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

abu bakr in the cave?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Zainuu said:

Yes so during 37 he was on disbelief while being in argument while later he acquired belief. What is problematic.

He was called companion in the past and in the present.

Companion of the man, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It means it was companion, his friend.

8 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

To understand this, translation is enough. I already refrained to argue with you at the point where the knowledge of language was a must.

But clearly, verse 38-40 show what I already said.

No, translation is not enough. You aren't understanding it right now when it's in English, so how can you even say translation is enough?

Verses 38-40 doesn't really help you because Abu Bakr wasn't a disbeliever. This doesn't apply to him. Second, the companion was a companion of the latter fellow. It doesn't mean anything. You're making a false equivalence to suit yourself. That's not how the Qur'an works, especially when trying to cross reference. If you don't know enough, then you should speak as much as you know.

10 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Rest is upto you. Your above assumption doesn't make sense.

I am not saying that how I interpreted is absolutely correct, but the sequence goes against your interpretation so it is not acceptable. I am left with only one possiblity then so I take it.

You're not explaining how it doesn't make sense. I've literally explained the linguistics of it above. It's not that you don't understand, it's that you dislike Abu Bakr. Bring an Arabic specialist here and they'll agree with me. No, bring a student of Arabic who's been studying for a week or two. Don't bring anyone fluent, bring someone who knows the basics. They'll tell you that what I said is absolutely correct and cannot be any other way linguistically. 

You're trying to say it doesn't make sense when you don't even know the language. I'm not giving an assumption. I'm telling you how the language works. You're acting as if it's not making sense - well, that is plausible considering you can't understand the Qur'an. If that's the case, it's best to say you don't understand rather than it doesn't make sense.

If your interpretation goes against mine and that's what makes it incorrect, then you've failed to understand how this works entirely. Please do as I've asked. It will make conversing so much easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In the context where tranquility was granted to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it is completely logical that The Holy Prophet was talking about himself. As if he was explaining Abu Bakr t

This is only one sided view of the picture, The true side of the picture of events  comes as  given below: "M. Shibli, the famous Indian historian of Islam, writes in his biography of the Messeng

I was surpirsed more than you to see how you called me out for 'accusing the entire ahl Sunnah' for hate. You cannot disagree brother that Nasibi elements exist somewhere in the middle of ahl Sun

Posted Images

  • Advanced Member

Zainuu, I  can sense that you (and some others) are very uncomfortable with Abu Bakr asSaddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) being the cave with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and being his Companion for this historic Hejira from Makkah to Madinah!
Do you think the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had planned to take Abu Bakr asSaddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) with him on the Blessed journey?
Or is it your belief that Abu Bakr asSaddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) had conspiratorially/underhandedly forced himself to be his fellow traveller?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Why would the Prophet need Sakinah while reassuring Abu Bakr? His reassurance means that he was already inspired by Allah.

Look at it like this:

The Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr are in the cave. -> Abu Bakr is worried that the polytheists will find them. -> The Messenger of Allah reassures Abu Bakr due to already being reassured himself. -> Abu Bakr becomes reassured by Allah himself after the reassurance of the Messenger.

So you’re saying that on top of the reassurance that Abu bakr received from the prophet he goes on to also receive tranquility and angels? Why would Abu bakr need to be reassured by the prophet first and then receive aid from Allah? 

Why is it important Abu bakr receives aid and that the fact that he was aided is so important to stress in the Quran? 

There’s no critical reason to ensue Abu bakr receives aid and survives, had he of died it wouldn’t have changed a thing, so long as the prophet was aided Islam was aided. 9:39 says companions don’t harm Allah and he can easily replace them with others. Abu bakr has zero importance; he’s not divinely appointed by god, is he? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

6 hours ago, Zainuu said:

This interpretation contradicts the first part of verse. When Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone is the aide and this cave story describes Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) aide so how can it refer to Abu Bakr?

Allah can aid through people, and in the context of this verse, Allah’s aid is in reference to polytheists driving him out of Mecca, this is addressed in the beginning of the verse: 

“If you don’t aid him Allah already has when those polytheists who drove him out of Mecca...”

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, zahralzu said:

Allah can aid through people, and in the context of this verse, Allah’s aid is in reference to polytheists driving him out of Mecca, this is addressed in the beginning of the verse: 

“If you don’t aid him Allah already has when those polytheists who drove him out of Mecca...”

Read it from 38. 'O you who believe.....'.

This verse was revealed on the expedition of Tabuk. If you won't aide him Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will. This is directed towards companions and not polytheists. So, the story of cave cannot be about anything but Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) lone help for his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

You are saying that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) first condemned people and then said 'I am enough' and gave an example where he aided through a companion??

No. It cannot happen.

4 hours ago, zahralzu said:

So you’re saying that on top of the reassurance that Abu bakr received from the prophet he goes on to also receive tranquility and angels? Why would Abu bakr need to be reassured by the prophet first and then receive aid from Allah? 

Why is it important Abu bakr receives aid and that the fact that he was aided is so important to stress in the Quran? 

There’s no critical reason to ensue Abu bakr receives aid and survives, had he of died it wouldn’t have changed a thing, so long as the prophet was aided Islam was aided. 9:39 says companions don’t harm Allah and he can easily replace them with others. Abu bakr has zero importance; he’s not divinely appointed by god, is he? 

Sister,

I think you misunderstood.It is not a claim that he was divinely appointed by the Sunni brother. But rather they are saying that tranquility came for Abu Bakr.

Which is incorrect. As I already said above that this story came in the Quran as an example by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) doesn't needs companions to aide his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he is enough.

So, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will send tranquility and angels for The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or the companion besides him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Do you think the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had planned to take Abu Bakr asSaddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) with him on the Blessed journey?
Or is it your belief that Abu Bakr asSaddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) had conspiratorially/underhandedly forced himself to be his fellow traveller?

You are taking me wrong. It is not at all uncomfortable for me. A companion being with the messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) doesn't change anything for me.

We are talking about the verse discussed above.

And my claim is simple that:

Tranquility was sent on the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and also the Angels were sent to him.

He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was in the cave with his companion (which was Abu Bakr) and he assured him that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is there and don't worry. 

So, the story ends. It was a tiny example for the companions in Medinah on the Expedition of Tabuk to support the claim that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) made, that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is enough for his messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

7 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Verses 38-40 doesn't really help you because Abu Bakr wasn't a disbeliever. This doesn't apply to him. Second, the companion was a companion of the latter fellow. It doesn't mean anything. You're making a false equivalence to suit yourself. That's not how the Qur'an works, especially when trying to cross reference. If you don't know enough, then you should speak as much as you know.

Brother @Nightclaw,

I am not proving Abu Bakr a disbeliever. No. Where are you? Verse 38 says to all the companions O you who believe. 

Right now I am just saying that a companion is a companion and the help of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) came solely for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Wallah alam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, zahralzu said:

So you’re saying that on top of the reassurance that Abu bakr received from the prophet he goes on to also receive tranquility and angels? Why would Abu bakr need to be reassured by the prophet first and then receive aid from Allah?

Does Abu Bakr have direct contact with Allah? No. What you're doing now is trying to find any excuse to take this away from Abu Bakr. I have already told you it's linguistically impossible, but you're still arguing against it. You're not trying to find an answer, you're trying to find any reason to make this not Abu Bakr.

What I'm saying is that after being assured by the Messenger, Allah made Abu Bakr calm. Is it conceivable that Abu Bakr could have still been worried after that? Yes. Allah is the changer of hearts and it seems like everyone is forgetting this because it's Abu Bakr. You're not looking for an answer, sister. You're looking to take this away from Abu Bakr because of your blind hatred from him.

5 hours ago, zahralzu said:

Why is it important Abu bakr receives aid and that the fact that he was aided is so important to stress in the Quran? 

It may be, perhaps, that Allah actually loves Abu Bakr despite your hatred for him. Regardless, the language doesn't lie. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
59 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Read it from 38. 'O you who believe.....'.

This verse was revealed on the expedition of Tabuk. If you won't aide him Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will. This is directed towards companions and not polytheists. So, the story of cave cannot be about anything but Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) lone help for his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

You are saying that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) first condemned people and then said 'I am enough' and gave an example where he aided through a companion??

No. It cannot happen.

5 hours ago, zahralzu said:

You're not making sense and this shows your failure to understand how the Qur'an functions because of your lack of comprehension. You've stated this, but you clearly do not know that Allah gives parables that are understood by those who know the Qur'an. You gave cross references, such as in سورة الكهف, and wrongly so. You don't understand the Qur'an. Stop giving these interpretations and opinions while you're ignorant of it. It'll take us nowhere.

You missed the verse where it states that Allah will replace the companions with people who will be firm in faith and always be with the Messenger. This is a contrast to Abu Bakr being in the cave, which supports my position even more. You're stating that this means the Messenger's lone help from Allah, but you don't even understand how the Qur'an works! You cannot keep doing this.

1 hour ago, Zainuu said:

Which is incorrect. As I already said above that this story came in the Quran as an example by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) doesn't needs companions to aide his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he is enough.

Halfway there. It served as Allah is enough for the Messenger and that He will replace the companions with people who believe and firmer in faith, and gave the parable in the following verses. You're giving this interpretation without any evidence or explanation other than deduction, in which you're not qualified to do in the slightest.

Allah didn't condemn them. He gave them a warning. He understood that they were afraid and this was the first time they had to give up everything, but he warned them nonetheless, as running while the Messenger needs support is vital and essential (as Allah points out).

You're arguing that Allah wouldn't argue about the believers not aiding the Messenger then give tranquility to Abu Bakr? Again, the language itself shows the Messenger already had tranquility.

And if Allah hated and disliked Abu Bakr so much, why would he even be remotely mentioned in the Qur'an?

57 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Brother @Nightclaw,

I am not proving Abu Bakr a disbeliever. No. Where are you? Verse 38 says to all the companions O you who believe. 

Right now I am just saying that a companion is a companion and the help of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) came solely for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Wallah alam.

The help of Allah did come solely for the Messenger as well as his companion. You're saying his "companion is a companion" - don't make the same mistake with language as you have before.

 

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

You're not making sense and this shows your failure to understand how the Qur'an functions because of your lack of comprehension. You've stated this, but you clearly do not know that Allah gives parables that are understood by those who know the Qur'an. You gave cross references, such as in سورة الكهف, and wrongly so. You don't understand the Qur'an. Stop giving these interpretations and opinions while you're ignorant of it. It'll take us nowhere.

You missed the verse where it states that Allah will replace the companions with people who will be firm in faith and always be with the Messenger. This is a contrast to Abu Bakr being in the cave, which supports my position even more. You're stating that this means the Messenger's lone help from Allah, but you don't even understand how the Qur'an works! You cannot keep doing this.

Halfway there. It served as Allah is enough for the Messenger and that He will replace the companions with people who believe and firmer in faith, and gave the parable in the following verses. You're giving this interpretation without any evidence or explanation other than deduction, in which you're not qualified to do in the slightest.

Allah didn't condemn them. He gave them a warning. He understood that they were afraid and this was the first time they had to give up everything, but he warned them nonetheless, as running while the Messenger needs support is vital and essential (as Allah points out).

You're arguing that Allah wouldn't argue about the believers not aiding the Messenger then give tranquility to Abu Bakr? Again, the language itself shows the Messenger already had tranquility.

And if Allah hated and disliked Abu Bakr so much, why would he even be remotely mentioned in the Qur'an?

The help of Allah did come solely for the Messenger as well as his companion. You're saying his "companion is a companion" - don't make the same mistake with language as you have before.

 

"If you don't aide him, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) certainly aided him..... (and verse continues)"

Now, it is upto you. This is become tedious to put one argument again and again. You point out to the grammatical constructs.

And this lame judgemental attack that 'I don't understand the Quran' or 'Shias don't understand the Quran'. Well, keep it with yourself.

Lastly, I would just try to ask your entire interpretation on this and that's it. Please kindly quote it without any personal attacks. Just the interpretation. 

I won't reply now but that interpretation would represent your side on this and it will remain with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
29 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

If you don't aide him, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) certainly aided him..... (and verse continues)"

Now you're isolating the verse while before you were inclusive? I'm on my phone currently, so I can't post my entire explanation.

31 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Now, it is upto you. This is become tedious to put one argument again and again. You point out to the grammatical constructs.

I'm not being tedious. I point out the grammatical constructs because... the miracle of the Qur'an is in linguistics? Allah revealed it as a miracle to mankind, in it miracles of old and to come, but the ultimate miracle is the linguistics, which you don't understand. You're calling it out for no reason I'm basing my standpoint what the Qur'an is based on.

34 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

And this lame judgemental attack that 'I don't understand the Quran' or 'Shias don't understand the Quran'. Well, keep it with yourself.

Lastly, I would just try to ask your entire interpretation on this and that's it. Please kindly quote it without any personal attacks. Just the interpretation.

Well, you don't have much room to talk. You would say "anyone with a brain" and use other petty attacks when talking to me. I'm not being petty. I'm telling a fact. You may not like to hear it or it may be distasteful and disdainful to your tongue and ears, but it's a fact. I'm not attacking you. You can take it that way, but that's certainly tough luck. You don't know the Qur'an. You don't understand it. Most Shi'a do not, regardless if they speak Arabic or not. Most Sunni Arabs don't understand the Qur'an, but they understand it better than Shi'i.

If you felt as if it's a person attack, then I'm sorry. However, I'm not going to stop saying a fact that you are ignorant upon the Qur'an and do not understand it whatsoever. You can be upset, but that only does injustice your own soul as I'm not meaning it in a malicious manner. This is why I prefer to speak to people over calls. You cannot judge someone's tonation through text unless it's blatantly obvious or a clear allusion.

38 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I won't reply now but that interpretation would represent your side on this and it will remain with me.

It's best you don't. You need to learn about the Qur'an before you give your interpretation even slightly. Your argument stems from personal hatred and blind following of your school. Mine stems from the miracle Allah came with. Taking this as an attack will do you no good because, at the end of the day, it's true. You dislike Abu Bakr and everyone else surrounding him and your arrogance and blindness keeps you from seeing the truth.

و منهم من يستمعون اليك أفأنت تسمع الصم و لو كانوا لا يعقلون 

و منهم من ينظر اليك أفأنت تهدي العمى و لو كانوا لا يبصرون 

ان الله لا يظلمون الناس شيأً ولكن الناس انفسهم يظلمون 

My side is from the linguistics of the Qur'an itself and yours isn't. Take from this what you will. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/8/2021 at 6:33 PM, Nightclaw said:

Now you're isolating the verse while before you were inclusive? I'm on my phone currently, so I can't post my entire explanation.

I'm not being tedious. I point out the grammatical constructs because... the miracle of the Qur'an is in linguistics? Allah revealed it as a miracle to mankind, in it miracles of old and to come, but the ultimate miracle is the linguistics, which you don't understand. You're calling it out for no reason I'm basing my standpoint what the Qur'an is based on.

Well, you don't have much room to talk. You would say "anyone with a brain" and use other petty attacks when talking to me. I'm not being petty. I'm telling a fact. You may not like to hear it or it may be distasteful and disdainful to your tongue and ears, but it's a fact. I'm not attacking you. You can take it that way, but that's certainly tough luck. You don't know the Qur'an. You don't understand it. Most Shi'a do not, regardless if they speak Arabic or not. Most Sunni Arabs don't understand the Qur'an, but they understand it better than Shi'i.

If you felt as if it's a person attack, then I'm sorry. However, I'm not going to stop saying a fact that you are ignorant upon the Qur'an and do not understand it whatsoever. You can be upset, but that only does injustice your own soul as I'm not meaning it in a malicious manner. This is why I prefer to speak to people over calls. You cannot judge someone's tonation through text unless it's blatantly obvious or a clear allusion.

It's best you don't. You need to learn about the Qur'an before you give your interpretation even slightly. Your argument stems from personal hatred and blind following of your school. Mine stems from the miracle Allah came with. Taking this as an attack will do you no good because, at the end of the day, it's true. You dislike Abu Bakr and everyone else surrounding him and your arrogance and blindness keeps you from seeing the truth.

و منهم من يستمعون اليك أفأنت تسمع الصم و لو كانوا لا يعقلون 

و منهم من ينظر اليك أفأنت تهدي العمى و لو كانوا لا يبصرون 

ان الله لا يظلمون الناس شيأً ولكن الناس انفسهم يظلمون 

My side is from the linguistics of the Qur'an itself and yours isn't. Take from this what you will. 

Genuine question who do guys love more , imam Ali and prophet Muhammad or abu bake and umar 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, theEndIsNear said:

Genuine question who do guys love more , imam Ali and prophet Muhammad or abu bake and umar 

The Messenger, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali. In that order. 

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

The Messenger, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and 'Ali. In that order. 

Really lol that’s so weird that u guys have an order 

honestly another question, do u sincerely believe ashura and the killing of imam Hussein was a story Shia made or u think that it had nothing to do with yazeed and yazeed was a good guy? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As we have read 1000 times, 

“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate”. Only one way to the Prophet's decree.

“Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith”. And so it was given to Ali (notably after ibn abu quhafa and ibn al khattab failed horribly to capture khaybar, retreated as they did in Hunayn)

Mind, body, soul all is declared the most superior and submissive to Allah, yet they put him as 4th. Doesn't matter though how much they try to convince themselves they are right, at the end of the day it is mandated to send peace and blessings on both the Prophet and his family in every prayer.

'"Ali said: By the One Who split the seed and created the soul, the [unlettered] Prophet ﷺ, affirmed to me: "No one loves me except a believer and no one hates me except a hypocrite."

Thus we all know someone who loves those who betrayed Ali and claims to love Ali falls in the same fold of rock-bottom.  "By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah dressed himself with it and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill."

Subhanallah how the mention of Ahlulbayt ((عليه السلام)) will instantly expose the disease in a person's heart. They are indeed the Light of Guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, dragonxx said:

As we have read 1000 times, 

“I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate”. Only one way to the Prophet's decree.

“Tomorrow I will give my flag to a man who loves Allah and His messenger, ever going forward and never retreating, Allah had tested his heart with the faith”. And so it was given to Ali (notably after ibn abu quhafa and ibn al khattab failed horribly to capture khaybar, retreated as they did in Hunayn)

Mind, body, soul all is declared the most superior and submissive to Allah, yet they put him as 4th. Doesn't matter though how much they try to convince themselves they are right, at the end of the day it is mandated to send peace and blessings on both the Prophet and his family in every prayer.

'"Ali said: By the One Who split the seed and created the soul, the [unlettered] Prophet ﷺ, affirmed to me: "No one loves me except a believer and no one hates me except a hypocrite."

Thus we all know someone who loves those who betrayed Ali and claims to love Ali falls in the same fold of rock-bottom.  "By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah dressed himself with it and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill."

Subhanallah how the mention of Ahlulbayt ((عليه السلام)) will instantly expose the disease in a person's heart. They are indeed the Light of Guidance.

One thing u must understand, their information is wrong the things they hear about umar abu bake etc is the things said about Ali, so in retrospect they love Ali, they’re just confused from a young age 

if they said we love yazeed cause he killed imam Hussein then yeah they love evil 

if they said we love abu bakr cause he killed Fatima then yeah they’re evil, but they believe or think that neither of these things happened and these people were how we know the imams and prophet 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, theEndIsNear said:

Really lol that’s so weird that u guys have an order 

honestly another question, do u sincerely believe ashura and the killing of imam Hussein was a story Shia made or u think that it had nothing to do with yazeed and yazeed was a good guy? 

Ezio Auditore da Firenze is a character from Assassin's Creed. 

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

Actually, Uthman was not even the option. But no problem. However, it is an 'order'.

 

If you read Sahih Bukhari, you'd see that:

"We used to say Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and the Messenger remained silent (i.e. he agreed)."

Read our books. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Serious question, if Imam Ali was the “sahib” in the cave, would we Shias perform so many gymnastics to prove this nothing special? Or would we run with it like Ghadeer? Ask yourself this.

It truly makes no difference to me if this is a fadhail of Abu Bakr or not. I don’t think Abu Bakr was Iblis 2.0 as mainstream Shias paint him or Gibrail 2.0 as mainstream Sunnis paint him. I just find the inconsistencies when it comes to cherry-picking verses to be a shame. 

Edited by 786:)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 1/12/2021 at 8:48 PM, Nightclaw said:

"We used to say Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, and the Messenger remained silent (i.e. he agreed)."

This can only be a historical order that one with mind agrees, otherwise if some one consider Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is an ordinary man  then it is disagreed in the light of verses of quran, hadith in sunni sources and their interpretations.

wasalam

 

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

This can only be a historical order that one with mind agrees, otherwise if some one consider Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is an ordinary man  then it is disagreed in the light of verses of quran, hadith in sunni sources and their interpretations.

wasalam

 

Nobody is claiming he's ordinary. I don't know why I see a phobia of comprehension or listening from Shi'a with these topics. Musa wasn't an ordinary man, but Allah loves Muhammad the most. Does Allah loving Muhammad the most negate the spectacular Messenger of Allah Musa? No. Naught point and a strawman argument. 

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

Nobody is claiming he's ordinary.

3671حدثنا محمد بن كثير أخبرنا سفيان حدثنا جامع بن أبي راشد حدثنا أبو يعلى عن محمد بن الحنفية قال قلت لأبي أي الناس خير بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال أبو بكر قلت ثم من قال ثم عمر وخشيت أن يقول عثمان قلت ثم أنت قال ما أنا إلا رجل من المسلمين

(Bukhari)

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya:
I asked my father ('Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Apostle ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you? He said, "I am only an ordinary person.
Reference 
Volume 5, Book 57, Number 20: (Sahih Bukhari)

What is your view  about above? Do you disagree with it?

I have my view and reject such strawman words "Imam Ali being an ordinary man" on the basis of verses of quran and hadith.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Not at all. I'm certain that I'm not perfect. I am also certain that the companions weren't perfect, including 'Ali. I am even more certain that I won't face anyone but Allah on Judgement Day. If you think I'll face the Messenger and 'Ali on Judgement Day, you've committed clear kufr more than you already have. I do not love nor respect those who insult my fathers who gave their lives for Islam and tried their best. 

You're the same people who don't criticize your leaders for siding with the Chinese, eradicating Islam, and doing it blissfully. Your scholars, who are hypocritical and pathological liars (i.e. Ammar Nakshawani, Khomeini). Our leaders are bad, though certainly not as bad as yours - but let's not appeal to hypocrisy here without addressing the point raised against you. 

These fairy tales that you believe in are not authentic. You cannot even prove it from either side. Please do not act as if your side is absolute certainty when you swim in paradoxes. You can march on, however. Do it with extravagance! We all go to our graves one way and some day or another. Nothing we do is against the Qur'an, though what you do is. You aren't qualified to speak on the Qur'an because you don't understand it and I am 110% sure you cannot read it properly. 

I know that I will be bombarded with negative reactions and whatnot, but what's new on here? Everyone here is a student extraordinaire of Sheikh Ad-Din al-Google who can't understand Arabic comprehensively, so they rely on translation. They like to taunt and insult while being petty like a bunch of womenfolk. Sooner or later, I may be banned because the lack of emotional control, reasoning, and logic by those who are endowed with arrogance and his sister ignorance and by those who moderate the website using their God Hand. 

This is the example of those who follow - wait, sorry. Allow me to correct myself. This is the example of those who "follow" the Messenger's family, may Allah be pleased with them. Unforgiving, always heated, vile, lack of knowledge, reason, logic, and outright impudence. What you say behind closed doors is always heard by Allah, though I'm not sure if that means anything to you considering you are certain that I will answer to 'Ali and the Messenger due to manifest fabrications!

It is He who is the Most Merciful we believe in and upon him we place our trust. So then you shall soon know who it is in clear error.

Perhaps maybe u can pull all sorts of historical narrations from flawed and dubious narrators but surely u can agree that after the prophet immediately, something went wrong 

surely u can agree that Islam really fell astray after the prophet died

surely u can agree that his family was mistreated killed exiled , their own graves proved this point , u can visit their graves and find them scattered everywhere far away from the prophet 

surely u can agree even the companions something went wrong , bilal for example 

surely u have doubts about muawiyah surely u have doubts about yazeed , again indicating something went wrong

surely your aware and accept the battle with Ali and muawiyah and Aisha leading men into battle which honestly even for today is too much feminism , surely ur aware of Hasan and his differences with muawiyah the broken treaty 

putting everything side who you sided with ,we can agree something went horribly wrong after the prophet death immediately 

surely u can agree on the famous Hadith my ummah will be divided into 72 or 73 groups and only one will enter paradise indicating again something will and has gone wrong

its great u can analyse the Arabic but if u believe that historical events differences divisions nations is only studied by countries native speakers don’t ever watch another history show YouTube channel or presentations by anyone talking about some history or context that isn’t from that country when u find the best analysis is done by external viewers, some of the first bets books of Islamic history or prophets life were written by english authors from past centuries 

and it’s not only about what somebody writes in a translation, when studying any history it’s a study of anthropology and historical events psychology and those supersede language barriers 

so u need to step back a bit with this I know Arabic better than thou hence my opinion is the best, we ain’t studying Arabic here we’re studying history , and there is enough translation from authors from past centuries fr\om various different views to paint a clear picture ,u don’t need a mastery in Arabic for it, it isn’t poetry and literature, u need a cool calm unbiased unprejudiced head that is seeking truth , and many people have written tonnes of books throughout the ages , not to mention historians muslims and non muslims biased and unbiased , these arguments are very juvenile and adolescents about language 

last point , look at Islam and muslims today , u believe Sunni Islam is the perfect Islam , is the original Islam and its beliefs and dogmas and points of view, sunnis are emajority today , so is this your perfect islam? Is this it? What went wrong ? Ur caliphate system is still active u guys revere and love ur caliphs and see no wrong in their actions from Turkish empire to Arabian peninsula,but we all know how wrong it went with the king of daughters the harems of the Turkish caliphs to eventually the complete and utter falling apart of Islam and muslims, today over Mecca hangs that massive tower looking down at it almost with envy and discontent , what went wrong? Why didn’t ur version hold up

we Shia we say from the moment prophet died it started to fall apart with ur caliphs slowly chipping at its core, and the result first was the killing of Fatima not long after prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then the wars with Ali ie Aisha and muawiyah then the wars with Hassan, then the was and massacre of Hussein 

u think this was the holding onto the Islam and sunnah that’s was supposed to be perfect and keep u powerful u in control and ur ummah safeguarded? what went wrong let’s be real here it went completely wrong 

u don’t answer that question insist everything was perfect islam was perfect the Sunni was was perfect islam, so what went wrong from the moment prophet died the Islamic empire might have gotten land but it lost its spirit and it’s true power which was faith and connection with God to eventually implode and today every other nation walks all over Islam and muslims divided and fighting to death beheading themselves,usually Sunni side unfortunately , massive wars massive death massive division 

Edited by theEndIsNear
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

What is your view  about above? Do you disagree with it?

I have my view and reject such strawman words "Imam Ali being an ordinary man" on the basis of verses of quran and hadith.

Do I disagree with it, that he was an ordinary person? Yes. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman would also disagree. I don't know why you gave a personal opinion and showed it to me. We don't blind follow. What you showed me holds no bearing and is worthless to me. It's the correct opinion that he was not an ordinary person. Neither were the people who were above him in the first three caliphs.

If you base everything on the Qur'an and the objective narrations, you wouldn't and couldn't be Shi'a. 

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

Do I disagree with it, that he was an ordinary person? Yes. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman would also disagree. I don't know why you gave a personal opinion and showed it to me. We don't blind follow. What you showed me holds no bearing and is worthless to me. It's the correct opinion that he was not an ordinary person. Neither were the people who were above him in the first three caliphs.

If you base everything on the Qur'an and the objective narrations, you wouldn't and couldn't be Shi'a. 

To summarise what I said above, the first people some the companions fought against and Had issues with themselves was the direct and closest relatives to the prophet , do u think they’re were so bad so lost that the moment prophet died they all went berserk and started going against Islam? Ali Fatima Hassan Hussein? And the companions where more practising of Islam and better muslims then them despite all the Hadith talking about the beautiful actions of these individuals that the prophet praised so much but somehow didn’t know that the moment he lef this world ,they’re were gonna turn on the perfect companions Islam and themselves suddenly become anti Islamic despite growing up in the same household where the prophet received revelation 

do u see the problem here? Ur saying umar abu bark muawiyah we’re right and Fatima Ali Hassan Hussein went wrong astray and needed to be dealt with basically 

their fighting was caused by the ahlul bayt which the Quran mentions in such high prestige ? That they were the cause of all the problems ? Do u honestly believe that ? Does that make any sense? They caused all the dividing and division and problem and abu bake umar uthman muawiyah were just these innocent people desperate to try to hold the Islamic ummah together because the family of the prophet were the ones to break and snap first and try to take down all the prophets work apart ? Do u see how crazy that sounds? Do u see how something is missing here 

Edited by theEndIsNear
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
50 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Do I disagree with it, that he was an ordinary person? Yes. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman would also disagree. I don't know why you gave a personal opinion and showed it to me. We don't blind follow. What you showed me holds no bearing and is worthless to me. It's the correct opinion that he was not an ordinary person. Neither were the people who were above him in the first three caliphs.

If you base everything on the Qur'an and the objective narrations, you wouldn't and couldn't be Shi'a. 

Can u imagine ur father dies and ur brothers and u start a war with your cousins about his will? Does that indicate people following the will? Or worse imagine some external family starts fighting against your family your fathers sons about a company your father left behind , about how it should be run? And u his closest and your brothers end up getting killed by some people external people to your family about your fathers company is supposed to be run? And they insist they have the way the company is supposed to run despite you building it up with him during his life and him teaching u everything about it

that doesn’t indicate something is wrong someone is wrong here ? Use common sense u don’t need to know any language or be a master of it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, 786:) said:

Serious question, if Imam Ali was the “sahib” in the cave, would we Shias perform so many gymnastics to prove this nothing special? Or would we run with it like Ghadeer? Ask yourself this.

It truly makes no difference to me if this is a fadhail of Abu Bakr or not. I don’t think Abu Bakr was Iblis 2.0 as mainstream Shias paint him or Gibrail 2.0 as mainstream Sunnis paint him. I just find the inconsistencies when it comes to cherry-picking verses to be a shame. 

No. No one amongst shias actually use this verse to claim if Abu Bakr was Iblis 2. That is another debate. Abu Bakr was a companion no doubt. But companions are themselves categorised into three parts in your books. One group of Companions will be taken out of Jannah and when the The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) will call them, the angels will say that,"They changed the deen after your death". This is in your books only.

Serious question: If Umar would have been present in Ghadir in place of Ali (عليه السلام), what would have been your reaction? Would you really come up with lame arguments like 'complaints of yemen' and 'mawla means friend'? LoLzz :hahaha:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Serious question: If Umar would have been present in Ghadir in place of Ali (عليه السلام), what would have been your reaction? Would you really come up with lame arguments like 'complaints of yemen' and 'mawla means friend'? LoLzz :hahaha:

I think you missed the point about the verse. Anyways, I think you are asking the wrong person. I don’t think Shias or Sunnis have a 100% monopoly on truth. Even if the Prophet raised Umar’s hand it would have no impact on Islam nor will Allah ask us about it on Qiyamah because we will be judged on the Quran and our goodness as Humans. It will not be Islamic History version of ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’.

Edited by 786:)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I think you missed the point about the verse. Anyways, I think you are asking the wrong person. I don’t think Shias or Sunnis have a 100% monopoly on truth. Even if the Prophet raised Umar’s hand it would have no impact on Islam nor will Allah ask us about it on Qiyamah because we will be judged on the Quran and our goodness as Humans. It will not be Islamic History version of ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’.

That I agree brother. 

Shias are strict on Wilayah because the belief says it as a decree from The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So, the obedience of a wali is unquestionable. All the 'good deeds' you mention and 'The Quran' you mention will not leave the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) until they meet the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at thed pond of Kauthar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

That I agree brother. 

Shias are strict on Wilayah because the belief says it as a decree from The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). So, the obedience of a wali is unquestionable. All the 'good deeds' you mention and 'The Quran' you mention will not leave the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) until they meet the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at thed pond of Kauthar.

Sure but Shias have this tendency of being more history focused as if we will be asked about what happened 1400 years ago. Do you think Allah expects us to know everything that happened 1400 years ago to the T when hadith literature is such a mess from both sides?

We don’t know the truths of yesterday, but our creator expects us to know the truths of 7th century Arabia?

Edited by 786:)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Sure but Shias have this tendency of being more history focused as if we will be asked about what happened 1400 years ago. Do you think Allah expects us to know everything that happened 1400 years ago to the T when hadith literature is such a mess from both sides?

We don’t know the truths of yesterday, but our creator expects us to know the truths of 7th century Arabia?

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mighty and merciful has kept history in such a way that we don't need to dig into Hadith sciences to close this debate. This is what intellect says. 

And shias don't run behind this so much. Sunnis are equally involved. In shiism it feels like more because Shias are in minority (very less in population). 

Yes, I agree that Shias should not debate Wilayah but rather implement it. Only then they will thrive. When we know we are on thed truth, why mingling? Prove it in application.

It would be beneficial:

1. For practical life 

2. For discerning the truth (when wise people will see how successful Wilayat is)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Nightclaw said:

Do I disagree with it, that he was an ordinary person? Yes. Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman would also disagree. I don't know why you gave a personal opinion and showed it to me. We don't blind follow. What you showed me holds no bearing and is worthless to me. It's the correct opinion that he was not an ordinary person. Neither were the people who were above him in the first three caliphs.

If you base everything on the Qur'an and the objective narrations, you wouldn't and couldn't be Shi'a. 

Even worse imagine ur father dies and one of his wives builds an army against u his sons or his grandsons or his cousin ,a woman leading men into battle with hundreds thousands dead , up telling me something wasn’t wrong seriously wrong where the closest family was flocking the companions to their sides to fight against the direct family u and ur sons of ur father 

something wasn’t wrong? 
 

what would u do if ur wife built an army against ur cousins or sons to try to kill them ? After u died , u telling me everything was good here ? From an external point of view anyone reading this seeing this would be like these people are insane something went seriously wrong , they create an empire from nothing and then start killing each other because of what sunnah? They claim to follow while killing his family? 

honesrly if I wasn’t Muslim I would be thinking this is humiliating and embarrassing and a joke and something seriously gone wrong 

u wouldn’t let ur wife raise her voice at u or ur immediate family especially if they were so important and good people who sacrificed everything for ur company ur belief ur religion, but she raised an army against ur sons and u think everything was okay and sunnah and Quran was all u needed ?

what a joke the whole thing is it’s insanely abnormal how wrong that went and quickly how it imploded and continued for 12 generations after , was Ali a bad person ? Was Hassan a bad person? Was Hussein a bad person? Was Fatima a bad person that all turned against their prophet despite being immediate family member of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ie ahlul bayt that is revered by the Quran and called clean and pure ?

common sense dictates something went seriously wrong that his immediate family was the first to get crushed by the full force of an empire Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) built 

Edited by theEndIsNear
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
20 hours ago, theEndIsNear said:

One thing u must understand, their information is wrong the things they hear about umar abu bake etc is the things said about Ali, so in retrospect they love Ali, they’re just confused from a young age 

if they said we love yazeed cause he killed imam Hussein then yeah they love evil 

if they said we love abu bakr cause he killed Fatima then yeah they’re evil, but they believe or think that neither of these things happened and these people were how we know the imams and prophet 

Problem is all the quotes i mentioned except the last one are from their literature, and those who have read them knowingly disregard them to suit their personal interests and try to convince themselves they're right, when deep down they know there is a big question mark on the companions when Imam Ali calls out the descent into wickedness right after the Prophet dies, and only 50 years after the Prophet dies, his grandson is killed by a massive army - this does not occur suddenly, it was nurtured by those who tried to appear closest to the Prophet, ex. Battle of Jamal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 12/24/2020 at 9:05 PM, zahralzu said:

asalamulaykum,

9:40 is a famous verse that we'll never stop fighting about...

I know it saying "sahib" is not good enough to suggest this is praising abu bakr since anyone can be a "sahib"...

and I know shias argue abu bakr expressing "huzn" (sadness) is an inappropriate emotion for that type of situation and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wouldn't prohibit a good act and so shias have the upper argument in this as well...

and I also get that the "saqina" (tranquility) and "junud" (invisible angels/soldiers) were given to the prophet only and not abu bakr, wheras tranquility can be given to muslims so it doesn't look so good for abu bakr up until this point...

but

"god is with us" is something I can't get over, it's very clear from this verse that god is with abu bakr, especially when comparing this to when moosa (عليه السلام) said to his companions "god is with me" and in other parts of the quran "god is with the muslims/believers/patient/etc"-so god was not with the isrealis since although they followed moses up until that point and fled pharoah with him, they were gonna turn to worshipping the cow etc in the future and so god couldn't have been with them then and then left them half way through but rather god was never with them to begin with; so we can't even argue that god was only with abu bakr for a certain period, but rather, once god says he's with you this is a 'forever' promise from god...

thoughts?

If someone takes it to be forever, then the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). didn't take it to be forever for Abu Bakr as he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). when testified for the Martyrs of Uhud, he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). refused to testify for Abu Bakr saying "I don't know what you will do after me" (Muwatta Malik).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, theEndIsNear said:

Perhaps maybe u can pull all sorts of historical narrations from flawed and dubious narrators but surely u can agree that after the prophet immediately, something went wrong 

surely u can agree that Islam really fell astray after the prophet died

theEndIsNear – Phew! You have asked dozens of questions.  Luckily, I had time to spare, I’ll respond.

You have done a lot of finger pointing towards Sunni Islam (which is about 90% of Muslims). Have you ever asked the same questions to your own side? Be honest with yourself and ask the same at your sect.  See how successful you been to the ideals of Shiaism!

No, you are utterly wrong! Islam never did and never will fall astray.  Allah Almighty has promised that He will make His true Message (Islam) prevail.  And with Allah Almighty’s Blessings Islam has prevailed.

It is God Who sent His Messenger with guidance and a true religion that will prevail over all other religions, even though the pagans may dislike it. Ayah 33 Surat At-Tawbah

He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse. Ayah 9 Surah As-Saf

Allah has written down: I will most certainly prevail, I and My messengers; surely Allah is Strong, Mighty 21 Surah Al-Mujadila

 

Quote

surely u can agree that his family was mistreated killed exiled , their own graves proved this point , u can visit their graves and find them scattered everywhere far away from the prophet

This is wrong. This may be from your version of history and history is very subjective.  We take religion from Qur’an and the Sunnah of the blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and not from history books.

Quote

 

surely u have doubts about muawiyah surely u have doubts about yazeed , again indicating something ent wrong

surely your aware and accept the battle with Ali and muawiyah and Aisha leading men into battle which honestly even for today is too much feminism , surely ur aware of Hasan and his differences with muawiyah the broken treaty

putting everything side who you sided with ,we can agree something went horribly wrong after the prophet death immediately

 

 

Yes, this is very unfortunate part of Islamic history.  In fact, the blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had foretold about this.

First Fitnah:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fitna

The blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had also foretold that through his noble grandson, Al-Hasan bin 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) this fitnah will be brought to end.

Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side. The Prophet was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e., noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him." SAHIH BUKHARI Volume 3, Book 49, Number 867

Quote

surely u can agree on the famous Hadith my ummah will be divided into 72 or 73 groups and only one will enter paradise indicating again something will and has gone wrong.

Has not Shaytaan, the cursed, vow to try lead mankind astray with all his tricks? 

Also Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) has advised to beware of division and keep the unity!

With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. Sermon 127 Nahjul Balagha

Quote

its great u can analyse the Arabic

 

"We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people may understand / reason" (Qur'an 12:2)

If one wants to interpret/ explain Quran, one must know Quranic (Classical) Arabic.  It is a must.

Quote

but if u believe that historical events differences divisions nations is only studied by countries native speakers don’t ever watch another history show YouTube channel or presentations by anyone talking about some history or context that isn’t from that country when u find the best analysis is done by external viewers, some of the first bets books of Islamic history or prophets life were written by english authors from past centuries

Of course, all languages are useful and vehicle for learning. Be careful about learning your own history from English authors of the past centuries. You will not find more distorted Islamic history from anywhere but from them. Every historian writes history with his own ingrained biases in mind.  I will trust my own historians over the English authors any day.

Quote

and it’s not only about what somebody writes in a translation, when studying any history it’s a study of anthropology and historical events psychology and those supersede language barriers

You must agree all these are subjective to personal interpretation and biases.  That is why the experts have differences in opinion.

 

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...