Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

How does Allah see and hear?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
24 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

 

Well, judging by 15 mins of video of Sheikh Abu Usama, it's a sin and forbidden to discuss the mechanics Allah is 'above the throne'.

From the next part of his lecture, where he discusses the seven skies, angels descending from them, and the Throne being located 'above' them, it seems clear what he is implying.

That the Throne is "up"; Allah is above the Throne.

So from now on, I think we can assume that you literally think that Allah is situated above His Throne. If anyone asks, the standard reply to how is "in a way befitting His Majesty, the Quran just says 'above His Throne'. End of discussion". Even if you don't express it.

Point to ponder: are the seven skies located above the skies of the Northern Hemisphere, or the Southern?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 328
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Imam Jafar al-Sadiq, peace with him, has said, “He, the most Exalted One, is Hearing and Seeing. He hears without a faculty, sees without a tool. Rather, He hears by Himself, sees by Himself Imam

Lol! Like a lot of other spectators, I'm sitting back and watching/reading whilst the drama unfolds. To be fair, it's quite an interesting topic, which if we dare to be honest, must have crossed

Read the underlined and bold paragraph:   Additional (not necessary) reading:    

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I'm fine with this if its one of the Attribute of God, only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows what it is.

This is what we believe and what I have been trying to say for the longest!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Well, judging by 15 mins of video of Sheikh Abu Usama, it's a sin and forbidden to discuss the mechanics Allah is 'above the throne'.

From the next part of his lecture, where he discusses the seven skies, angels descending from them, and the Throne being located 'above' them, it seems clear what he is implying.

That the Throne is "up"; Allah is above the Throne.

So from now on, I think we can assume that you literally think that Allah is situated above His Throne. If anyone asks, the standard reply to how is "in a way befitting His Majesty, the Quran just says 'above His Throne'. End of discussion". Even if you don't express it.

Point to ponder: are the seven skies located above the skies of the Northern Hemisphere, or the Southern?

I will certainly express it, but I would rather you listen to someone more knowledgeable than I am. That is essentially my stance.

As for the seven skies, do you know what it refers to and what it means? Because if you did, you would have not asked that question. If you do not, research it. It does you no justice to ask me and I give you an answer rather than you looking something up and understanding it yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Just now, Nightclaw said:

This is what we believe and what I have been trying to say for the longest!

I honestly believe that what it means by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Hands is His attribute of Creating and bringing it to Existence. Because it can be clearly derived from following verse:

“Do they not see that it is We Who have created with Our hands for them cattle which We have placed under their command?” (Qur'an, 36:71).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

As for the seven skies, do you know what it refers to and what it means?

For the sake of argument, I'm using the Salafi method and there being literally seven skies present above us.

That kind of presents a problem. What exactly is the direction of the Throne that's supposedly present 'above' the layers of skies.

Thankfully though, I take my view of the 'Arsh, and other such concepts from Aal e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who understood the Quran completely as opposed to any fallible human being and their attempts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Nur said:

I honestly believe that what it means by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Hands is His attribute of Creating and bringing it to Existence. Because it can be clearly derived from following verse:

In this sense, it is metaphorical. However, other verses indicate otherwise. Again, the problem is with language. Do not assert the meaning of it due to a translation. This is problematic and will lead you down a rabbit hole of never-ending confusions that are not necessary. 

A lot of problems when discussing this is that people do not know Arabic, specifically the Qur'anic language. They give their own interpretations based off of English meanings and translations - no. We do not do that. That is not how it operates. You cannot translate the Art of War by Sun Tzu and take the meanings of it to be what the English translation is. Likewise, an Indonesian cannot fully understand nor comprehend the meaning of any of William Shakespeare's work.

It is tremendously different and weighty when it comes to the Qur'an. Stop using English translation to interpret the Qur'an.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
48 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

For the sake of argument, I'm using the Salafi method and there being literally seven skies present above us.

That kind of presents a problem. What exactly is the direction of the Throne that's supposedly present 'above' the layers of skies.

Thankfully though, I take my view of the 'Arsh, and other such concepts from Aal e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), who understood the Quran completely as opposed to any fallible human being and their attempts.

Then you clearly do not understand our position, which is a problem that you must have been speaking of. Abu Usamah clearly made a distinction between the skies in this world and the levels of Paradise in the next. This shows you were either A) not listening or B) not listening. Allah is above the seven earths in this world and the levels of Paradise in the next. It is clearly explained in that video that you clearly did not listen to.

The only infallibles are Allah, His angels, and His Prophets and Messengers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

In this sense, it is metaphorical. However, other verses indicate otherwise. Again, the problem is with language. Do not assert the meaning of it due to a translation. This is problematic and will lead you down a rabbit hole of never-ending confusions that are not necessary. 

A lot of problems when discussing this is that people do not know Arabic, specifically the Qur'anic language. They give their own interpretations based off of English meanings and translations - no. We do not do that. That is not how it operates. You cannot translate the Art of War by Sun Tzu and take the meanings of it to be what the English translation is. Likewise, an Indonesian cannot fully understand nor comprehend the meaning of any of William Shakespeare's work.

It is tremendously different and weighty when it comes to the Qur'an. Stop using English translation to interpret the Qur'an.

I agree but in this case i did not even tended to use English translation only. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Abu Nur said:

I agree but in this case i did not even tended to use English translation only. 

I can see that, because you knew that it was metaphorical in this sense. In other verses, it is not metaphorical. Understanding the language of the Qur'an is key before making any sort of interpretations that deviate from the actual meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@eThErEaL I hope that now it is clear to you what actually is the issue here.

So استوى على العرش, if it present or repeated 7 times in Quran, would it mean God is above the throne? 

What actually is the throne? It is a thing which is carried by angels 

الَّذِينَ يَحْمِلُونَ الْعَرْشَ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيُؤْمِنُونَ بِهِ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا

40:7

وَيَحْمِلُ عَرْشَ رَبِّكَ فَوْقَهُمْ يَوْمَئِذٍ ثَمَانِيَةٌ

69:17

It is a thing which was once upon water:

وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاء لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ أَيُّكُمْ أَحْسَنُ عَمَلاً

If God is "above" the throne, literally sitting over it and angels are carrying the throne or throne is floating over water, what does this means? Can you shed some light on it as you pretend to be a Sunni, my dear brother. 

What I know is that even majority of Sunni don't believe in it. This ideology is specific to Salafi's.

Again, what actually is the throne? 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said that He is رب العرش for at least 6 times in Quran.

If He is above the throne, how He we understand this:

و هو معكم اين ما كنتم

هو معهم اين ما كانو

If this معيت is by His knowledge which has encircled everything, then, are the attributes of perfection like knowledge & power, something other than His essence? 

If the Attributes of God were extraneous to His Essence and distinct from each other, this implies a sort of multiplicity (kathrah), compositeness (tarkīb) and limitation (maḥdūdiyyah) in the Divine Essence, and all these characteristics cannot be applied to God.

Moreover, in originating the creatures and bestowing knowledge and power to them, He would be in need of His Attributes (Knowledge and Power) which are assumed to be distinct from His Essence.

Furthermore, that ideology itself is limiting God by fixing Him "above" a thing while He should be free from the concept of directions, above & beneath, in & out. 

وَلِلّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّواْ فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

2:115 

هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

57:3 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add some quotes of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (عليه السلام) about the description of Allah (عزّ وجلّ).

He (عليه السلام) said: "If you want to think of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as to How he looks, think of it as opposed to creation".

He (عليه السلام) said: "Do not talk on as to What is He (عزّ وجلّ), if someone asks you reply: "He is King"".

We have learnt that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) has 73 Ism-e-Azam, 72 of which He (عزّ وجلّ) gifted to Ahlebait (عليه السلام) and one is still retained by Him. And, I think based on Quranic and Traditional Evidence such is the Great Ism-e-Azam of His (عزّ وجلّ) being known only to Himself (عزّ وجلّ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

No. A metaphor means it is not literally applicable, meaning it does exist and it means something else. I have explained that already. Literal means it exists [in this context] in the form of world as we know it.

Yes that’s what you said. Clock hands is not literal hands bed legs is not literal legs. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense

9 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

You have to read the whole thread again. I am very tired of explaining my side over and over and over again. It is of Allah. The Hands and Face of Allah is of Allah. It exists and has existed with Allah. If you see me saying "part",

Ok sorry I will read it some time later because the thread is very long. Though I still don’t understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

I've spent so much time reading this instead of doing my English homework. It has truly been a fun read and rabbit-hole to follow. I do however feel that @Strange Samurai summarizes it in a way that is acceptable to most people. This constant back and forth is not going to get anywhere besides creating division among us brothers. Why don't we all patiently wait for Imam al-Mahdi (a.j.t.f.s) to arrive, then we can ask him!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Yes that’s what you said. Clock hands is not literal hands bed legs is not literal legs. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense

12 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

They are literal, but not in the same way.

2 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Ok sorry I will read it some time later because the thread is very long. Though I still don’t understand.

Would you rather watch a video?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

From a great Hadith in Bihar al-Anwar (V3,Ch14)

Throne1.jpg

Throne2.jpg

 

Very clearly demonstrates the differences between Imamiyya and Bakrism.

Edited by al-Muttaqin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

They are literal, but not in the same way

I still don’t get what you mean by literal.

4 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Would you rather watch a video?

No I will get around to reading the forum eventually. But if the video is short I don’t mind.

1 hour ago, al-Muttaqin said:

Very clearly demonstrates the differences between Imamiyya and Bakrism.

I completely agree that the descriptions of God by our Imams are just on another level. Such narrations and the eloquence displayed within Nahjul Balagha should dismiss any allegations that Shiism is a “fabricated sect”. Though I would abstain from using the “[edited out]” term as it has connotations associated with the Yasser al Habib gang.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

No I will get around to reading the forum eventually. But if the video is short I don’t mind.

1 hour ago, al-Muttaqin said:

It is quoted somewhere in this forum. It is explained by Shaykh Abu Usamah, Shaykh ibn Uthaymeen, and Shaykh Uthman al-Khamees.

6 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

I completely agree that the descriptions of God by our Imams are just on another level. Such narrations and the eloquence displayed within Nahjul Balagha should dismiss any allegations that Shiism is a “fabricated sect”. Though I would abstain from using the “[edited out]” term as it has connotations associated with the Yasser al Habib gang.

No scholar truly views Najhul Balagha as fully authentic. 

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This thread has been reduced to "Unity of divine attributes".

Back to Towheed 101 :D

"Thus, whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognizes His like, and whoever recognizes His like regards Him as two, and whoever regards Him as two recognizes parts for Him, and whoever recognizes parts for Him mistook Him"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
19 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

I think the discussion will again go back into a circle until @Nightclaw declares his stance on this.

:) Now what? You know God comes & goes as well, because it is mentioned in Quran:

وَجَاء رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا

89:22

It reminds me of cherry boy:

Quote

Among the divine attributes of Allah Most High are:

الإتيان والمجيء

al-Ityān wal-Majī

These are attributes of activity or صفات الفعلية and they basically mean that Allah comes, as He says:

هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّآ أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ ٱللهُ

Do they wait but that Allah should come to them

(Surah 2:210)

وَجَآءَ رَبُّكَ

Your Lord has come

(Surah 89:22)

The holy Quran teaches that Allah Most High shall come Himself in His holy Person with all glory in all glory on Judgment Day, with a massive army of Angels in the shade of clouds. Many misguided Muslims object to this doctrine, imagining it to be anthropotheism. They make ta’wil (figurative interpretation) of these Verses, stating that it refers to the coming of Allah’s command and not Allah Himself in His Person. This is because they imagine the divine attributes of ityān and majī (arriving, coming) require harakah (movement, motion), and according to them, movement is negated for Allah. This, of course, is a wrong approach to theology, as it is built on the outdated model of Aristotelian metaphysics. According to that model, movement is an incidental attribute of a substance or body, and since, according to them, Allah is not a substance or body, motion must be negated for Him. Again, based on Aristotelian metaphysics, these misguided Muslims understand Allah to be the unmoved mover. But Islam itself never describes Allah as “unmoved” nor does it explicitly negate movement or motion for Him. Simultaneously, Islam does not affirm movement or motion to Allah either, therefore we avoid the term harakah (movement, motion) with respect to Allah’s Essence, neither affirming nor negating it. But we affirm the attributes of ityān and majī (arriving, coming) for Allah, without expressing that in the modality of movement and motion. It’s modality is known to Allah alone and we are not permitted to speculate upon it. But as for sukūn I affirm this attribute for Allah upon the meaning of dwelling and not the Aristotelian meaning of stasis (rest, stillness). So I believe that Allah Most High occupies the Throne, it is filled with His Glory, and His Presence dwells there. He is settled upon it, and it may be said that He is sitting upon it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Strange Samurai said:

Explain strawman argument 

A strawman argument is an argument or a point raised that the opposition is not arguing. It is when a person brings up an argument and beats it down when neither of the sides are raising such a point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

A strawman argument is an argument or a point raised that the opposition is not arguing. It is when a person brings up an argument and beats it down when neither of the sides are raising such a point.

Means starting another topic rather that speaking on one which is being discussed? I did no such thing. In fact, I believe you never have completely read Quran and also have missed reading following verse:

·        [Shakir 3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. But none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

 

Interpretation or Taveel of Quran is mentioned here to be dual. One is incorrect and another is correct. Now, we believe that Ulul Amr are Imams (عليه السلام) after the Prophet (SAAWW), and it completely fits your case to which above verse implies that people seek to give its own interpretation to allegorical verses to misguide people, but none among them knows its real meaning except those who are Chosen by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) to explain it. 

So, state your case in comparison to Rasol-Allah (SAAWW) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام), are you their follower or you have claim something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

Now, we believe that Ulul Amr are Imams (عليه السلام) after the Prophet (SAAWW), and it completely fits your case to which above verse implies that people seek to give its own interpretation to allegorical verses to misguide people, but none among them knows its real meaning except those who are Chosen by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) to explain it. 

You can believe what you want - is that the fact of the matter? No. Who says that this is the case? Allah says in this verse none know it but Him, so how could others know it? This is a contradiction of the verse if what you believe is so.

10 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

So, state your case in comparison to Rasol-Allah (SAAWW) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام), are you their follower or you have claim something else.

I follow Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and what his companions were upon [this includes his family]. Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are whom I follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

I follow Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and what his companions were upon [this includes his family]. Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are whom I follow.

If you follow Prophet (PBUHHP) and His family then you should read carefully and with patience, and give time to things which are wrongly attributed to them and do not miss their mention in the Quranic verses which you mentioned as follows:

 

2 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

You can believe what you want - is that the fact of the matter? No. Who says that this is the case? Allah says in this verse none know it but Him, so how could others know it? This is a contradiction of the verse if what you believe is so.

You missed this part: 

But none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

There is no contradiction in it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
28 minutes ago, Cool said:

You know God comes & goes as well, because it is mentioned in Quran:

وَجَاء رَبُّكَ وَالْمَلَكُ صَفًّا صَفًّا

89:22

Bro, l have to disagree with this. Allah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). is present everywhere all the time, exempli gratia  There is not two be He -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). is the third.

l think Ayat 89:22 is best understood by the verb wajaa , tri-literal root jim ya hamza. Ayat 41:41 is close, yet l think that Ayat 26:206 explains best that when Allah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). is concerned, what "comes" is the revelation that Allah -(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). is al-Haq. What the resurrected will 'see' are a Throne,  Maliks and el-alameen [and probably the Rue]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

If you follow Prophet (PBUHHP) and His family then you should read carefully and with patience, and give time to things which are wrongly attributed to them and do not miss their mention in the Quranic verses which you mentioned as follows:

What are you talking about?

4 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

You missed this part: 

But none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

There is no contradiction in it.

The contradiction is how you explained it, not in the verse. Allah states that none know the interpretation except him then goes on to state that people who are knowledgeable say that they believe in it and alludes to the fact that they accept it, not understand it. Stop relying on English translation. This is a major problem with a lot of Muslims - relying on translation to interpret the Qur'an.

In your explanation, it contradicts the Qur'an and the Qur'an holds no contradiction, therefore your interpretation/explanation is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

What are you talking about?

The contradiction is how you explained it, not in the verse. Allah states that none know the interpretation except him then goes on to state that people who are knowledgeable say that they believe in it and alludes to the fact that they accept it, not understand it. Stop relying on English translation. This is a major problem with a lot of Muslims - relying on translation to interpret the Qur'an.

In your explanation, it contradicts the Qur'an and the Qur'an holds no contradiction, therefore your interpretation/explanation is wrong.

lolz brother, every correct interpretation is from Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and He (عزّ وجلّ) speaks through the tongues of those who have knowledge. I do not disagree on that if you want to take me there which I believe is not I intended and comes from you. But, we agree that correct interpretation by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is taught to Prophet (PBUHHP) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) so brother submit to the truth as I submit wholly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

lolz brother, every correct interpretation is from Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and He (عزّ وجلّ) speaks through the tongues of those who have knowledge. I do not disagree on that if you want to take me there which I believe is not I intended and comes from you. But, we agree that correct interpretation by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is taught to Prophet (PBUHHP) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) so brother submit to the truth as I submit wholly. 

I am very confused as to what you are saying. I never stated that these interpretations are taught to the Ahlul Bayt as they do not have knowledge of it like Allah does.

I do submit to the truth. I do not, cannot, will not/never base my beliefs on confusion, lost sources, fabrications and pure hatred. That is not the way of a Muslim, and being a Muslim means that I submit to the truth and believe in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

I am very confused as to what you are saying. I never stated that these interpretations are taught to the Ahlul Bayt as they do not have knowledge of it like Allah does.

You think that Quran and is interpretations is not taught to Prophet (PBUHHP) and through him to his (PBUHHP) family. Then, how are you a Muslim when you learn in hadith: "Do not leave Quran and family for they will never separate each other even to the time that they both join me at the spring of Kawthar". 

Did prophet (PBUHHP) mentioned any companions name or any other humans name that will accompany Quran.

7 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

I do submit to the truth. I do not, cannot, will not/never base my beliefs on confusion, lost sources, fabrications and pure hatred. That is not the way of a Muslim, and being a Muslim means that I submit to the truth and believe in it.

May be you are playing "devil's advocate" since you are fascinated by western theories too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

You think that Quran and is interpretations is not taught to Prophet (PBUHHP) and through him to his (PBUHHP) family.

Do not put words in my mouth. I never said the interpretations were not taught to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

7 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

Then, how are you a Muslim when you learn in hadith: "Do not leave Quran and family for they will never separate each other even to the time that they both join me at the spring of Kawthar".

Do not question my Islam, for I bow 5 times a day to our creator. I could ask you how are you Muslim when you do not have the Qur'an memorized. Is that a fair assessment? No. Be fair and reasonable and fairness will come to you.

As for this narration, do you understand what it means?

8 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

Did prophet (PBUHHP) mentioned any companions name or any other humans name that will accompany Quran.

16 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

That is not what is meant by the narration, but for the sake of argument - let us say I agree. Now, let us take another narration from our book:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "If there was to have a Prophet after me, it would have been 'Umar bin Al-Khattab."

He could have said this about anyone, but he said it about 'Umar. Also, I know you do not take this as evidence, but if you are going to cherry-pick and be selective about it, it just goes to show that you only pick what fits your narrative.

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

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "If there was to have a Prophet after me, it would have been 'Umar bin Al-Khattab."

If Prophet (PBUHHP) would have said such thing then Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) would not have rejected such fake hadith by admitting the excellence of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as reason due to which he was alive, he used to say: "If Ali (عليه السلام) were not born Umer would have long perished". Due to the Ilm or Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) was corrected several times in Criminal and Civil Judgements which were wrongly made by him. 

and for all other contents you have written my brain is :ko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
17 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

If Prophet (PBUHHP) would have said such thing then Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) would not have rejected such fake hadith by admitting the excellence of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as reason due to which he was alive, he used to say: "If Ali (عليه السلام) were not born Umer would have long perished". Due to the Ilm or Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) was corrected several times in Criminal and Civil Judgements which were wrongly made by him. 

and for all other contents you have written my brain is :ko:

I do not know of this narration from our books, so I cannot accept it. However, you are using our narrations as evidence... against me? But here is another narration:

"Whoever despises ‘Umar for verily he despises me and whoever loves ‘Umar loves me. Allah boasts about the people in general on the night of ‘Arafah and boasts specifically about ‘Umar. Verily Allah Ta’ala does not send a nabi except that there is a Muhaddath in his ummah, and if there is a Muhaddath in my ummah then it is ‘Umar.

Sahabah asked: What is a Muhaddath?

He replied: It is that person upon whose tongue angels speak.'"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nightclaw said:

I do not know of this narration from our books, so I cannot accept it. However, you are using our narrations as evidence... against me? But here is another narration:

"Whoever despises ‘Umar for verily he despises me and whoever loves ‘Umar loves me. Allah boasts about the people in general on the night of ‘Arafah and boasts specifically about ‘Umar. Verily Allah Ta’ala does not send a nabi except that there is a Muhaddath in his ummah, and if there is a Muhaddath in my ummah then it is ‘Umar.

Sahabah asked: What is a Muhaddath?

He replied: It is that person upon whose tongue angels speak.'"

https://valiasr-aj-english.weebly.com/uploads/7/5/6/8/7568784/final_umar_would_have_been_ruined....pdf

please go through this link and satisfy yourself with the evidence from both your books and our books. 

Regards

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...