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

Abu Hanifa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

Something very interesting came to my mind. Here is a statement of Abu Hanifa of which I don’t know the authenticity of:

Who doubt the kufr (disbelief) of Rafidah (us/Shi’as) is a kafir himself.

Al Islam.org also states that he did not love Imam Jafar as Sadiq (عليه السلام). Yet he knew that Imam Jafar as Sadiq (عليه السلام) was a 1000x smarter than him? Why did he then have a negative view of Shi’as?

Edited by Mortadakerim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Fātawā ʿal-Subkī, volume 2, page 590.

He says that insulting A’bu Bākr in the māḏhab of A’bu Ḥānifa and ʿal-Shafiʾi is kufr.

(Two opinions in the māḏhab of ʿal-Shafiʾi).

dHUSjmF.jpg

In ʿal-Mājrūḥīn, volume 2, page 407, by the muḵḫālif scholar, Ibn Ḥibbān.

Narrated Ali bin Abd ʿal-Aziz ʿal-Ubulī, from Amr bin Muḥamād ʿal-Anās, from Aʾbi-l Bāḵḫtari, he said: I heard J’afar bin Muḥamād [al-Ṣādiq] saying:

“O’ Allah, we inherited this prophecy from our father, Abraham, Ḵḫālil ʿal-Rāḥman, and we inherited this House from our father, Ishmael, the son of Ḵḫālil ʿal-Rāḥman, and we inherited this knowledge from our grandfather, Muḥamād, so make my curse, and the curses of my grandfathers upon A’bu Ḥānifa.”

And below you can also find this ḥādith.

Narrated Muḥamād bin ʿal-Qāsim bin Ḥātim, from ʿal-Ḵḫālil bin Hind, from Abdul Ṣāmad bin Ḥāsaan, he said:

I was with Sufyān ʿal-Thāwri in Mecca at the mizāb, so a man came and said: A’bu Ḥānifa has died. He [Sufyān] said: Go to Ibrāhim bin Ṭahmān and tell him. So, the messenger came back and said: I found him sleeping. He said: Woe to you! Go wake him up and tell him the good news, for the devil of this nation has died! By God, there wasn’t an infant born in Islam more ominous than him. By God, it’s as if A’bu Ḥānifa was breaking the pillars of Islam, pillar by pillar, more than Qāḥtabah ʿal-Ṭāʾi with his sword.

GXkdMbN.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

Salam Simon,

I heard some Sunni scholars in the past have critisized Abu Hanifa for heretical beliefs, do you know something about this?

It is unfortunate that he disobeyed son of Prophet (PBUHHP) for wealth and fame. How much he lived and how far the wealth and fame could save him from death!!!!!!

May Allah (عزّ وجلّ) save us from ending with such fate for the sake of Prophet and his family (عليه السلام).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

He says that insulting A’bu Bākr in the māḏhab of A’bu Ḥānifa and ʿal-Shafiʾi is kufr.

Did Imam Ali (عليه السلام) ever insulted Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Did Imam Ali (عليه السلام) ever insulted Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه)?

Yes. Many times, actually.

In the book of ʿal-Ṣirāt ʿal-Mustāqim, volume 3, page 39, by Ali bin Yūnus ʿal-Nābaṭi ʿal-Āmili ʿal-Bāyaḍhi.

Narrated ʿIkrimāh, from ʿIbn Abbas, that Imam Ali said: “The first to enter hellfire in my oppression (māḍhlama) is Ātiq and ʿIbn ʿal-Ḵḫaṭtab,” then he read this ayah.

The faithless will say, ‘Our Lord! Show us those who led us astray from among jinn and humans so that we may trample them under our feet, so that they may be among the lowermost!’ [41:29]

 

And it was narrated that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet called them and said: “About you, it was revealed.”

The verbs that are used in this verse are muthānna (dual); used for two people. (ʿal-lāḏhayni / ʾaḍhallānā / najʿālhumā / li-yakūnā) are all dual verbs (muthānna).

SHVv7tz.jpg

As for Ātiq, in the book of Tārḵḫ ʿal-Ḵḫulāfaʾ page 101, by ʿal-Suyūṭi.

He said that ʿIbn Sāʾd narrated from ʿIbn Sirin that Aʾbu Bākr’s name is Ātiq. (Al-Ṭabāqat ʿal-Kubrā, volume 3, page 156).

ʿal-Suyūṭi said that it’s his laqāb.

ʿal-Ṭabarāni narrated from ʿIbn Abbas, that he said: “He was named Ātiq for how good his face was.” (Al-Muʾjām ʿal-Kābir, volume 1, page 54).

Kof3FcH.jpg

Share this post


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

Did Imam Ali (عليه السلام) ever insulted Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه)?

So? That does not mean he was a good person. He took the rights of Sayida Fatima (عليه السلام) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Who make the family of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) sad, we never follow them and will never respect them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Diaz said:

So? That does not mean he was a good person. He took the rights of Sayida Fatima (عليه السلام) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Who make the family of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) sad, we never follow them and will never respect them. 

If the answer is NO then I follow Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

What about you?

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Yes. Many times, actually.

In the book of ʿal-Ṣirāt ʿal-Mustāqim, volume 3, page 39, by Ali bin Yūnus ʿal-Nābaṭi ʿal-Āmili ʿal-Bāyaḍhi.

Narrated ʿIkrimāh, from ʿIbn Abbas, that Imam Ali said: “The first to enter hellfire in my oppression (māḍhlama) is Ātiq and ʿIbn ʿal-Ḵḫaṭtab,” then he read this ayah.

The faithless will say, ‘Our Lord! Show us those who led us astray from among jinn and humans so that we may trample them under our feet, so that they may be among the lowermost!’ [41:29]

 

And it was narrated that when this verse was revealed, the Prophet called them and said: “About you, it was revealed.”

The verbs that are used in this verse are muthānna (dual); used for two people. (ʿal-lāḏhayni / ʾaḍhallānā / najʿālhumā / li-yakūnā) are all dual verbs (muthānna).

SHVv7tz.jpg

As for Ātiq, in the book of Tārḵḫ ʿal-Ḵḫulāfaʾ page 101, by ʿal-Suyūṭi.

He said that ʿIbn Sāʾd narrated from ʿIbn Sirin that Aʾbu Bākr’s name is Ātiq. (Al-Ṭabāqat ʿal-Kubrā, volume 3, page 156).

ʿal-Suyūṭi said that it’s his laqāb.

ʿal-Ṭabarāni narrated from ʿIbn Abbas, that he said: “He was named Ātiq for how good his face was.” (Al-Muʾjām ʿal-Kābir, volume 1, page 54).

Kof3FcH.jpg

And then he (عليه السلام) interacted with Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) in all manners except in hostility?

I don't believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was a two-faced person.

Nor do I believe those fairy tales of yours.

You should develop the ability to distinguish historical facts from creed so to make a much more balanced judgment. 

You can not just take some obscure ahaadith and cherry-pick them because they're in line with your creed even though they go against the generally accepted historical facts and reason.

Same counts for Sunni's and their Adalatul Sahaba concept.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

And then he (عليه السلام) interacted with Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) in all manners except in hostility?

I don't believe Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was a two-faced person.

Nor do I believe those fairy tales of yours.

You should develop the ability to distinguish historical facts from creed so to make a much more balanced judgment. 

You can not just take some obscure ahaadith and cherry-pick them because they're in line with your creed even though they go against the generally accepted historical facts and reason.

Same counts for Sunni's and their Adalatul Sahaba concept.

According to ‘the most authentic book after the Qurʾān,’ Imam Ali saw Aʾbu Bākr and Omar as sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars.

In Ṣāḥih Muslim, page(s) 839-840, ḥādith (1758).

Narrated Abdullah bin Muḥāmad bin Asmāʾ al-Ḍhubāʾi, from Jūwāiriyah, from Mālik, from ʿal-Zuhrī, from Mālik bin ʿAws that he said [in a long ḥādith]:

Omar bin ʿal-Ḵḫāṭtab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Mālik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Mālik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yārfaʾ came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthmān, Abd al-Rāḥman bin ʿAwf, Zubāir and Sāʾd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfaʾ) came again and said: What do you say about ʿAli and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Mālik bin ʿAws said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ʿAli and Abbas). Omar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah, by whose order the heavens and the Earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah said: “We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?” They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and ʿAli and said: I adjure you both by Allah, by whose order the heavens and Earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah said: “We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?” They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Omar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger a special favor: that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qurʾānic verse: “What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger.” The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Omar continued: The Messenger of Allah distributed among you the properties abandoned by Bānū ʿal Nāḍhir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bāit ul-Māl. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah, by whose order the heavens and the Earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and ʿAll as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah passed away, Aʾbu Bākr said: “I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah.” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ʿAli) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Aʾbu Bākr said: The Messenger of Allah had said: “We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Aʾbu Bākr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah and Aʾbu Bākr, you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn’t it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.

Q7Fpmc5.jpg

NC2DyfF.png

Share this post


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

Nor do I believe those fairy tales of yours.

As for fairy tales...

In Ḏhāmm ʿal-Hāwa, page(s) 247-248, ḥādith (702), by Ibn ʿal-Jāwzi.

He narrates from Abdulmālik bin Abdillah ʿal-Kārūḵḫi, from Aʾbu Abdillah Muḥāmad bin Ali al-ʿĀmiri, from Muḥāmad bin Ahmad ʿal-Fāmi, from Muḥāmad bin Ahmad ʿal-Mārwani, from Muḥāmad bin ʿal-Munḏhir Shākkar, from ʿal-Fāḍhl bin Abd al-Jabbar ʿal-Bāhili, from Ibrāhim bin ʿal-Ashʾāth, from ʿal-Muʾtāmir bin Suleiman, from Abʾa K’ab, from ʿal-Ḥāsan ʿal-Bāṣri, he said:

There was a prostitute that had one third of beauty (1) - which wouldn’t ‘give herself’ except for 100 dinars - and a worshiper looked, and liked her. So, he went and worked with his hands, and collected 100 dinars. So, he went [to her] and said: “I have liked you, so I went and worked with my hands, and collected 100 dinars,” she said: “Give it to the accountant, so he may weigh and check it [for any fake coin],” so he did and she said: “You found 100 dinars?” he said: “Yes,” then she said: “Enter.”

And she had of beauty and appearance what God is knowledgeable of! And she had a house, with a bed made of gold, then she said: “Come,” so, when he sat to have intercourse with her, he remembered his status before God, and he became turbulent and his lust was gone. He said: “Leave me, so I can exit and for you are the 100 dinars.” She said: “What happened to you? You saw me - as you claimed - and you liked me, so you went and worked until you collected 100 dinars, so when you were able [to have intercourse with me], you did what you did?!” He said: “Being far from God, and my status before Him, and you became hated to me.”

She said: “If you were truthful, then there’s no husband other than you to me.” He said: “Let me exit.” She said: “No, except if you promise to marry me.” He said: “No, except if I exit.” She said: “If I come to you, will you marry me?” He said: “Yes.”

He wore his mask and went back to his country, and the other woman went on with her life regretful of what happened, until she reached his country. So, she asked about his name and house, and the directions were given. It was said to him: “The queen is coming to ask for you,” so when he saw her, he rattled (2) and died.

She said: “As for this man, I missed [the opportunity of marrying] him, does he have a relative?” It was said: “His brother, a poor man.” She said: “I marry you, for the love of your brother.” So, he married her and she gave birth to seven Prophets.

This story was also mentioned in ʿal-Tāwabeen, page(s) 74-75, by Ibn Qudāmah ʿal-Maqdīsī.

(1) one third of beauty: this is an Arabian saying. It goes to say, that if beauty was divided, then so-and-so beautiful woman would take one third of it.

(as a metaphor, for extreme beauty).

(2) rattled: death rattle.

PaPCBbm.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

And then he (عليه السلام) interacted with Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) in all manners except in hostility?

As for hostility and the inundated “love” between them.

In ʿal-Sunnāh, volume 3, page 505, ḥādith (809), by ʿal-Ḵḫāllal.

809 - Narrated Muḥāmad bin ʿAli, from ʿal-Āthrām that he said:

I heard Abʾa Abdillāh - Ahmad bin Ḥānbal - and the ḥādith of Āqil, from ʿal-Zuhrī, from Ūrwā, from Aisha, from the Prophet about ʿAli and ʿal-Abbas, and [the ḥādith of] Āqil, from ʿal-Zuhrī, that Abʾa Bākr ordered Ḵḫālid on ʿAli was mentioned to him, so he said: “What?” so, when he knew what it was, he said: “I don’t like for this to be written in the aḥādith.”

The muḥāqiq (commentator) of the book said below this ḥādith under the highlighted footnote (10): “And the isnād of Ahmad’s speech is ṣāḥih.”

The phrase that’s used here, “ordered so-and-so person on him,” is a metaphor in the Arabic language that indicates to killing, especially given the context.

qlKwoyu.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

True, that’s why I never cursed them. 

In Mustādrak al-Wāsaʾil, volume 11, page 358, ḥādith (13256).

That Aʾbi J’afar said: The greatest of the kāba’ir is the person that says, “I disassociate myself from the person that disassociates himself from Aʾbi Bākr and Omar.”

1qNObvC.jpg

And in Biḥār ʿal-Anwār, volume 25, page 319.

That the Prophet said: “He who couldn’t curse whom God cursed, then on him is the curse of God.”

The alfāḍh of this riwāyah are many, in ʿal-Biḥār it’s yāʾjam, in Rijāl ʿal-Kāshi, yāʾtham and in Tānqih ʿal-Maqāl, taʾāḵḫam.

cvOzwfQ.jpg

In Rijāl ʿal-Kāshi, page(s) 438-439, ḥādith (1012).

From Muḥāmad bin Qulāwayh and ʿal-Ḥusāyn bin ʿal-Ḥāsan bin Bundār ʿal-Qummi, from Sāʾd bin Abdillah, from Ibrāhim bin Māhziyar and Muḥāmad bin ʿIsa bin Ubāyd, from ʿAli bin Māhziyar [in a slightly long ḥādith...]

that the Prophet said: “He who saw cursing whom God cursed as sinful, then on him is the curse of God.”

7JqS8qn.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

According to ‘the most authentic book after the Qurʾān,’ Imam Ali saw Aʾbu Bākr and Omar as sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars.

Yet he (عليه السلام) did not opposed them, adviced them, accepted their authority and allowed them to rule over the Muslims for longer than a decade. 

As I said before. The generally accepted historical facts do not support rafd nor do they provide Umayyad rule any legitimacy.

Imamate and Adalatul Sahaba are abstract concepts that do contradict historical reality.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yet he (عليه السلام) did not opposed them, adviced them, accepted their authority and allowed them to rule over the Muslims for longer than a decade. 

Accepted their authority as them being Khalifa? No, he did not accept it, because they are not choosed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). He have good reason for bay'ah but not accepted their ruleship. 

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Yet he (عليه السلام) did not opposed them, adviced them, accepted their authority and allowed them to rule over the Muslims for longer than a decade. 

First of all, he opposed them, didn’t accept their authority and opposed their rule over the Muslims. And I just showed you that, so reply to it first.

And the Prophet also allowed the kuffār to rule over Mecca in the Ṣulḥ of Ḥudāybiyyah.

  • Aaron and the Samiri.
  • Ezekiel, Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar.
  • Joshua and Zipporah.
  • Moses and the Pharaoh.
  • George and Dadan.

These are small examples of the oppression that befell the Prophets and their Successors.

Share this post


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

Yet he (عليه السلام) did not opposed them, adviced them, accepted their authority and allowed them to rule over the Muslims for longer than a decade. 

As I said before. The generally accepted historical facts do not support rafd nor do they provide Umayyad rule any legitimacy.

Imamate and Adalatul Sahaba are abstract concepts that do contradict historical reality.

In ʿal-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah, volume 1, page 21, by ʿIbn Qutāybah ʿal-Dīnāwarī.

(He said): After the death of the Prophet, ʿal-Abbas told [Imam] Ali: Extend your hand, so that I may give you my pledge, so it’s said: the uncle of the Prophet pledged allegiance to his cousin, and your family (will also pledge), [Imam] Ali told him: “And who else seeks this matter other than us?!” and ʿal-Abbas had met Aʾbu Bākr [before that] and asked him: Did the Prophet give you any will? He said: No, and ʿal-Abbas also met Omar and asked the same, he [Omar] said: No, so ʿal-Abbas told [Imam] Ali: Extend your hand, I and your family give you our pledge.

Note: ʿIbn Tāymiyyah said in his Tāfsir (page 252, Surāh ʿal-Iḵḫlāṣ): It’s said he [Ibn Qutāybah] to ‘Ahlulsunnah’ is like ʿal-Jāḥiḍh to the Muʾtāzila, for he is the ḵḫāṭib/mutākalim of the Sunnah, just how ʿal-Jāḥiḍh is the ḵḫāṭib/mutākalim of the Muʾtāzila.

I recommend reading ʿal-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah, because it’s a literal scandal for falsehood.

l6Kv4lj.jpg

ʿIbn al-Shīḥnā al-Hānafī says in his book, Rāwḍh ul-Mānaḍhīr fī Iʾlm al-Awāiʾl wāl-Āʾwāḵḫīr, page 101:

“Then, Omar came after that to burn the house of [Lady] Fatima on whomever is inside of it.”

aOfsaZ5.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

First of all, he opposed them

How?

2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

didn’t accept their authority

By doing what?

2 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

and opposed their rule over the Muslims

All these claims dude.

He (عليه السلام) did not spoke out against them and did not took the sword against them.

He (عليه السلام) did not condemn the Ridda wars nor did he (عليه السلام) defend his 'followers'.

Yet you still do not seem to realize that all the texts you quoted do not fit into history.

You can drop a whole Shia library here but the fact remains that the Shaykhayn had Imam Ali's consent.

It's like quoting books supporting the Flat-Earth theory while everyone knows how the world really turns.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

“Then, Omar came after that to burn the house of [Lady] Fatima on whomever is inside of it.”

Even shaykh Fadlallah questions this.

Logically seen, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have protected Lady Fatima (عليه السلام). 

It's not generally accepted anyway and just as there are artificially and exaggerated narrations in favor of the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) over Imam Ali (رضي الله عنه) or in favor of the Umawi monarchy so are there exaggerations in favor of rafd.

Just ordinairy sectarian propaganda to inflame hatred.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 12:50 PM, Faruk said:

How?

Scroll up, and you will see how he thought them to be sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars in Ṣāḥih Muslim.

On 7/29/2019 at 12:50 PM, Faruk said:

By doing what?

Scroll up.

On 7/29/2019 at 12:50 PM, Faruk said:

All these claims dude.

These are not mere “claims,” they are accepted facts from your books.

On 7/29/2019 at 12:50 PM, Faruk said:

He (عليه السلام) did not spoke out against them and did not took the sword against them.

He did speak out against them, scroll up (for the third time).

On 7/29/2019 at 12:58 PM, Faruk said:

Even shaykh Fadlallah questions this.

A lot of scholars spoke out against Fāḍhlallah and called him, “a Bātrī,” such as:

  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Jāwad ʿal-Tābrizī.
  • ʿal-Sāyyid Muḥamād Sāʾid ʿal-Ḥākim.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Wāḥid ʿal-Ḵḫurāsani, the head of the Seminary of Qom.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Bāqir Shārif ʿal-Qurāshi.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Jʾafar Murtāḍha ʿal-Āmili.

And here’s ʿal-Sāyyid Ali ʿal-Ḥussāini ʿal-Milāni saying that ʿal-Sāyyid ʿal-Sistāni called Fāḍhlallah, “ḍhal, muḍhil,” (a person that is astray, and makes people astray).

And here’s his signature verifying this video.

qSCPr8D.png

And here’s the wākil of ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Bāshir al-Nājafi, Ali Biḥsūn ʿal-Āmili speaking about Yāssir Awdā, the student of Fāḍhlallah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Scroll up, and you will see how he thought them to be sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars in Ṣāḥih Muslim

First of all,

These ahaadith are already discussed about for centuries and diffirently interpreted by many.

There is no need to recycle this.

The point is that the matter of this hadith wasn't about the caliphate.

So try again.

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

These are not mere “claims,” they are accepted facts from your books.

Still no proof from generally accepted ahaadith that he (عليه السلام) openly and explicitly claimed that the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) usurped the imamate.

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

A lot of scholars spoke out against Fāḍhlallah and called him, “a Bātrī,” such as:

  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Jāwad ʿal-Tābrizī.
  • ʿal-Sāyyid Muḥamād Sāʾid ʿal-Ḥākim.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Wāḥid ʿal-Ḵḫurāsani, the head of the Seminary of Qom.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Bāqir Shārif ʿal-Qurāshi.
  • ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Jʾafar Murtāḍha ʿal-Āmili.

And here’s ʿal-Sāyyid Ali ʿal-Ḥussāini ʿal-Milāni saying that ʿal-Sāyyid ʿal-Sistāni called Fāḍhlallah, “ḍhal, muḍhil,” (a person that is astray, and makes people astray).

How many scholars spoke out against YH?

Fadlallah contributed a lot to Muslim ummah and Lebanon in general.

He is venerated by entire nations.

Rather Yasser Habib is a strange and lonely duck.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

These ahaadith are already discussed about for centuries and diffirently interpreted by many.

In Ṣāḥih ʿal-Buḵḫāri, page 2503, ḥādith (6442). (Click here for full translation).

Omar said [in a long ḥādith]: By God, the pledge of allegiance to Aʾbu Bākr was nothing but a prompt sudden action (1) which got established afterwards.

(1) The word used here in Arabic is, fālta, which according to ʿal-Muʾjām ʿal-Wāsiṭ (page 699) has the following meanings:

  • sudden - unexpected or surprising event
  • fault; error; slip
  • the matter that is done without thought and accuracy [imprecisely]

all of the aforementioned meanings contradict the concept of caliphate, or the bequest of the three.

The reason is, that if you went with the meaning that said, ‘sudden event,’ then it means that it was unplanned for - meaning, that the Prophet didn’t appoint them.

And if you went with the two other meanings, then the whole concept of caliphate would be void. So, choose wisely.

BbR9VjU.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


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

How many scholars spoke out against YH?

None. Even Ḵḫāmenei didn’t mention him by name, while on the other hand, Fāḍhlallah was mentioned by name, and many great mārajʾi issued statements condemning him.

5 hours ago, Faruk said:

Fadlallah contributed a lot to Muslim ummah and Lebanon in general.

I am not sure about that, because many Lebanese are very critical of Hezbollah, Ḥāssan Nāṣrallah and of him.

Contributing to the Muslim ummah is not a measure, because there’s a ḥādith narrated in Ṣāḥih ʿal-Buḵḫāri that says,

“Allah may support the religion with an unchaste (evil) wicked man.”

5 hours ago, Faruk said:

He is venerated by entire nations.

That’s also not a measure. Trinity is also venerated by entire nations.

5 hours ago, Faruk said:

Rather Yasser Habib is a strange and lonely duck.

Many mārajʾi would beg to differ on that. Many of them wrote ijāzat to him in riwāyah and fiqh.

Here’s the ijaza of ʿal-Sāyyid Ṣādiq ʿal-Ḥussāini ʿal-Shirāzi to ʿal-Shāyḵḫ ʿal-Ḥābib.

T2VbafB.png

The ijaza of ʿal-Sāyyid Moḥāmmad Ali ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī.

jW4dh4S.jpg

Ijaza of the head of the Seminary of Isfahan, ʿal-Sāyyid Ḥāssan ʿal-Fāqih ʿal-Imāmi.

BfsV4bg.jpg

Ijaza of ʿal-Sāyyid Ahmad ʿal-Ḥussāini ʿal-Ishkewāri.

71lH1n8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

In Ṣāḥih ʿal-Buḵḫāri, page 2503, ḥādith (6442). (Click here for full translation).

Omar said [in a long ḥādith]: By God, the pledge of allegiance to Aʾbu Bākr was nothing but a prompt sudden action (1) which got established afterwards.

(1) The word used here in Arabic is, fālta, which according to ʿal-Muʾjām ʿal-Wāsiṭ (page 699) has the following meanings:

  • sudden - unexpected or surprising event
  • fault; error; slip
  • the matter that is done without thought and accuracy [imprecisely]

all of the aforementioned meanings contradict the concept of caliphate, or the bequest of the three.

The reason is, that if you went with the meaning that said, ‘sudden event,’ then it means that it was unplanned for - meaning, that the Prophet didn’t appoint them.

And if you went with the two other meanings, then the whole concept of caliphate would be void. So, choose wisely.

BbR9VjU.jpg

It does not condemn caliphacy but only the way the Shura at Saqifah was held nor is it a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Faruk said:

It does not condemn caliphacy but only the way the Shura at Saqifah was held nor is it a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself.

How doesn’t it condemn “caliphacy?” It goes to say that it’s an uncalled for error...

Ṣāḥih ʿal-Buḵḫāri, page 2638, ḥādith (6792). (Click here for full translation).

Narrated Muḥamād bin Yūsuf, from Sufyān, from Hishām bin Ūrwā, from his father, from Abdullah bin Omar, that he said:

It was said to Omar, “Will you appoint your successor?” Omar said, “If I appoint a caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (Aʾbu Bākr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (The Prophet) did so.”

On this, the people praised him. Omar said, “People are of two kinds: Either one who is keen to take over the caliphate or one who is afraid of assuming such a responsibility. I wish I could be free from its responsibility in that I would receive neither reward nor retribution I won’t bear the burden of the caliphate in my death as I do in my life.”

57 minutes ago, Faruk said:

nor is it a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself.

It’s not a statement from the Imam, but it’s a statement from the origin of dispute, Omar.

And I just showed you how the Imam thought them to be sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars in Ṣāḥih Muslim. And being such, he opposed their rule.

In Ḥilyāt ʿal-Āwliyāʾ, volume 1, page 52.

Omar said: “I wish I was a sheep: fattened by my owners to their hearts’ desire. Thereupon, when I became as fat as I could be, people they liked would visit them, and they would turn part of me into roast meat and part into jerky. Then, they would eat me, and push me out in the form of feces. This way, I would never have been a human.”

ZXWYty6.jpg

In ʿĀḍhwaāʾ al-Bayān, volume 9, page 63.

Omar said: “Two things in the Age of Ignorance: one makes me cry, and one makes me laugh. The one that makes me cry; is that I had taken a daughter of mine to bury her alive and I was digging the hole for her, while she was removing the dust off my beard, not knowing what I’m planning for her; then when I remember that I cry.

And the other one, is that I used to make an idol of dates that I put beside my head, to guard me during the night, then (if) I woke up in a well state I would eat it, and whenever I remember that I laugh at myself.”

yNp1vYQ.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...