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

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?

Edited by zahralzu
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
1 hour ago, 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?

 

Quote

 

Al-Karajaki has reported that once Sheikh Mufid saw a dream, and then dictated it to his companions and disciples. He said: I dreamt that as I was passing through a street, I saw a large crowd gathered around someone.

On enquiry, I was told that they had surrounded Umar b. al-Khattab, the second Caliph. I pushed myself forward, and when I came near him, I said: "O Sheikh, do you allow me to ask a question?" He said: "Ask." So I said: "Would you explain me how is the excellence of your friend Abu Bakr established by the Ayah in which Allah says: 'the second of the two, when they were in the cave'. Your friends are making too much out of it."

He said: "This Ayah proves Abu Bakr's excellence in six ways:

Allah mentions the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then mentions Abu Bakr with him, as his second of the two;

Allah mentions them as being together at one place; which is a sign of mutual affinity;

Allah adds further quality of being the Prophet's "SAHIB", the Companion;

Allah relates how kind and caring the Prophet was towards Abu Bakr when he told him, "Don't grieve";

Where the Prophet assured Abu Bakr that "Allah is with us" meaning that He will help both of them simultaneously;

Allah revealed that He will send down AS-SAKINAH (serenity) upon Abu Bakr because as far as the Prophet was concerned, AS SAKINAH never parted from him

These are six proofs of Abu Bakr's excellence from the mentioned Ayah."

Sheikh Mufid says: "I told him that he had indeed made a good effort to make his point, and had left no room for any other person to be a better advocate for his friend. But I was going to demolish the arguments, making it like ashes blown away by the fast wind."

Sheikh said:

"When you say that Allah has mentioned the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, and then mentioned Abu Bakr as his second, I do not see anything extraordinary in that. For if you ponder over it, you will find that Allah was only revealing the number of persons present in the cave. They were two; there could have been a Mo'min and a Kafir and they would still be two."

"And when you talk of they being together at one place, it is again as simple as the first case. If there was one place only, it could have been occupied by a Mo'min and a disbeliever also. The Mosque of the Prophet is definitely a better place than the cave, and yet it was a gathering place for the believers and the hypocrites. The Ark of Prophet Noah carried the Prophet Noah, together with Satan and the animals. So being together at one place is no virtue."

"And when you talk about the added quality of being 'SAHIB', the companion, this indeed is a weaker point than the first two, because a believer and a disbeliever can both be in the company of each other. Allah, Most High, used the word 'SAHIB' in the following Ayah: 'His "Sahib" (companion) said to him while he was conversing with him: Have you disbelieved in the One Who created you from soil and then from a small quantity of sperm, then fashioned you harmoniously as a man?' (al-Kahf, 18:37).

Further, we find in Arabic literature that the word "SAHIB" is used for the accompanying donkey, and also for the sword. So, if the term can be used between a Momin and a Kafir, between a man and his animal, and between a living and an inanimate object, then what is so special in it about your friend?"

"And the words 'Don't grieve' were not meant for any solace;. Because it was a statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have 'donts' and 'dos' as imperative verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Abu Bakr was either an act of obedience or disobedience. If it was obedience, the Prophet would not have forbidden it, therefore it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience."

"As for the assurance that 'Allah is with us', the pronoun 'us' was used by the Prophet for himself The use of plural pronoun for oneself is a sign of ones elevated status. Allah says:

'Indeed, We are the One who has revealed the Quran, and We will most surely preserve it.' (Al-Hijr, 15:9).

And again:

'We are the One who gives life and ordains death, and We are the inheritor'(al-Hijr, 15:23).

 

 

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 that Allah is with us (holy and divine and chosen ones of Allah).

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

 

 

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 that Allah is with us (holy and divine and chosen ones of Allah).

interesting, I've never known for the prophet/allah to refer to the prophet as 'we', and 'we' is usually only used to refer to Allah and there's no confusion with whenever allah uses 'we' to refer to Himself; but why would the prophet speak directly to abu bakr and then refer to himself as 'we', not only is this misleading abu bakr but also confusing the rest of us reading the quran...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

interesting, I've never known for the prophet/allah to refer to the prophet as 'we', and 'we' is usually only used to refer to Allah and there's no confusion with whenever allah uses 'we' to refer to Himself; but why would the prophet speak directly to abu bakr and then refer to himself as 'we', not only is this misleading abu bakr but also confusing the rest of us reading the quran...

Arabic is not the only language in which 'we' can be used to refer to one's self; it's used in the Hindustani languages as well even today. In fact, Pakhtuns usually use the word "hum" (i.e. "we") when they are referring to themselves in the singular in Urdu. It's nothing strange. It's usually only used by very respectable people with a very high standing in the eyes of the people though.

edit: look at Mughal e Azam; Akbar uses the word "we" when referring to himself throughout the movie. You'll find it's use in other contemporary movies as well.

 

You'll find plenty of ahadith where the Imams of Ahlul Bayt are using "we" when referring to themselves in the singular. It's nothing strange.

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

interesting, I've never known for the prophet/allah to refer to the prophet as 'we', and 'we' is usually only used to refer to Allah and there's no confusion with whenever allah uses 'we' to refer to Himself; but why would the prophet speak directly to abu bakr and then refer to himself as 'we', not only is this misleading abu bakr but also confusing the rest of us reading the quran...

Imam as Sadiq (عليه السلام) has many times used we in order to point to himself. 

You are right to say that 'we' is used as a plural and cannot refer to The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). But whenever Infallibles say something in this way, they are referring not only to themselves but to the entire creed of Prophets. 

Grieve not, surely Allah is with us.

So, 'us' over here means all the infallibles.

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

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"...

Wa’alaykum salaam Zahralzu
In fact, the word ‘Sahib’ carries the notion of Courtesy, deference, respect etc in Arabic language by extension same in Farsi, Turkish, Urdu and related languages.
It’s like saying English “the
Gentleman with you” against “the fellow with you”

Quote

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...

Of course, Shias would argue that expressing Huzn (sadness/sorrow) is an inappropriate emotion, singling out Hazrat Abu Bakr’s (May Allah be pleased with him) action. But they will never look for the reasons, why he was feeling sad?
First, let’s deal with the word ‘Huzn’ (sorrow) which seems to be an inappropriate emotion for Shias.

The year in which Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings be upon him) wife Lady Khadijah (May Allah be pleased with her) and his uncle and protector Abu Talib died is called The Year of Sorrow (عام الحزن‎, ‘Ām al-Ḥuzn)!
The Burial site of Lady Fatima Zahra (May Allah be pleased with her). Is called Bayt al-Aḥzān (Arabic: بیت الأحزان, lit. the House of Sorrows)

Now we can safely assume the ‘word’ is appropriate and acceptable.

One must understand that it was a critical moment.  The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) were in cave surrounded by blood thirsty Mushrikeen of Makkah. The protection provided to them by the cave seemed hopeless to Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).  Naturally, he felt the sorrow of the Prophet (peace be upon him) being apprehended by the Mushrikeen of Makkah!

Quote

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...

Agreed, that the tranquillity and assurance of Divine Protection was given to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only. Then, in return Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) comforted Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)  with these legendary words saying, لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا - ‘Do not worry, Allah is with us.’”
Now, this looks very good, nay excellent for Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)!

4 hours ago, zahralzu said:

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?

Something for you to ponder about!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Narrated Abu Bakr:

I was with the Prophet (ﷺ) in the Cave. When I raised my head, I saw the feet of the people. I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! If some of them should look down, they will see us." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O Abu Bakr, be quiet! (For we are) two and Allah is the Third of us." - Bukhari

Dude was so shook. Grieving, crying, scared. لاَ تَحْزَنْ That is extremely embarrassing when in the company of the Messenger of Allah. 

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

The protection provided to them by the cave seemed hopeless to Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).

Are you not embarrassed for having copy pasting this? Did you even read it or just copy-paste? But thanks for the supportive point - ibn abu quhafa was hopeless, while Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) slept in the bed of the Prophet (pbuhf) full of hope.

Anyway let us for the sake of argument say it wasn't in regards to the tranquility bestowed upon the Prophet (pbuhf),
let us say that it meant that Allah was just simply the third of them in the sense sunnis claim. How does this indicate righteousness on the part of ibn abu quhafa? How is this supportive of his character?

Compare and contrast to the hadiths which say for example when an unrelated man and woman are alone, the shaytan is the third of them. Does this indicate they are automatically evil people? Does this indicate Allah is absent from among them? Does this attest to their overall character? Are they for sure damned eternally based on just the fact they are alone with one another along with shaytan?

That should make clear it is a massive stretch to claim anything supportive for ibn abu quhafa in this incident.

At any rate, the lack of faith is abundantly clear, as is his hopelessness as attested to by debate follower; many thanks =)

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Naturally, he felt the sorrow of the Prophet (peace be upon him) being apprehended by the Mushrikeen of Makkah!

So let me get this straight, based off this.. 

First, ibn abu quhafa seems certain of their capture if he is that sorrowful - no faith; strike one

Second, ibn abu quhafa apparently has more love and care for the Prophet (pbuhf) than vice versa given he is grieving while the Prophet is not; strike two

Third, this would imply the one who is a Mercy to All creations doesn't have mercy for ibn abu quhafa given he is ordering him to (stop being disobedient) and stop grieving; strike three.
Astaqfirallah.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot with the copy-pastes.

 

Edited by dragonxx
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Agreed, that the tranquillity and assurance of Divine Protection was given to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only. Then, in return Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) comforted Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him)  with these legendary words saying, لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا - ‘Do not worry, Allah is with us.’”

By the way the sequence of events here are out of order lol. Again, i advise you read what you are copy-pasting...

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

One must understand that it was a critical moment.  The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) were in cave surrounded by blood thirsty Mushrikeen of Makkah. The protection provided to them by the cave seemed hopeless to Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).  Naturally, he felt the sorrow of the Prophet (peace be upon him) being apprehended by the Mushrikeen of Makkah!

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 Messenger of God:

...the pagans of Makkah hated Muhammad, yet they trusted him. Whoever had any valuables, he brought them and deposited them with him. He was their “banker.” He knew about the plans of the Quraysh to kill him. He, therefore, called Ali, and said: “Allah has ordered me to go to Yathrib. You sleep in my bed and tomorrow return all the deposits of the Makkans to them.”

This was a situation fraught with the gravest danger. Ali also knew that Quraysh had resolved to kill the Apostle of God that night, and that to sleep in his bed was to sleep in the jaws of death. But when was Ali ever afraid of death? The conqueror of Khyber slept in the jaws of death so soundly as he had never slept in all his life. (Life of the Apostle of God, Azamgarh, India, 1976)"

The Apostle did not have time to explain to Ali in detail how many deposits he had and to whom they were to be turned over. It was enough for him to tell Ali to return all the deposits to their (pagan) owners, and he (Ali) did. It was just like the Feast of Dhul-'Asheera when all that the Apostle had to do, was to ask Ali to invite to dinner the elders of the clan of Banu Hashim.

No detailed instructions were necessary. Ali instinctively understood what his master expected from him. Being entrusted to restore the deposits of the Makkans to them, is proof that Ali was the confidante and the “private secretary” of the Prophet of Islam even before the Migration to Yathrib.

If Hijra highlights Ali's unquestioning loyalty to his master, Muhammad, it also demonstrates his incredible courage. The pickets of the enemy might have killed him either believing that he was Muhammad, or upon the discovery that he was not, out of sheer frustration. He understood this perfectly, but for him no risk was too great if he could save the life of the Apostle of God.

It was this devotion and this courage that won for him the accolades of Al-Qur’an al-Majid. Qur’an has paid tribute to his loyalty and his daring which he displayed on the fateful night of Hijra (Migration) as follows:

And among men there is one who sells his life to win the pleasure of Allah. Allah is very kind to His devotees. (Chapter 2; verse 207)

Razi, the famous commentator of Qur’an, says in his Tafsir Kabir (vol. II, page 189) that this verse was expressly revealed in recognition of Ali's great and glorious service on the night of Hijra when he made it possible for Muhammad, the Apostle of God, to leave Makkah. Because of Ali, he could leave in safety.

On that historic night, a strange and a mysterious business transaction took place, the first and the last of its kind in the entire history of Creation. It was a sale-and-purchase transaction between Allah and one of His slaves. The slave in question was Ali ibn Abi Talib."

This is true  picture of events that is always neglected by sunni friends. Do we see any words from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for any grief or weep? No.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Now we can safely assume the ‘word’ is appropriate and acceptable.

Word is appropriate but not the time. Being a 'companion of the Holy Prophet (SAW)' and crying with fear is not appropriate at all. All the examples you quoted above this, relate to sorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
12 hours ago, 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?

Wa Aleikum Salaam,

No, it does not mean a forever promise.  وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ المُؤمِنينَ For verily Allah is with those who believe!  Quran 8:19, That is an condition. Remember the other verses in Qur'an where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) demonstrate those who had faith and were believers then they became kafirs. For such a people God is not with them anymore, rather they are but friends of shaytan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/25/2020 at 3:53 AM, Zainuu said:

 

 

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 that Allah is with us (holy and divine and chosen ones of Allah).

How do you prove that tranquility is given to the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and not abu bakr? because sunnis argue that sakinah means iman and the prophet already had iman, and that allah can give invinsible soldiers to help the muslims just like he did in 3:124 "remember [oh prophet] when you said to the believers "is it not enough that your Lord will send down a reinforcement of 3k angels for your aid""?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

How do you prove that tranquility is given to the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and not abu bakr? because sunnis argue that sakinah means iman and the prophet already had iman

I have never heard any credible sunni scholar say that "sakinah" means 'imaan' as opposed to tranquility. There is actually a word in Urdu derived from it too: سکون, which pretty much means the same.

This argument might have made sense if it meant "imaan" in any authentic, mainstream Arabic lexicon; specifically the lexicon of classical Arabic.

 

edit: try asking those sunnis for a Quranic verse where Sakinah is used with the meaning of "Imaan". I have personally been unable to find one. Have a look at the link below.

https://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=sakinah&translator=5

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

I have never heard any credible sunni scholar say that "sakinah" means 'imaan' as opposed to tranquility. There is actually a word in Urdu derived from it too: سکون, which pretty much means the same.

This argument might have made sense if it meant "imaan" in any authentic, mainstream Arabic lexicon; specifically the lexicon of classical Arabic.

sakinah is imaan in shi'i books

cave5.PNG

cave3.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

sakinah is imaan in shi'i books

cave5.PNG

cave3.PNG

Let's assume for a moment that sakina literally means iman. What's the main problem with this assumption? The fact that it isn't used in such a sense in the Quran in any of the 6 places it's mentioned.

So, keeping the bounds set by the Quran in mind, we can only conclude from these ahadith that the hadith literally doesn't say that the word 'sakina' means 'iman'. At most, it's a component of iman; just like cleanliness is a component of iman, and not iman itself. Ahadith are bound by the Quran, not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
33 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

sakinah is imaan in shi'i books

cave5.PNG

cave3.PNG

Is it always true?? 

When The Holy Quran says that it is sending down sakinah, so is that Imaan in that context?

I would say it depends on context.

Someone refuted 33:33 by saying that rijs means doubt and not impurity according to Imam as Sadiq (عليه السلام) but if we check the entire hadith, it comes out that the context is entirely different. 

So, I won't believe this until we get the exact language on the side of Hadith.

Also, Iman is described through maybe a million attributes, it doesn't it is just one attribute.

Also, is there any hadith in which the tafsir for this verse by any Imam says the same?

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

Is it always true?? 

When The Holy Quran says that it is sending down sakinah, so is that Imaan in that context?

I would say it depends on context.

Someone refuted 33:33 by saying that rijs means doubt and not impurity according to Imam as Sadiq (عليه السلام) but if we check the entire hadith, it comes out that the context is entirely different. 

So, I won't believe this until we get the exact language on the side of Hadith.

Also, Iman is described through maybe a million attributes, it doesn't it is just one attribute.

Also, is there any hadith in which the tafsir for this verse by any Imam says the same?

absolutely! i don't believe how desperate the arguments are becoming, they're willing to insult their own intellect just to ensure abubakr remains on top; deaf, mute, blind...

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

absolutely! i don't believe how desperate the arguments are becoming, they're willing to insult their own intellect just to ensure abubakr remains on top; deaf, mute, blind...

If we even check the verse. You can see that initially, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mentiona the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by saying that :

'he said to his companion...'

So, Allah is referring by mentioning 'he' to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Then, comes the next line:

Then Allah sent down on him His tranquillity 

We can clearly see that it is a continuation from the previous line. And so, 'him' here is the one who is 'he' in the previous line.

About 'His': it is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the provider of everything.

No mention of Abu Bakr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/7/2021 at 1:56 AM, Zainuu said:

If we even check the verse. You can see that initially, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mentiona the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by saying that :

'he said to his companion...'

So, Allah is referring by mentioning 'he' to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Then, comes the next line:

Then Allah sent down on him His tranquillity 

We can clearly see that it is a continuation from the previous line. And so, 'him' here is the one who is 'he' in the previous line.

About 'His': it is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the provider of everything.

No mention of Abu Bakr.

What do you think about Abu Bakr's presence in the cave? Is his sole presence an aide to or a burden on the prophet? 

I'd think it'll be a burden considering Allah is condemning the companions who don't aide him in medina, claiming that if they don't aid him then allah will aide him alone without the aide of the companions, and then we're reminded by Allah of the incident of the cave that occurred 5+ years ago and we're left to believe that no one (not even abu bakr) aided the prophet in the cave, otherwise, what's the relevance of mentioning the cave now? And that the prophet was aided with sakinah and  angels...and that you can't claim that it was abu bakr that was aided with sakinah and angels, and thus abu bakr's presence in of itself was aid to the prophet ie. how can allah aid the prophet through a companion when allah previously declares that companions are of no aid to him?

however, the opposite may be true, and that Abu bakr's presence was indeed aid to the prophet; because in the verse prior, Allah is speaking about the failure of the hypocrites to go out with the Prophet: 9:38: [Believers! What is amiss with you that when it is said to you: "March forth in the cause of Allah," you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the worldly life to the Hereafter? Know well that all the enjoyment of this world, in comparison with the Hereafter, is trivial.] However, Abu Bakr did go out with him, he was with him in the cave as verse 9:40 testifies. On top of that, in sunni hadiths, it was the prophet who ordered and thus chose for Abu Bakr to accompany him and Abu Bakr simply obeyed:

 

قالت فقال أبو بكر: الصحبة يا رسول الله؟ قال: «الصحبة» قالت فو الله ما شعرت قط قبل ذلك اليوم أن أحدا يبكي من الفرح حتى رأيت أبا بكر يومئذ يبكي

thus he's not condemned in this verse?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
50 minutes ago, zahralzu said:

What do you think about Abu Bakr's presence in the cave? Is his sole presence an aide to or a burden on the prophet? 

Neither an aide nor a burden.

Not an aide because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the only aide of a Prophet. Example is that Prophet Yusuf asked for help from one of his companion in the prison but it didn't work. According to Shias, his :

And he said to him whom he knew would be delivered of the two: Remember me with your lord; but the Shaitan caused him to forget mentioning (it) to his lord, so he remained in the prison a few years.
So, he was just a companion as Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) never called the 'second companion' as aide.

1 hour ago, zahralzu said:

I'd think it'll be a burden considering Allah is condemning the companions who don't aide him in medina, claiming that if they don't aid him then allah will aide him alone without the aide of the companions, and then we're reminded by Allah of the incident of the cave that occurred 5+ years ago and we're left to believe that no one (not even abu bakr) aided the prophet in the cave, otherwise, what's the relevance of mentioning the cave now?

Let us bring the entire verse now:

Quote

 

38) O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little.

(39) If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.

(40) If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

 

 

1 hour ago, zahralzu said:

I'd think it'll be a burden considering Allah is condemning the companions who don't aide him in medina, claiming that if they don't aid him then allah will aide him alone without the aide of the companions, and then we're reminded by Allah of the incident of the cave that occurred 5+ years ago and we're left to believe that no one (not even abu bakr) aided the prophet in the cave, otherwise, what's the relevance of mentioning the cave now?

Here, the significance of that incident is clear. The answer is in your question and also the verses. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) first condemns companions for stepping behind and not helping by saying O you who believe (Firstly, calling them a believer then and condemning them proves that this title doesn't place someone anywhere) and then condemnation. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) then says in verse 40 that he (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is enough for The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is the significance of the incident that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone is enough for his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) if no one assists. 

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) by saying 'alone' clearly keeps aside Abu Bakr. Therefore Abu Bakr was not a helper or aide but rather himself in need of help.

1 hour ago, zahralzu said:

And that the prophet was aided with sakinah and  angels...and that you can't claim that it was abu bakr that was aided with sakinah and angels, and thus abu bakr's presence in of itself was aid to the prophet ie. how can allah aid the prophet through a companion when allah previously declares that companions are of no aid to him?

We already cleared this doubt before that Sakinah was sent on The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) only becuase it was grammatically impossible to send in the companion. If that would have been the case the verse would say:

"Allah sent down his tranquility on 'his companion'' and not him.

1 hour ago, zahralzu said:

However, Abu Bakr did go out with him, he was with him in the cave as verse 9:40 testifies.

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?

1 hour ago, zahralzu said:

thus he's not condemned in this verse?

No. He is not condemned. I am not saying he is condemned. But in the previous verses (verse 38-39), the companions are condemned in general. So, we can include him because verse 40 doesn't talk about his aide but Allah's (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) aide. Also, this is a Madani Chapter so the verse 38 talks about Medina and in verse 40 goes back to cave incident, so the events and situations are different. 

Wassalam

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 12/24/2020 at 8:22 PM, Sabrejet said:

Arabic is not the only language in which 'we' can be used to refer to one's self; it's used in the Hindustani languages as well even today. In fact, Pakhtuns usually use the word "hum" (i.e. "we") when they are referring to themselves in the singular in Urdu. It's nothing strange. It's usually only used by very respectable people with a very high standing in the eyes of the people though.

edit: look at Mughal e Azam; Akbar uses the word "we" when referring to himself throughout the movie. You'll find it's use in other contemporary movies as well.

 

You'll find plenty of ahadith where the Imams of Ahlul Bayt are using "we" when referring to themselves in the singular. It's nothing strange.

Yes, but this requires being knowledgeable on the language. You'd have to prove that this is meant in the majestic plural. It won't make sense to state that the Messenger is referring to himself when he said انا الله معنا. This is especially the case whenever you read the full message to Abu Bakr from Allah himself:

اذ يقول لصحبه لا تحزن ان الله مهنا

Further back, ثاني اثنين is mentioned. This means that the two are included in whatever follows. This wasn't the Messenger referring to himself because of how the whole verse is set up. It's linguistically impossible.

You're not wrong, however. نحن is used a lot in Semetic languages and East African languages sometimes. However, it is very rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/6/2021 at 5:56 PM, Zainuu said:

If we even check the verse. You can see that initially, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mentiona the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by saying that :

'he said to his companion...'

So, Allah is referring by mentioning 'he' to the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Then, comes the next line:

Then Allah sent down on him His tranquillity 

We can clearly see that it is a continuation from the previous line. And so, 'him' here is the one who is 'he' in the previous line.

About 'His': it is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the provider of everything.

No mention of Abu Bakr.

This doesn't make sense linguistically and logically by extension. If you don't know Arabic, especially the Qur'anic Arabic, don't give your interpretations based on Urdu/Farsi translations. It will not help you.

The subject of this is صحبه "his companion". Who was in distraught? His companion. The Messenger knew Allah wasn't going to abandon him. It was Abu Bakr who was worried. This is derived from our narrations as well, but I know you won't accept them so we will stick with the linguistics for now to make it make sense.

فأنزل الله سكينته عليه... (حتى النهاية) ٤٠

The word ف in Arabic is used as an immediate resumption particle of a sequence to follow. It wouldn't make sense for this to be about the Messenger because he wasn't afraid. The tranquility was sent down upon Abu Bakr... from the mere fact that the language points to it. It's not rocket science. If you took a week of Arabic class, you would know that this is the case and cannot be any other way. It's not about making Abu Bakr look good. It's the fact that it cannot mean anything else linguistically. Take away the Shi'a and Sunni aspect of it and look at it through what it is objectively in the language - it points to whoever the companion the Messenger referred to. 

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

The word ف in Arabic is used as an immediate resumption particle of a sequence to follow. It wouldn't make sense for this to be about the Messenger because he wasn't afraid. The tranquility was sent down upon Abu Bakr... from the mere fact that the language points to it. It's not rocket science. If you took a week of Arabic class, you would know that this is the case and cannot be any other way. It's not about making Abu Bakr look good. It's the fact that it cannot mean anything else linguistically. Take away the Shi'a and Sunni aspect of it and look at it through what it is objectively in the language - it points to whoever the companion the Messenger referred to. 

The debate is not sbout being good or bad.

But the serenity was sent on The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) alone because of how the verse goes. Allah is stating that he is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he gave an example of cave where he (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) sent tranquility on his messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Though, about what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stated, "Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is with us." is still debatable and you hold a strong argument. 

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

The debate is not sbout being good or bad.

But the serenity was sent on The Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) alone because of how the verse goes. Allah is stating that he is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he gave an example of cave where he (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) sent tranquility on his messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Though, about what the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stated, "Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is with us." is still debatable and you hold a strong argument. 

The Messenger already had this serenity. In our narrations, he told Abu Bakr to be quiet due to him being worried/anxious. Why would the Messenger say that Allah is with them and then have tranquility sent upon him? That's a redundant thing to do. Allah mentions that the Messenger reassured Abu Bakr and THEN sent tranquility on him? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

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

The Messenger already had this serenity. In our narrations, he told Abu Bakr to be quiet due to him being worried/anxious. Why would the Messenger say that Allah is with them and then have tranquility sent upon him? That's a redundant thing to do. Allah mentions that the Messenger reassured Abu Bakr and THEN sent tranquility on him? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I would get back to you on this. I can't because I am a non-arabic speaker.

But I definitely cannot accept your argument that tranquility was sent on the companion because this verse is an example of how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) if none of the companions assist him

So, argument would contradict the significance of the entire story. This is also what I have read through the tafsir.

I won't make a point to support my part now unless I bring a proof(because it is not right to interpret Quran to match a view) but only that makes sense for me rn.

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

I would get back to you on this. I can't because I am a non-arabic speaker.

It'll take you no more than a week to understand the 3 basics of الاسم النكرة ,الاسم المعرفة, and حرف. This is all you need to know for this verse. You'll slowly find out that the verse cannot be any other way.

26 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

But I definitely cannot accept your argument that tranquility was sent on the companion because this verse is an example of how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) if none of the companions assist him

Even in the English translation, it doesn't make sense for Allah to put tranquility upon the Messenger's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) AFTER the Messenger stated that Allah is with the two of the cave. It should be the other way around.

28 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

So, argument would contradict the significance of the entire story. This is also what I have read through the tafsir.

Not at all. The Messenger knew where to go and was inspired by Allah the entire time. He wasn't afraid because he already knew what Allah had in store - hence why he reassured Abu Bakr that Allah was with them. Your argument would be plausible if the sentence after came before the sentence before it. There are no contradictions here.

30 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

I won't make a point to support my part now unless I bring a proof(because it is not right to interpret Quran to match a view) but only that makes sense for me rn.

May I ask how it makes sense for Allah to inspire the Messenger to say "Do not worry, for Allah is with us!" and THEN bequeath him with tranquility? Logic and language dictates it should be the other way around. No interpretation is needed for this verse if you know the language. Take my advice and learn the three things I mentioned above (indefinite, definite, conjunction) for the Arabic language. You'll see for yourself without the use of interpretation. It may take you a week or less, but I'm giving you that much time in case you have things to do. 

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

Even in the English translation, it doesn't make sense for Allah to put tranquility upon the Messenger's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) AFTER the Messenger stated that Allah is with the two of the cave. It should be the other way around.

Regardless of who of the two receives sakinah, in either case the sakinah is still given AFTER the prophet states that god is with us, so why should it make sense for allah to give sakinah to abu bakr after saying allah is with abu bakr (god is with us) but wouldn't make sense to send sakinah to the prophet?

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

Regardless of who of the two receives sakinah, in either case the sakinah is still given AFTER the prophet states that god is with us, so why should it make sense for allah to give sakinah to abu bakr after saying allah is with abu bakr (god is with us) but wouldn't make sense to send sakinah to the prophet?

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.

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

The Messenger knew where to go and was inspired by Allah the entire time. He wasn't afraid because he already knew what Allah had in store - hence why he reassured Abu Bakr that Allah was with them. Your argument would be plausible if the sentence after came before the sentence before it. There are no contradictions here.

The story was narrated in the first place as an example of how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). And therefore, Serenity was sent down on him alone. 

See it like: Allah says to the companions: why don't you go with the prophet? If you don't help him Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for him.

Then Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gives an example: Like in the cave when he was with his companion and he said to him: "Allah is with us". So, we sent down tranquility on him. 

The entire verse is for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). His companion was just a second man with him. 

In any scenario, your interpretation will not make sense in line with it's preceding verses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 12/24/2020 at 7:53 PM, Zainuu said:

"And when you talk about the added quality of being 'SAHIB', the companion, this indeed is a weaker point than the first two, because a believer and a disbeliever can both be in the company of each other. Allah, Most High, used the word 'SAHIB' in the following Ayah: 'His "Sahib" (companion) said to him while he was conversing with him: Have you disbelieved in the One Who created you from soil and then from a small quantity of sperm, then fashioned you harmoniously as a man?' (al-Kahf, 18:37).

I'm just now reading this and this is problematic. This man a few verses down, in verse 42, acknowledges Allah. He associated partners with Allah, but he wasn't a disbeliever and this is clear from this verse.

On 12/25/2020 at 7:05 AM, Zainuu said:

Word is appropriate but not the time. Being a 'companion of the Holy Prophet (SAW)' and crying with fear is not appropriate at all. All the examples you quoted above this, relate to sorrow.

I don't see anywhere in our works that Abu Bakr cried with fear. It simply states he was anxious or worried. 

On 12/24/2020 at 7:53 PM, Zainuu said:

"And the words 'Don't grieve' were not meant for any solace;. Because it was a statement forbidding an act. In Arabic, we have 'donts' and 'dos' as imperative verbs. Now, the grief expressed by Abu Bakr was either an act of obedience or disobedience. If it was obedience, the Prophet would not have forbidden it, therefore it is proved that it was an act of sin and disobedience."

We don't have "dos" and "donts" as imperative verbs in Arabic, which is correct. What does that have to do with the argument? The Messenger was telling him not to worry or grieve, and Allah bestowed upon Abu Bakr tranquility. This is disregarded him, but I'll continue nonetheless.

He's presupposing that the words "don't grieve" wasn't meant as a consolation because it was a forbidding act? So if I tell someone not to worry in Arabic, that means it is a prohibition/forbidding act? This is superimposing due to a narrative. If he acknowledges this was for Abu Bakr, his entire argument collapses when the entire verse is put into play.

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

The story was narrated in the first place as an example of how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). And therefore, Serenity was sent down on him alone. 

You're presupposing this because of the interpretation you hold. This does not make sense from the verse. You cannot make this make sense from the verse linguistically. 

5 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

See it like: Allah says to the companions: why don't you go with the prophet? If you don't help him Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is alone enough for him.

Then Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gives an example: Like in the cave when he was with his companion and he said to him: "Allah is with us". So, we sent down tranquility on him. 

The entire verse is for the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). His companion was just a second man with him. 

Again, stop making this assertion and being so sure of yourself if you don't know what you're talking about with regards to Arabic of the Qur'an. The fa is used to show connection between a sequence of events that immediately precede it. It cannot mean anything other that the precedent. You're trying to tell me it means otherwise because of how you interpret it rather than how it is. The language does not lie.

7 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

In any scenario, your interpretation will not make sense in line with it's preceding verses. 

I don't know why you said this. You're trying to put all of the verses together, but this won't help you. If anything, it'll aid me. A few verses back, it states that Allah will replace those who do not strive in the cause of Allah with another people. It shows Abu Bakr was with the Messenger in the cave, showing he did not abandon him. This shows that Allah was truly with the both of them, as the verse itself alludes to.

My interpretation is contextualized with the language. Yours is with translation and interpretation. My interpretation makes perfect sense. Not because I'm perfect or a genius, but because I understand what is said in the language. I'm not going to come to you and teach you that x, y, and z means in [Urdu/Farsi/Pashto] and say your interpretation doesn't make sense based off of my English interpretation. I'd look absolutely foolish and ridiculous. You know your language better than me and know how your language works. In this scenario, it is me who knows the language better than you.

There's no need to believe me, however. Take a week or a few days out of your time and learn those three simple things entirely. You will see how much of a difference it can make.

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

I'm just now reading this and this is problematic. This man a few verses down, in verse 42, acknowledges Allah. He associated partners with Allah, but he wasn't a disbeliever and this is clear from this vers

In 42 not in 37

 

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

don't know why you said this. You're trying to put all of the verses together, but this won't help you. If anything, it'll aid me. A few verses back, it states that Allah will replace those who do not strive in the cause of Allah with another people. It shows Abu Bakr was with the Messenger in the cave, showing he did not abandon him. This shows that Allah was truly with the both of them, as the verse itself alludes to.

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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Yes. I said that. In verse 42.

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.

 

Edited by Zainuu
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...