is absolutely no hadith (even fake ones) that show our Imams saying or doing anything insulting towards the Prophet (saw).

might i ask upon what narrations you are basing your conclusion that umar was the rudest companion and most insulting? cause that is factually an incorrect statement. by your standards and mine.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

maybe they mean generally sahih but not literally sahih.

now who is picking and choosing the literal meaning of a word at one place and the general meaning of it at another?

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

1) What? The Quran does not discuss every issue? Then which sahabi made the call that "hasbonallah kitaballah" - the Book of Allah is enough. Clearly, he was clueless about islam. So you don't take islam from him but from the people whom the Prophet (saw) mentioned he is leaving behind aka AhlulBayt.

oh come on. really? first of all, i dont know who said that if they did. secondly, there is this thing called context. and finally, can you tell me where the quran tells us how to pray? or how much zakah to pay? or how many times to pray? or how people at the north and south pole are supposed to pray as they have a day of 6 months and a night of 6 months? 

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

2) Refer to #1.

refer to the response above.

On 12/7/2017 at 11:22 PM, shiaman14 said:

3) Only my sunni brothers would have this dilemma. "The Prophet spoke naught but what was revealed to him" - so you dont treat his words like the words of ordinary men. Moreover, He didn't contradict the Quran.

4) That is exactly my point. You can't take all hadith at face value. In your case, reciting surah iklaas 2 or 3 times will be the fine because you are not going against the Quran. Remember, everything is allowed unless it is forbidden.

i want to know what the prophet pbuh said. if he said 3 times, then doing it 2 times believing it to be from the prophet is a mistake, if not bidah. 

ofcourse the prophet pbuh wont contradict the quran. but the narrators after him could commit mistakes. all of them arent masoom like the imams and hence are not protecteed from committing mistakes. 

are you saying that every single word he uttered was revelation? like even when he would have said something like, what is for food today, or i am going to sleep?

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all of his words are not revelation as in Holy Quran says he is like other persons eats & sleeps but he does it in the best way that we must try to act like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

and if i were to bring you two ahadith from shia literature talking about the same thing with differences in the wordings, one mentioning something extra or the other missing something? i really think you dont know how hadith sciences work.

If you did, I would say one of them is wrong and the other is right.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

might i ask upon what narrations you are basing your conclusion that umar was the rudest companion and most insulting? cause that is factually an incorrect statement. by your standards and mine.

Who openly questioned the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) at Hudaibiya?
Who questioned the Prophet's (saw) at his deathbed?

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

now who is picking and choosing the literal meaning of a word at one place and the general meaning of it at another?

lol. I was being sarcastic.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

oh come on. really? first of all, i dont know who said that if they did. secondly, there is this thing called context. and finally, can you tell me where the quran tells us how to pray? or how much zakah to pay? or how many times to pray? or how people at the north and south pole are supposed to pray as they have a day of 6 months and a night of 6 months? 

Clearly the fine art of sarcasm is lost upon you.

The Quran is a reference guide. It tells us to pray salah. Hadith and the AhlulBayt explain how to pray, when to pray, etc.

The "hasbon kitaballah" goes to Caliph Umar to refused to bring pen&paper to Prophet Muhammad (saw) saying the book of Allah is enough when clearly it is not.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

i want to know what the prophet pbuh said. if he said 3 times, then doing it 2 times believing it to be from the prophet is a mistake, if not bidah. 

It would be bidah if the Prophet (saw) forbade 2 times. Otherwises, it is just reciting a surah.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

ofcourse the prophet pbuh wont contradict the quran. but the narrators after him could commit mistakes. all of them arent masoom like the imams and hence are not protecteed from committing mistakes. 

The fact that narrartors could make mistakes is ample proof of why we don't believe in sahih hadith. You look at each hadith on its own merits.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:37 PM, just a muslim said:

are you saying that every single word he uttered was revelation? like even when he would have said something like, what is for food today, or i am going to sleep?

[Shakir 53:1] I swear by the star when it goes down.
[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.
[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,

So why dont you tell us based on the above? The Prophet's (saw) knowledge came from Allah so everything he did, he did with the knowledge and understanding given by Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

Who openly questioned the Prophethood of Muhammad (saw) at Hudaibiya?
Who questioned the Prophet's (saw) at his deathbed?

i see. are you aware of the incident where Ali r.a. disobeyed the prophet pbuh?

On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

lol. I was being sarcastic.

 

Clearly the fine art of sarcasm is lost upon you.

The Quran is a reference guide. It tells us to pray salah. Hadith and the AhlulBayt explain how to pray, when to pray, etc.

The "hasbon kitaballah" goes to Caliph Umar to refused to bring pen&paper to Prophet Muhammad (saw) saying the book of Allah is enough when clearly it is not.

my bad. it is difficult to pick sarcasm up from text.

On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

It would be bidah if the Prophet (saw) forbade 2 times. Otherwises, it is just reciting a surah.

i disagree. we say that everything is permissible unless explicitly forbidden. but in matters of ibadah, everything is forbidden unless permitted/commanded. that is due to the hadith of bidah. so, recitation in and of itself is good. but we have no reason to recite it twice.

On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

The fact that narrartors could make mistakes is ample proof of why we don't believe in sahih hadith. You look at each hadith on its own merits.

hold up here. what do you mean you dont believe in sahih hadith? what do you mean by sahih?

On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

[Shakir 53:1] I swear by the star when it goes down.
[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.
[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,

So why dont you tell us based on the above? The Prophet's (saw) knowledge came from Allah so everything he did, he did with the knowledge and understanding given by Allah.

these verses are talking in response to those polytheists who used to claim that muhammad(s.a.w.w) comes up with the quran on his own. not about every single thing that he spoke. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i see. are you aware of the incident where Ali r.a. disobeyed the prophet pbuh?

Are you seriously equating Imam Ali (as) refusing to cancel the Prophet's name from a piece of paper out of respect for him (saw) to Caliph Umar out rightly questioning the Prophet's prophethood?

One is out of respect, the other is out of spite.

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

i disagree. we say that everything is permissible unless explicitly forbidden. but in matters of ibadah, everything is forbidden unless permitted/commanded. that is due to the hadith of bidah. so, recitation in and of itself is good. but we have no reason to recite it twice.

Nope, in matters of wajib everything is forbidden unless expressly allowed. For example, I can't pray 4 rakat fajr, has to be 2; haram to fast on Eid. 

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

hold up here. what do you mean you dont believe in sahih hadith? what do you mean by sahih?

Sorry, I meant sahih books.

2 hours ago, just a muslim said:

these verses are talking in response to those polytheists who used to claim that muhammad(s.a.w.w) comes up with the quran on his own. not about every single thing that he spoke. 

hmmmm, or is it about everything he (saw) spoke.

Share this post


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

Are you seriously equating Imam Ali (as) refusing to cancel the Prophet's name from a piece of paper out of respect for him (saw) to Caliph Umar out rightly questioning the Prophet's prophethood?

One is out of respect, the other is out of spite.

No. You are saying that umar did that out of spite. I say what umar did was out of love of the prophet. He did not want him to move much while he was ill, To prevent any trouble/pain, specially since the messenger had completed his mission, and Allah had completed the religion, as per quran. 

11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Nope, in matters of wajib everything is forbidden unless expressly allowed. For example, I can't pray 4 rakat fajr, has to be 2; haram to fast on Eid. 

Why is it haram in matters of wajib? 

11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Sorry, I meant sahih books

So, if one were to collect for example 50 sahih hadith from al-kafi, and make it a book, you would not believe it? 

11 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

hmmmm, or is it about everything he (saw) spoke.

Everything about religion/law, yes. Everything other than that, including like day to day conversations/work, no. How else can he be an excellent example for us if he does not say/do ANYTHING from his own self. Allah swt might as well have sent an angel messenger instead of a human messenger. 

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, just a muslim said:

No. You are saying that umar did that out of spite. I say what umar did was out of love of the prophet. He did not want him to move much while he was ill, To prevent any trouble/pain, specially since the messenger had completed his mission, and Allah had completed the religion, as per quran. 

I suppose he questioned the Prophet's (saw) prophethood to his face out of love as well.

What kind of love is this where you deny a dying man his last wish? Basically, you are saying the Prophet's wishes were irrelevant because deen was complete. Who needs enemies with sahaba like Caliph Umar and followers like you. If you (general and specifically) actually cared about the Prophet (saw), you would be as angry about this as we are - you know the people who love the Prophet above all else.

13 hours ago, just a muslim said:

Why is it haram in matters of wajib? 

really? wajib's definition is that it is to be done exactly as prescribed. No more, no less.

13 hours ago, just a muslim said:

No. You are saying that umar did that out of spite. I say what umar did was out of love of the prophet. He did not want him to move much while he was ill, To prevent any trouble/pain, specially since the messenger had completed his mission, and Allah had completed the religion, as per quran. 

Why is it haram in matters of wajib? 

So, if one were to collect for example 50 sahih hadith from al-kafi, and make it a book, you would not believe it? 

Everything about religion/law, yes. Everything other than that, including like day to day conversations/work, no. How else can he be an excellent example for us if he does not say/do ANYTHING from his own self. Allah swt might as well have sent an angel messenger instead of a human messenger. 

I wouldn't call it sahih al-kafi.

13 hours ago, just a muslim said:

Everything about religion/law, yes. Everything other than that, including like day to day conversations/work, no. How else can he be an excellent example for us if he does not say/do ANYTHING from his own self. Allah swt might as well have sent an angel messenger instead of a human messenger. 

Because he (saw) was taught by Allah and he was a perfect student. His actions were Allah's Will and Allah's Will were his actions.

Share this post


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

I suppose he questioned the Prophet's (saw) prophethood to his face out of love as well.

What kind of love is this where you deny a dying man his last wish? Basically, you are saying the Prophet's wishes were irrelevant because deen was complete. Who needs enemies with sahaba like Caliph Umar and followers like you. If you (general and specifically) actually cared about the Prophet (saw), you would be as angry about this as we are - you know the people who love the Prophet above all else.

that is your subjective opinion. i cant change that. we will just have to agree to disagree.

13 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

really? wajib's definition is that it is to be done exactly as prescribed. No more, no less.

no. the definition of wajib is that which we are obliged to do. dont know what dictionary you are using. if you are basing your views on a hadith, that wajib is that which is done exactly as prescribed, please do share the hadith.

13 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

I wouldn't call it sahih al-kafi.

doesnt matter what you call it. it would be a sahih book. would you still not believe in it? do you have an issue with a book being called sahih or a book being believed to be sahih?

if we change the name of sahih bukhari and muslim, but still believed all(most) of the hadith in it sahih, would that be okay? of course not. 

13 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Because he (saw) was taught by Allah and he was a perfect student. His actions were Allah's Will and Allah's Will were his actions.

everything that happens is Allah's will. 

what was he taught by Allah? religion? or trade? or engineering?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam why they listen to last will of Abubakr he was ill too & they must not disturbed him like Prophet (pbu) & Also is similar for Umar !!!???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

إمام محمد بن مفلح مقدسي متوفي 763 هـ (شاگرد ذهبي ، مزي و تقي الدين سبكي ) از فقيهان و محدثان بنام اهل سنت (معجم المؤلفين ، ج12 ، ص44) در اين باره مي گويد :

لما استخلف أبو بكر عمر رضي اللّه عنهما قال لمعيقيب الدوسي : ما يقول الناس في استخلاف عمر ؟

قال : كرهه قوم ورضيه قوم آخرون .

قال : الذين كرهوه أكثر أم الذين رضوه ؟

قال : بل الذين كرهوه ...

الآداب الشرعيّة ، ج1 ، ص71 ، با تحقيق شعيب الأرنؤوط و عمر القيام ، ط مؤسسة الرسالة ـ بيروت ، 1417 هـ .

 

 

عن وكيع ، وابن إدريس ، عن إسماعيل بن أبي خالد ، عن زبيد بن الحرث ، أن أبا بكر حين حضره الموت أرسل إلي عمر يستخلفه فقال الناس : تستخلف علينا فظاً غليظاً ، ولو قد ولينا كان أفظ وأغلظ ، فما تقول لربك إذا لقيته وقد استخلفت علينا عمر

المصنف ، ابن أبي شيبة ، ج8 ، ص574 ، با تحقيق سعيد محمد اللحام ، ط دار الفكر ، بيروت و تاريخ المدينة المنوّرة ، ابن شبة النميري ، ج2 ، ص671 ، با تحقيق فهيم محمد شلتوت ، ط دار الفكر ، بيروت و تاريخ مدينة دمشق ، ابن عساكر ، ج30 ، ص 413 و كنز العمال ، متقي هندي ، ج5 ، ص678 .

 

 

همچنبن ابن تيميه حراني ، نظريه پرداز و مؤسس فكري وهابيت در اين باره مي نويسد :

وقد تكلموا مع الصديق في ولاية عمر وقالوا ماذا تقول لربك وقد وليت علينا فظا غليظا .

صحابه با ابوبكر در باره جانشيني عمر با او صحبت كردند و گفتند : چرا يك فرد خشن و تند را بر خلافت گزيدهو بر مردم تحميل كردي ؟ فردا جواب خدا را چه خواهي داد ؟

منهاج السنة ، ج6 ، ص155 ، الناشر : مؤسسة قرطبة ، الطبعة الأولي ، 1406، تحقيق : د. محمد رشاد سالم عدد الأجزاء : 8 .

ابن حجر مكي در اين باره مي نويسد :

ودخل عليه بعض الصحابة فقال قائل منهم : ما أنت قائل لربك إذا سألك عن تولية عمر وقد تري غلظته ...

الصواعق الحرقة ، ج1 ، ص254 ، با تحقيق : عبدالرحمن بن عبدالله التركي وكامل محمد الخراط ، ط مؤسسة الرسالة ، بيروت ، الأولي ، 1997 م .

 

 

ابن عساكر مي نويسد:

عن عمرو بن محمد ومجالد عن الشعبي قال بينما طلحة والزبير وعثمان وسعد وعبد الرحمن جلوسا عند أبي بكر في مرضه عوادا فقال أبو بكر ابعثوا إلي عمر فأتاه فدخل عليه فلما دخل أحسست أنه خيرته لهم فتفرقوا عنه وخرجوا وتركوهما فجلسوا في المسجد وأرسلوا إلي علي ونفر معه فوجدوا عليا في حائط في الحوائط التي كان رسول الله ( صلي الله عليه وسلم ) تصدق بها فتوافوا إليه فاجتمعوا وقالوا يا علي ويا فلان إن خليفة رسول الله ( صلي الله عليه وسلم ) ددمستخلف عمر وقد علم وعلم الناس أن إسلامنا كان قبل إسلام عمر وفي عمر من التسلط علي الناس ما فيه ولا سلطان له فادخلوا بنا عليه نسأله فإن استعمل عمر كلمناه فيه وأخبرناه عنه ففعلوا فقال أبو بكر اجمعوا لي الناس أخبركم من اخترت لكم فخرجوا فجمعوا الناس إلي المسجد فأمر من يحمله إليهم حتي وضعه علي المنبر فقام فيهم باختيار عمر لهم ثم دخل فاستأذنوا عليه فأذن لهم فقالوا ماذا تقول لربك وقد استخلفت علينا عمر ؟...

تاريخ مدينة دمشق ، ج44 ، ص248 و تاريخ المدينة ، ابن شبة النميري ، ج2 ، ص666 .

ITS continued on this link

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5133

 

(صحیح بخاری باب کتابه العلم من کتاب العبم 1/22مسند احمد تحقیق احمد شاکر حدیث 42992 طبقات سعد 2/244 چاپ بیروت صحیح مسلم 5/76 و تاریخ طبری 3/193)

http://e-delshad6.blogfa.com/post/11

 

http://sonnat.net/news/2120

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Six-Member_Council

http://fa.wikishia.net/view/شورای_شش_نفره

http://ar.wikishia.net/view/شورى_الخلافة_بعد_عمر

http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa2906

http://www.islamquest.net/ar/archive/question/fa2906   (Arabic)

http://www.valiasr-aj.com/persian/shownews.php?idnews=5137

1- صحیح بخاری - ج1 - ص 39 و ج 2 - ص118 و ج 4 - ص5 و ج 6- ص11

  صحیح مسلم - ج 6 - ص 76

  کامل این اثیر - ج 2 - ص 217

  تاریخ طبری - ج 3 - ص193

2- سوره نجم - آیه 4

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ashvazdanghe i specifically asked you to not bring history books. 

also, i cant understand half of it as it appears to be in some other languange, maybe farsi. 

as for the ahadith about the prophet's "will" not being written, i am aware of them and not denying them. so no need to provide references for those, which you did from bukhari and muslim. 

also, a piece of advice for you, for your posts in general. dont bombard the other person with a storm of links/quotes. just one, if correct, is usually enough. same goes here. just quote me a single hadith where abu bakr/umar gave out their will. i am not accepting or denying anything. i just dont know if they did. would be happy to move on once we can establish that they did.

salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 1:34 AM, just a muslim said:

that is your subjective opinion. i cant change that. we will just have to agree to disagree.

So questioning the Prophet's prophethood is a subjective issue now? The episode of pen and paper is referred to as "The Calamity of Thursday" by Ibn-Abbas and I am being subjective??? If it was called "The Blessing of Thursday" then you may have had a point. Subjectively speaking then, you seem to love Caliph Umar more than the Prophet.

On 12/16/2017 at 1:34 AM, just a muslim said:

no. the definition of wajib is that which we are obliged to do. dont know what dictionary you are using. if you are basing your views on a hadith, that wajib is that which is done exactly as prescribed, please do share the hadith.

Definition of wajib is that which we are obliged to do and do exactly as prescribed. 

On 12/16/2017 at 1:34 AM, just a muslim said:

doesnt matter what you call it. it would be a sahih book. would you still not believe in it? do you have an issue with a book being called sahih or a book being believed to be sahih?

You are one insisting on calling is sahih, not me.

We say all the sermons and letters in Nahjul Balagha are authentic but we dont call it Sahih Al-Balagha.

On 12/16/2017 at 1:34 AM, just a muslim said:

what was he taught by Allah? religion? or trade? or engineering?

As a typical Sunni, you want to limit the Prophet to your limited and narrow-minded thinking.

Allah says in the Quran:

[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,
[Shakir 53:6] The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,

If Allah does not limit the knowledge he imparted onto the Prophet (saw), then who dares to do it? Oh yes, Sunnis do.

 

 

Share this post


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

So questioning the Prophet's prophethood is a subjective issue now? The episode of pen and paper is referred to as "The Calamity of Thursday" by Ibn-Abbas and I am being subjective??? If it was called "The Blessing of Thursday" then you may have had a point. Subjectively speaking then, you seem to love Caliph Umar more than the Prophet.

no. nowhere did umar say that he rejects the prophethood. 

ibn abbas also said the following: 

"When `Umar was stabbed, he showed signs of agony. Ibn `Abbas, as if intending to encourage `Umar, said to him, "O Chief of the believers! Never mind what has happened to you, for you have been in the company of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and you kept good relations with him and you parted with him while he was pleased with you."

bukhari 3692

4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Definition of wajib is that which we are obliged to do and do exactly as prescribed. 

where did you get the "exactly as prescribed" part in the definition? i got my definition from the dictionary. 

4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

You are one insisting on calling is sahih, not me.

We say all the sermons and letters in Nahjul Balagha are authentic but we dont call it Sahih Al-Balagha.

you believe everything in nahjul balagha is authentic? 

On 12/12/2017 at 4:23 AM, shiaman14 said:

The fact that narrartors could make mistakes is ample proof of why we don't believe in sahih hadith. You look at each hadith on its own merits.

 

On 12/14/2017 at 9:30 PM, shiaman14 said:

Sorry, I meant sahih books.

you said you dont believe in sahih books. please explain and elaborate what you meant by that so we can move in the right direction. do you have an issue with the name being "sahih bukhari" or something? because as you believe in all of nahjul balagha, you clearly cant have an issue with someone believing an entire book to be authentic.

4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

As a typical Sunni, you want to limit the Prophet to your limited and narrow-minded thinking.

Allah says in the Quran:

[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,
[Shakir 53:6] The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,

If Allah does not limit the knowledge he imparted onto the Prophet (saw), then who dares to do it? Oh yes, Sunnis do.

like i said earlier, this is talking about the quran itself. just read the 2 ayahs before 5th and 6th and you will clearly get the idea. simple.

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam if Umar appointed as prophet it was against all of Allah teachings none of prophets hadn't  worshiped Idols  & never stands against other prophets as it said on history that Umar before becoming a muslim was one of  wretched enemies of Prophet Mohammad (pbu) how such person could be a Prophet & many people causes pleasing of Prophet (pbu) from them it was not limited to Umar , companions like Talha & Zobair did it many times by the way nobody mentions these merits about them & although they at first supported  Imam Ali (as)  but after his caliphate Joined to Jamal Army accompanying Aisha against their caliph that is a Great Sin in sunni school of thoughts but in Imam Ali (as)  forgiven Aisha thus we cant accept her as a trustworthy reference any way she also did a great sin in sunni View.

http://www.wikifeqh.ir/قیام_علیه_حاکمان_جور

   https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=http://www.wikifeqh.ir/%D9%82%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%B9%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%87_%D8%AD%D8%A7%DA%A9%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B1&prev=search

http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa23403

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fa&u=http://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa23403&prev=search

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ ﴿٢ وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ ﴿٣ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ ﴿٤ عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَىٰ ﴿٥ ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَىٰ ﴿٦

(1) Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray; (2)Nor does he speak out of desire. (3) It is naught but revelation that is revealed, (4) The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him, (5) The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion, (6)

An-Najm 53:2,3,4,5,6

This verses proof that Prophet (pbu) in any situation doesn't say false word even if he was sick but Umar rejected these verses by saying that prophet is sick & cant do the right work.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, just a muslim said:

no. nowhere did umar say that he rejects the prophethood. 

Did I write that Umar rejected prophethood? Umar questioned the Prophet's prophethood to his face and behind his back.... out of 'love' of course. Read up on the true accounts of Hudaibiya.

18 hours ago, just a muslim said:

where did you get the "exactly as prescribed" part in the definition? i got my definition from the dictionary. 

Common sense. Is it wajib to pray fajr or is it wajib to pray 2-rakat fajr?

18 hours ago, just a muslim said:

you believe everything in nahjul balagha is authentic? 

you said you dont believe in sahih books. please explain and elaborate what you meant by that so we can move in the right direction. do you have an issue with the name being "sahih bukhari" or something? because as you believe in all of nahjul balagha, you clearly cant have an issue with someone believing an entire book to be authentic.

I believe the sermons, letters and sayings are authentic. But we don't base our faith on it and definitely don't accept/reject the Quran based on Nahjul Balagha.

If it turns out that 50% of nahjul balagha is false, it wouldn't matter to us. But if you found out that 50% of Sahih Bukhari is false, you core belief system will come crashing down.

18 hours ago, just a muslim said:

like i said earlier, this is talking about the quran itself. just read the 2 ayahs before 5th and 6th and you will clearly get the idea. simple.

[Shakir 53:1] I swear by the star when it goes down.
[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;
[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.
[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,
[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,
[Shakir 53:6] The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,

Surely you don't believe that all revelation became Quran???

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...