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

I don’t get the emphasis on hatred

Rate this topic


Billy Saltzman

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators
17 hours ago, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته,

أحسن الله إليك أخي,

The quote I am referencing is in Kitab at-Tahara Volume 3 Page 336 http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/496_كتاب-الطهارة-السيد-الخميني-ج-٣/الصفحة_336.

The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc.  Then he goes on to discuss the Nussaab (that's strange, I never heard them refered to this way, my understanding is that the plural of Nasibi is Nawasib or Nasiboon, maybe someone can check that out) and the Khawarij and whether they are considered impure or not.  Then he goes on to say something very interesting (never noticed it before) about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair.  Lets check out the quote.

Ayatollah al-Khomeini says:

The following is my translation, please correct what you find problematic:

إن شاء الله, that is a sufficient translation.  I know its the not the best, but I think its get the job done, and we can get away from whether or not I was relying on copying and pasting or not, أحسن الله إليك.  These leaves us with quite a few questions:

 

1) First, yes, you misunderstood the quote, mistranslated it, and took it out of context. He is speaking metaphorically here. He is saying 'IF' their sole motivation for the rebellion was enmity and hatred because of tribalism, etc, and their motivation wasn't religious, then they are more filthy than dogs and pigs. 

Here is the problem with your assertion that Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه) is saying they are more filthy than dogs and pigs. Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه), nor anyone else except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) know truly what their motivations were for what they did. We look at their actions. We can see the 'Thahr' (apparent) only and not the Batin (hidden). So although you may have translated (most) of the words correctly, or you used google translate, you got that part. You missed the meaning. This usually happens when you take part of a work out of context in order to prove some point you are trying to make, and not to really try to understand the meaning of the text. 

Im not sure why you find this point controversial. I think the vast majority of Muslims agree if someone rebels against the real Imam of their Time, not the Sultan who took power by deceptive means, and their motivation is not religious, but only out of personal hatred and enmity toward him, then this person is worse and more najis than a dog or a pig. Now to really say definitively whether this person had those motivations, you would have to know their inner thoughts, i.e. the Batin, which only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows. 

2) As for Saqifa, it was not Ijma. Who was present in the Saqifa of Banu Sa3ida ? It was Umar, Abu Bakr, and a few other Muhajerin and Ansar. Maybe 10 or 12 people (I don't think the exact number is recorded, but it was less than 50). There were thousands of Muslims in Medina. Noone from Banu Hashim (the tribe of Rasoulallah) was present. The Saqifa was where the decision was made. There was no general election. Then this decision was forced upon the rest of the Muslims. You call that Ijma ? The decision was made before even the burial for Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) was finished. 

Umar and Abu Bakr didn't go against the Ijma of the people, because there wasn't any. They enforced the decision of these few on the rest of the people. Please study the events. 

As for the rest of your points, they are the same tired talking point I have heard so many times. You are treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia. This is sort of a cartoonish version of Shiism which is accepted, unfortunately, without thinking, by the majority of our brothers and sisters. Not all of them. Some actually look into these issues and don't just accept the talking point advocated by some governments in the Muslim world. As an example of this, if you really want to know, a large percentage of the Shia believe that the latter portion of Ziyarat Ashura (the 100 laanats you are talking about) was added later and is not part of the original Ziyarat and most don't even do this part. I don't do it. Noone I know does it. Ziyarrat is not like Quran. There are many Ziyarat, some are good, some are not. Some are popular, some are not. Anyone can make a Ziyarat and publish it. If you go into 5 different Shia Masjids, you will probably hear 5 different Ziyarat. 

Yes, Ziyarat Ashura is a very popular one, but the first part of it. Yes, this includes La'nat on Banu Umayya. When I am talking about the prohibition of La'nat, I am talking about the 4, this does not include Banu Umaya. Banu Umaya, and particularly Muawiya(la) and Yazid(la) were directly responsible for the tragedy of Karbala. The Shia will never stop sending La3nat on those two cursed ones. At the same time, I have better things to do with my time than curse them for 40 days strait, etc. What Shia actually do has very little to do with cursing. The vast majority of our time is spent doing the same things our brothers and sisters do, work, go to school, socialize with friends and family, make Salat, Fasting, read Quran, make dua, thikr, go to Hajj, Umrah, etc. You would find our lives are probably 99.9% similar. 

 

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

1) First,

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Jumu'ah Mubarakah!  إن شاء الله you and your family are doing well.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

1) First, yes, you misunderstood the quote, mistranslated it, and took it out of context.

No problem أخي:

1) Please highlight the parts you think I mistranslated.

2) As far as taking it out of context, I thought that I stated the context: "The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc."  I even kept the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes to show I didn't change anything, lol.  If you can show how I took it out of context, I would really appreciate it, بارك الله فيك.

3) As far as misunderstanding it, well I guess we'll see what you have to say here:

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

He is speaking metaphorically here.

I'm not sure what I misunderstood then, do you think that when I read the phrase "وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير" that I thought that he literally thought they were dirtier and smelt worst than dogs and pigs?  Obviously, he is speaking "metaphorically" here, he is saying that the hukm shar'ee for them is that they are not najis even though they are filthier than dogs and pigs.

And I mean this with all sincerity, do you really think that any concerned Muslim who brings this phrase to you will feel relieved when you tell them that Ayatollah Khomeini is calling Umm Al-Mu'mineen Ayesha, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife, filthier than dogs and pigs "metaphorically?"  Do you think any one will, who feels that 12erism is based on hate, is going to suddenly feel comforted by the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, in a book on Fiqh (!), is discussing a) whether Ayesha is Najisa, and b) coming to the conclusion that she isn't, even though she is filthier than a dog or a pig "metaphorically"?  بارك الله فيك, I really think you really need to rethink this answer.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Here is the problem with your assertion that Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه) is saying they are more filthy than dogs and pigs. Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه), nor anyone else except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) know truly what their motivations were for what they did. We look at their actions. We can see the 'Thahr' (apparent) only and not the Batin (hidden). So although you may have translated (most) of the words correctly, or you used google translate, you got that part. You missed the meaning. This usually happens when you take part of a work out of context in order to prove some point you are trying to make, and not to really try to understand the meaning of the text. 

Well, إن شاء الله, I presented my case.  Ayatollah Khomeini did say وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about them, and he did discuss whether they were Najis in a fiqhi sense or not.  I believe that, not only is this an example of the clergy's emphasis on hatred, but your explanation also shows the laymen's emphasis on hatred in 12erism as well.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Im not sure why you find this point controversial. I think the vast majority of Muslims agree if someone rebels against the real Imam of their Time, not the Sultan who took power by deceptive means, and their motivation is not religious, but only out of personal hatred and enmity toward him, then this person is worse and more najis than a dog or a pig. Now to really say definitively whether this person had those motivations, you would have to know their inner thoughts, i.e. the Batin, which only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows.

Well, I certainly don't think that's the case at all.  However, even if it was, how do you think the vast majority of Muslims would feel if they read this quote?  Second of all, the vast majority of Muslims also don't believe that those people revolted, they believe they were out to get the killers of Uthman.

So, if you don't think that the discussion that Ayatollah Khomeini was having wouldn't be controversial to a majority of Muslims, if not Kufr (I'm not saying it is by the way, I'm just appealing to the "vast majority of Muslims" like you did), then I think you are living in denial.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

2) As for Saqifa, it was not Ijma. Who was present in the Saqifa of Banu Sa3ida ? It was Umar, Abu Bakr, and a few other Muhajerin and Ansar. Maybe 10 or 12 people (I don't think the exact number is recorded, but it was less than 50). There were thousands of Muslims in Medina. Noone from Banu Hashim (the tribe of Rasoulallah) was present. The Saqifa was where the decision was made. There was no general election. Then this decision was forced upon the rest of the Muslims. You call that Ijma ? The decision was made before even the burial for Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) was finished. 

Umar and Abu Bakr didn't go against the Ijma of the people, because there wasn't any. They enforced the decision of these few on the rest of the people. Please study the events. 

I think that next time, بارك الله فيك, it would be better to quote what I say and respond to it, because this is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote, غفر الله لك.  Lets break this down what I actually wrote:

I never claimed Saqifa was Ijmaa, please read what I wrote carefuly, أحسن الله إليك.  I said, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?"  This in response to when you said, "At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام))."  I then said, "I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal.  The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام.  Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons."

As you can see أخي, you grossly misunderstood what I wrote.  I was pointing out to you that in the first case, Abu Bakr and Omar didn't go against an Ijmaa, something you agree with as I bolded in the quote, and in the second case, Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair did not revolt against Imam Ali عليه السلام.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed in your response now, because I feel like you didn't actually read anything I said, and instead, had a knee-jerk reaction, بارك الله فيك.

But my point still stand, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?  What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim.  There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم."  I would love if you can respond to this, نفع الله بك.

5 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As for the rest of your points, they are the same tired talking point I have heard so many times. You are treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia. This is sort of a cartoonish version of Shiism which is accepted, unfortunately, without thinking, by the majority of our brothers and sisters. Not all of them. Some actually look into these issues and don't just accept the talking point advocated by some governments in the Muslim world.

Again, another disappointing response, هداك الله.  How did you reach the conclusion that I am "re treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia" when I literally said, "First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings.  I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in  your madhhab.  So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com?  I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in.  As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni."  They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup.  They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them.  If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك."

Please reread and actually respond to what I said, غفر الله لك.  I said that YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings (please note that I respected your wishes to not use his name, which I obviously indicates that I don't believe you support him) while the group that you alluded to (lets not use their name either, جزاك الله خيرا) doesn't represent any Sunni school or authority.  However, YH DOES represent a strand within 12erism.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As an example of this, if you really want to know, a large percentage of the Shia believe that the latter portion of Ziyarat Ashura (the 100 laanats you are talking about) was added later and is not part of the original Ziyarat

Obviously the brothers at al-islam.org don't agree, but I would love a list of Ayatollahs who don't view it as inauthentic.  I know Ayatollah Fadlalulah رحمه الله felt that way, and I'm guessing moderate Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamini, and Ayatollah Sistani all disagree with it, but I would need an actual fatwa from them on this.  For example, I checked Ayatollah Sistani's website and I found a list of questions and answers about Ziyarat Ashura, but I didn't seem to find him raising doubt about any of it, just generally praising it and giving ahkaam shar'eeyyah regarding it.  Please let me know if I missed anything

http://www.alhakeem.com/en/questions/713

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

and most don't even do this part. I don't do it. Noone I know does it.

This is the second time you claimed the majority for something that I think you are way off.  Just look at the posts on Shiachat regarding this very topic!  I will say, there are some brothers that have raised some doubts about the the parts that I raised, but to claim a majority don't recite that part is something that I don't believe.  I suppose we could try doing a post and seeing how the members of Shiachat would feel about this, at least.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Ziyarrat is not like Quran. There are many Ziyarat, some are good, some are not. Some are popular, some are not. Anyone can make a Ziyarat and publish it. If you go into 5 different Shia Masjids, you will probably hear 5 different Ziyarat.

I agree with you, akhi, obviously I don't think that these Ziyarat have sources back to the Imams, so naturally they will differ greatly between them.  However, to see you just brush off Ziyarat Ashura and its importance in the 12er world is just strange to me.

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Yes, Ziyarat Ashura is a very popular one, but the first part of it. Yes, this includes La'nat on Banu Umayya.

And ALL of their descendants, بارك الله فيك!

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

When I am talking about the prohibition of La'nat, I am talking about the 4, this does not include Banu Umaya. Banu Umaya, and particularly Muawiya(la) and Yazid(la) were directly responsible for the tragedy of Karbala. The Shia will never stop sending La3nat on those two cursed ones. At the same time, I have better things to do with my time than curse them for 40 days strait, etc. What Shia actually do has very little to do with cursing. The vast majority of our time is spent doing the same things our brothers and sisters do, work, go to school, socialize with friends and family, make Salat, Fasting, read Quran, make dua, thikr, go to Hajj, Umrah, etc. You would find our lives are probably 99.9% similar.

Well, the version that is quote on al-islam.org goes like this:

Quote

O’ Allah! Particularly curse the first tyrant, a curse from me, and begin the first curse with him and then send the curse on the second and the third and then the forth (tyrant). O’ Allah curse Yazid, the fifth (tyrant) and curse ‘Ubaydullah b. Ziyad and Ibne Marjanah and ‘‘Umar b. Sa’d and Shimr and the family of Sufyan and the family of Ziyad and the family of Marwan until the day of Judgement.

At this point the post has gotten WAY TOO LONG and I'm afraid no one will read it!  So I will leave it here, probably full of spelling errors and grammar mistakes and move on with my life!

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Cyrax said:

I'm not sure what I misunderstood then, do you think that when I read the phrase "وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير" that I thought that he literally thought they were dirtier and smelt worst than dogs and pigs?  Obviously, he is speaking "metaphorically" here, he is saying that the hukm shar'ee for them is that they are not najis even though they are filthier than dogs and pigs.

And I mean this with all sincerity, do you really think that any concerned Muslim who brings this phrase to you will feel relieved when you tell them that Ayatollah Khomeini is calling Umm Al-Mu'mineen Ayesha, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife, filthier than dogs and pigs "metaphorically?"  Do you think any one will, who feels that 12erism is based on hate, is going to suddenly feel comforted by the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, in a book on Fiqh (!), is discussing a) whether Ayesha is Najisa, and b) coming to the conclusion that she isn't, even though she is filthier than a dog or a pig "metaphorically"?  بارك الله فيك, I really think you really need to rethink this answer.

Salam It's not first time people likewise you who have been affected by Wahabi & Nasibi propaganda ,have accused Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) then coseuently Shias through this losing battle procedure of mistranslation & wrong half baked conclusion by repeating such nonsense likewise a broken record for justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) especially Ayesha & Abubakr & Umar which everyone knows that you won't accept truth in such debates which in multiple threads people likewise you have started such time wasting debates which at the end they have repeated your mentality without accepting truth even after bringing multiple valid refute against their falshood however your nonsense  have been refuted many times which you can see some examples here which everyone   knows that lady Fatim (sa) never has made allegiance  with Abubakr   & until she has martyred , she has been angry from both of Abubakr  & Umar also enmity of Ayesha with Amir al Muminin  Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) & uprising of Ayesha & Talha & Zubair then cursed Muawiah against  him  has been crystaly clear unrefutable so there your argument  is completly refuted .

13 hours ago, Cyrax said:

"First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings.  I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in  your madhhab.  So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com?  I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك,

In contrast to your baseless  claim about YH , there is no reliable  evidence is available  about his study in presence  of any grand Ayatollah  before his migration to Britain which only reliable history about him which is available about him is that he suddenly  from thin air appeared in a local mosque in Kuwait which he has started cursing sunni revered figures which caused jailing him by government  of Kuwait  then he released from prison by direct intervention  of British embassy  in Kuwait then by support of Shirazi grouplet he moved to Qom then London by help of office of Shirazi grouplet  which after entering to Britain & marrying with daughter of Ayatollah  Shirazi then he has  resumed his insults toward both of sunni revered figures & all grand Ayatollahs which until now his sudy in any Shia Hawza whether in Iraq or Iran or even in Kuwait  has not been verified by any Hawza ,neither by  any  grand Ayatollah  in these countries nor by any member Shirazi  grouplet in Britain .

 

Quote
  On 9/29/2021 at 3:17 PM, Muhammad Al-Hurr said:

وإن in that case means "even if" or "although" not "if". It doesn't make sense if it means "if" considering the previous and following words.

 

  Quote

Translation of this phrase according to the narrations of the opponents: Whoever goes out against the Commander of the Faithful, for any reason, likewise Aisha, Talha, Zubair and Mu'awiyah are not Najis {even} if they are more malice  than dog and pig , alhough  they are not Najis.

Answer: Fairness has not been observed in translating this phrase of the Imam (note that each paragraph that has a separate meaning has been separated by a paragraph. In fact, the continuity of the Arabic text in the words of the Imam has caused the opponents to make the mistake that the Imam Has compared Aisha to a dog)

The principle of the translation is this: And as for the rest of the Nasibi groups, but the Kharijites, although their punishment is more severe than the infidels, but there is no reason for their impurity.

Therefore, if a Sultan rebelled against the Amir al-mu'minin, not as a religious cause, but because of opposition on the property, or for other purposes, such as Aisha, Zubair, Talha, Mu'awiyah, and the like (the discussion of Aisha, etc. was over), these are also proofs. They are not impure

(Starting a separate topic) or a person to Amir al-Mu'minin or one of the Imams not as  religious cause but because of the enmity of the Quraysh or Bani Hashim or the Arabs or because he is the killer of his son or father and ... has an enmity, apparently none of These will not cause apparent impurity, although Nasibis  are also more malie than dogs and pigs.

Therefore, according to this phrase, "either a person with them or one of the Imams, not as  religious cause , but because of the enmity of the Quraysh or the Bani Hashim ... although the Nawasib are even more evil than dogs and pigs", it turns out that the Imam likens the Nawasib To the dog, not Aisha

Expand  

https://www.adyannet.com/fa/news/12448

  Quote

ان ,It is a conditional word. If it enters the past tense, it does not mean the past tense, but the past participle. Here, too, it becomes  before the past tense. It is not possible to say: Although Aisha and Talha were more evil than dogs and pigs!
..but in translation  :even  if they be more malice than dog and pig , nevertheless  there is  not reason about their impurity . 
On the other hand, if a لام  came on Akhbath, they were right. Because if Laam came on Akhbath, the translation would be: They are definitely worse than dogs and pigs. But because لام  
 didn't come on Akhbath ,The translation is as follows: (Even) if these are worse than dogs and pigs, they are not impure again.

Expand  

https://article.tebyan.net/396663/شبهه-امام-خمینی-و-توهین-به-عایشه

https://www.aparat.com/v/R28xr/نظر_امام_خمینی_در_رابطه_با_عایشه_(_پاسخ_به

 

 

Quote

In Arabic, it is stated that the right of the condition is to precede its own answer, but here, the answer of the condition is given priority, and in any case, the sentence is the conditional sentence.

https://article.tebyan.net/396663/شبهه-امام-خمینی-و-توهین-به-عایشه

https://odad.org/article/intellect-in-inferring-religious-rulings-with-emphasis-on-the-views-of-imam-khomeini-and-ayatollah-khoie-examination-and-analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Superiority of Fatima to Aisha in Aloosi's view

Quote

Al-Aloosi one of the greatest Sunni scholars proves superiority of Lady Fatima to Aisha:
He writes in his book Rooh al-Maani in vol 2 page 150:
Some believe that Aisha is greater than Fatima. They based their claim on these reasons:
1. Prophet said: take two third of your religion from Aisha.
2. Aisha is with her husband, prophet in the paradise but Fatima is with her husband Ali then. And there is a big difference between prophet and Ali.
Here is Aloosi’s respond to this reasoning:
1. If the hadith is true, it only proves that she is knowledgeable and this doesn’t negate the same knowledge from Fatima. On the other hand had prophet known Fatima is alive long after him, he would have said about her: take your whole religion from her.
2. If this hadith is true, it entails that she is superior to her father, Abu bakr too because there is no such a hadith about him.
3. The Hadith of Thaghalayn indicates Fatima’s superiority and it is more reliable.
4. There are some hadiths that contradicts with Aisha’s superiority.
Ibn Jarir narrates from Ammar Ibn Saad that he said: Prophet said to me Khadija is superior to the women of my nation as Marry is superior to the women of the world.
5. If being the companion of the prophet in his home in the paradise is the reason for her superiority, so it entrails that the other wives of the prophet are superior even to the other prophets because they were his companions in his home in this world.
Then Aloosi says that in my idea Fatima is superior then Khadija and then Aisha. Surprisingly he asserts that if someone says that the other daughters of the prophet were superior to Aisha, I don’t find it wrong.
[Rooh al-Maani in vol 2 page 150]
Source : Shia chat

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Quote

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali has narrated in Ahya al-Uloom  Deen that a dispute arose between the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and Aisha; In such a way that they asked Abu Bakr to rule over them. When Abu Bakr came, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Aisha: "Are you starting or me?" "But say nothing but the truth," said Aisha. Upon hearing this bold word, Abu Bakr slapped his daughter so hard that blood flowed from her mouth. Then he said: "O your enemy! "Does the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) say untruth?" Seeing that the beating was serious, Aisha took refuge in the Messenger of God ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and sat behind him. The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Abu Bakr: "I did not call you for this and I did not ask you for such a thing; Rather, I wanted you to judge between us. "[63]

On the other hand, one day Aisha, while she was angry, said to the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)): "You are the one who thinks you are the Prophet of Allah!" The prophet smiled and endured with patience and magnanimity; The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said in another hadith:

"The Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: The best of you is the best of you with your family and I am the best of you with  family. "They should not honor women except honorable men, and they should not despise women except lowly men."." [64]

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_64609/مجموعه_آثار_همایش_بین_المللی_امام_خمینی_س_و_قلمرو_دین_1_«کرامت_انسان»_ـ_جلد_1/اصول_و_مبانی_کرامت_انسان_ـ_جلد_1/کرامت_انسان_کامل

https://hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3992/5193/47723/زن-در-سخن-و-سیره-رسول-خدا"ص"

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/key/عـایـشـه/page9&kind=10713

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Quote

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali has narrated in Ahya al-Uloom  Deen that a dispute arose between the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and Aisha; In such a way that they asked Abu Bakr to rule over them. When Abu Bakr came, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Aisha: "Are you starting or me?" "But say nothing but the truth," said Aisha. Upon hearing this bold word, Abu Bakr slapped his daughter so hard that blood flowed from her mouth. Then he said: "O your enemy! "Does the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) say untruth?" Seeing that the beating was serious, Aisha took refuge in the Messenger of God ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and sat behind him. The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Abu Bakr: "I did not call you for this and I did not ask you for such a thing; Rather, I wanted you to judge between us. "[63]

On the other hand, one day Aisha, while she was angry, said to the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)): "You are the one who thinks you are the Prophet of Allah!" The prophet smiled and endured with patience and magnanimity; The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said in another hadith:

"The Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: The best of you is the best of you with your family and I am the best of you with  family. "They should not honor women except honorable men, and they should not despise women except lowly men."." [64]

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_64609/مجموعه_آثار_همایش_بین_المللی_امام_خمینی_س_و_قلمرو_دین_1_«کرامت_انسان»_ـ_جلد_1/اصول_و_مبانی_کرامت_انسان_ـ_جلد_1/کرامت_انسان_کامل

https://hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3992/5193/47723/زن-در-سخن-و-سیره-رسول-خدا"ص"

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/key/عـایـشـه/page9&kind=10713

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

Quote

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali has narrated in Ahya al-Uloom  Deen that a dispute arose between the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and Aisha; In such a way that they asked Abu Bakr to rule over them. When Abu Bakr came, the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Aisha: "Are you starting or me?" "But say nothing but the truth," said Aisha. Upon hearing this bold word, Abu Bakr slapped his daughter so hard that blood flowed from her mouth. Then he said: "O your enemy! "Does the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) say untruth?" Seeing that the beating was serious, Aisha took refuge in the Messenger of God ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and sat behind him. The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said to Abu Bakr: "I did not call you for this and I did not ask you for such a thing; Rather, I wanted you to judge between us. "[63]

On the other hand, one day Aisha, while she was angry, said to the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)): "You are the one who thinks you are the Prophet of Allah!" The prophet smiled and endured with patience and magnanimity; The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said in another hadith:

"The Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: The best of you is the best of you with your family and I am the best of you with  family. "They should not honor women except honorable men, and they should not despise women except lowly men."." [64]

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_64609/مجموعه_آثار_همایش_بین_المللی_امام_خمینی_س_و_قلمرو_دین_1_«کرامت_انسان»_ـ_جلد_1/اصول_و_مبانی_کرامت_انسان_ـ_جلد_1/کرامت_انسان_کامل

Superiority of Fatima to Aisha in Aloosi's view

https://www.sibtayn.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7494:superiority-of-fatima-to-aisha-in-aloosi-s-view&catid=641&Itemid=270

https://hawzah.net/fa/Magazine/View/3992/5193/47723/زن-در-سخن-و-سیره-رسول-خدا"ص"

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/key/عـایـشـه/page9&kind=10713

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/19/2021 at 11:22 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam It's not first time people likewise you who have been affected by Wahabi & Nasibi propaganda ,have accused Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) then coseuently Shias through this losing battle procedure of mistranslation & wrong half baked conclusion by repeating such nonsense

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

I begin by saying; wow, what you wrote here was quite a mouthful (and I'm not sure I got it all).

As far me being "affected by Wahabi and Nasibi propaganda", then unfortunately, that is not where I first encountered this quote.  I encountered that quote here on Shiachat, but perhaps the person who initially quoted it was "affected by Wahabi and Nasibi propaganda?"  الله أعلم

As far as me accusing Ayatollah Khoeimini of saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then do you not agree that he said that?  And do you not agree that brother @Abu Nurtried to justify it and say that the "vast (!) majority of Muslims agree if someone rebels against the real Imam of their Time, not the Sultan who took power by deceptive means, and their motivation is not religious, but only out of personal hatred and enmity toward him, then this person is worse and more najis than a dog or a pig."  In fact, you even go on to justify yourself by saying:

On 11/19/2021 at 11:22 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

likewise a broken record for justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) especially Ayesha & Abubakr & Umar which everyone knows that you won't accept truth in such debates which in multiple threads people likewise you have started such time wasting debates which at the end they have repeated your mentality without accepting truth even after bringing multiple valid refute against their falshood however your nonsense  have been refuted many times which you can see some examples here which everyone   knows that lady Fatim (sa) never has made allegiance  with Abubakr   & until she has martyred , she has been angry from both of Abubakr  & Umar also enmity of Ayesha with Amir al Muminin  Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) & uprising of Ayesha & Talha & Zubair then cursed Muawiah against  him  has been crystaly clear unrefutable so there your argument  is completly refuted .

If anything read like a broken record, بارك الله فيك, its what you wrote there.  I'm guessing, that since I take issue with Ayatollah Khomeini saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then I am "justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام)."  Honestly, the gush of vitriol and rage you just responded to me with, more than proves the point of the OP, غفر الله لك.

On 11/19/2021 at 11:22 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

In contrast to your baseless  claim about YH , there is no reliable  evidence is available  about his study in presence  of any grand Ayatollah  before his migration to Britain which only reliable history about him which is available about him is that he suddenly  from thin air appeared in a local mosque in Kuwait which he has started cursing sunni revered figures which caused jailing him by government  of Kuwait  then he released from prison by direct intervention  of British embassy  in Kuwait then by support of Shirazi grouplet he moved to Qom then London by help of office of Shirazi grouplet  which after entering to Britain & marrying with daughter of Ayatollah  Shirazi then he has  resumed his insults toward both of sunni revered figures & all grand Ayatollahs which until now his sudy in any Shia Hawza whether in Iraq or Iran or even in Kuwait  has not been verified by any Hawza ,neither by  any  grand Ayatollah  in these countries nor by any member Shirazi  grouplet in Britain .

So, you went from "there is no reliable  evidence is available  about his study in presence  of any grand Ayatollah" and YH "suddenly  from thin air appeared in a local mosque in Kuwait" to him "marrying with daughter of Ayatollah  Shirazi."  I wonder, who do you suppose is the Grand Ayatollah he studied with and supports him?  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the end of your paragraph matches the rest.

As far as the rest of the copying and pasting that has nothing to do with this thread, are the mods ok with the brother hijacking the thread like that?   I am sincerely perplexed on why this is allowed, and what any of it has to with this thread?

إن شاء الله خير

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Cyrax said:

As far as me accusing Ayatollah Khoeimini of saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then do you not agree that he said that?  And do you not agree that brother @Abu Nurtried to justify it and say that the "vast (!) majority of Muslims agree if someone rebels against the real Imam of their Time, not the Sultan who took power by deceptive means, and their motivation is not religious, but only out of personal hatred and enmity toward him, then this person is worse and more najis than a dog or a pig."  In fact, you even go on to justify yourself by saying:

Salaam Aleikum

You must mean brother @Abu Hadi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Salaam Aleikum

You must mean brother @Abu Hadi

وعليكم السلام,

What on earth?  I just realized you guys were two different people! lol

بارك الله فيك حبيبي

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Cyrax said:

If anything read like a broken record, بارك الله فيك, its what you wrote there.  I'm guessing, that since I take issue with Ayatollah Khomeini saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then I am "justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام)."  Honestly, the gush of vitriol and rage you just responded to me with, more than proves the point of the OP, غفر الله لك.

Salam your answer is just a typical procedure of wahabists & Nasibis when they face with undeniable facts & answers to their accusation which likewise a drwning man you stick to any straw by repeating your nonsense ina losing battle because yo have understood that your logic has been defeated but arrogantly you are trying to postpone your defeat by repeating your nonsense likewise a broken record because you know that you can't justify enemies of Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) more than this so there you accuse anyone to spreading hatred nevertheless you are only person that blindfully due to your high affection with wahabi & Nasibi nonsense has spread hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Virtues of Imam Ali

Virtues of the commander of Faithful Imam Ali (peace be upon him)

 

Ali’s Virtues Before His Birth

Section One
God almighty said to Abraham ((عليه السلام)): As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation![23]

Beyond doubt, Imam `Ali ((عليه السلام)) is one of those princes, a virtue making him peerless.
 

Quote

Section Two
The orator of Khawarizm quoting `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud has reported that the Holy Prophet (s.a) said: O `Abdullah! An angel came to me carrying a message from God who said: O Muhammad! Ask the prophets coming before you what they commissioned for? I said: You say what they were commissioned for? He answered: The very essence of their mission is based on the Wilayah of you and `Ali ibn Abi-Talib.[24]

Section Three
The holy name of `Ali has been written on the divine throne.

18 hours ago, Cyrax said:

Ayatollah Khomeini saying وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair, then I am "justifying enemies of Imam Ali (عليه السلام)."

It's written on throne:

Whoever recognizes `Ali’s right, he is pure inwardly and whoever denies his right will be deprived from my mercy and will suffer. I swear by My glory that whoever obeys `Ali, I will give him a place in heaven even if he is sinful and by My glory, if anyone disobeys him, I will punish him with fire even if he has obeyed me.[25]

The Messenger of Allah prophet Muhammad (pbu):

`Ali is from me and I am from `Ali. His flesh is my flesh and his blood is my blood. Hence, whoever loves `Ali is because he loves me and whoever is hostile to him is my enemy. 

Woe is to your enemy and one who denies you. As for your friends and followers, they are your brothers in faith and they will abide in paradise with you. As for your enemies and those who have denied you, God Almighty should place them in the abode of liars.

At the battle of Jamal, Imam's army captive Abdullah, but Imam Ali forgave him and told him: Go I do not want to see you again. Also, Imam Ali caught Sayid ibn al-Aas after the Battle of al-Jamal and Sayid was his enemy, Imam Ali turned away from him and did not say anything to him. all people know what Aisha did, when Imam Ali granted victory against her at the battle of Jamal, he honored her and sent twenty women from Abd Qays with her and sent her to Medina. The women were dressing turbans and carrying swords. During the way, Aisha said bad things about Imam Ali and grumbled and said: Ali bin Abi Talib exposed me by his men and soldiers, who commanded them to be with me. When she reached Medina, the women throw their turbans and said to Aisha: we are women like you. 

 Then, the Messenger of Allah put his hand on `Ali’s shoulders and spoke of those three qualities by saying: O `Ali, you are the foremost to Islam and the foremost to faith. Your station to me is like that of Aaron to Moses ((عليه السلام)). Then he added: O `Ali! One who claims that he loves me but he is your enemy is telling a lie, for love for you is love for me and enmity with you is enmity with me.[41] 

Quote

Khawarizmi has reported `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud on the authority of the Holy Prophet (s.a) as saying: When God created the universe and Adam and blew in him His spirit, Adam sneezed and began to praise Allah immediately. God said: My servant! Now that you praised me, by My glory, were if not for the sake of two of my servants, I would never have created you. Adam said: O God! Are those two worthy servants from my issue? God said: Yes. Now raise your hand and behold what you see. Adam opened his eyes towards heaven and saw an inscription reading: There is no god but Allah and Muhammad (the prophet of mercy) is His Messenger and `Ali is Allah’s proof for the people. Whoever recognizes `Ali’s right, he is pure inwardly and whoever denies his right will be deprived from my mercy and will suffer. I swear by My glory that whoever obeys `Ali, I will give him a place in heaven even if he is sinful and by My glory, if anyone disobeys him, I will punish him with fire even if he has obeyed me.[25] 

Jabir ibn `Abdullah has reported the Holy Prophet (s.a) as having said: Two thousand years before the creation of heavens and the earth, there was an inscription on the gate of heaven reading: Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and `Ali ibn Abi-Talib is his brother.[26]

There is a Hadith in Manaqib in which the Holy Prophet has been quoted as saying: Gabriel came to me while he had spread his two wings. On one wing there was the inscription: There is no god but Allah, Muhammad in His messenger and on the other wing, there was the inscription: There is no god but Allah, `Ali is Muhammad’s successor.[27]

 

Quote


Salman has also reported the Holy Prophet (s.a) as having said: I and `Ali were a single light before God. Fourteen thousand years before the creation of Adam, when God created Adam, He placed this light in his loin. Then this light was divided into two, part of this light was placed in `Abdullah’s loin and the other part was placed in Abu-Talib’s loin. Therefore, `Ali is from me and I am from `Ali. His flesh is my flesh and his blood is my blood. Hence, whoever loves `Ali is because he loves me and whoever is hostile to him is my enemy. 

https://www.imamali.net/?id=2561

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


Abu’l-Mu’ayyad has reported that one day when `Umar was speaking to people, said: What will you do if we will persuade you from good to evil? He repeated this three times but received no answer. At that moment, `Ali rose up from among people, saying: In that case we will make you repent and restore justice. In other words, we will make you take back what you have said. Should you accept it, it will be better. `Umar said: And if I do not repent? `Ali said: We will then behead you with the sword of law. `Umar said: Thanks God, He has set a person among the Ummah who will rightfully guide us from deviations and will show us the right path.[77]

Quote

The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)&HF) said: "There is amongst you a person who will fight for the interpretation of the Quran just as I fought for its revelation." The people around him raised their heads and cast inquisitive glances at the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)&HF) and at one another. Abu Bakr and Umar were there. Abu Bakr inquired if he was that person and the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)&HF) replied in the negative. Then Umar inquired if he was that person and the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)&HF), replied "No. He is the one who is repairing my shoes (i.e., Ali)." 
Abu Said Khudri said: Then we went to Ali and conveyed the good news to him. He did not even raise his head and remained as busy as he was, as if he had already heard it from the Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)&HF)." 

Quote

`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib has been quoted as saying: I heard from `Umar ibn Khattab saying to those who blamed `Ali ibn Abi-Talib: Be silent and do not speak ill of `Ali, for I heard from the Messenger of Allah saying: There are three qualities in `Ali and I wish one of them was in me, while one of those qualities alone is more beloved to me that what the sun shines on. The Holy Prophet said this when I, Abu-Bakr, Abu-`Ubaydah Jarrah and a number of the companions were present. Then, the Messenger of Allah put his hand on `Ali’s shoulders and spoke of those three qualities by saying: O `Ali, you are the foremost to Islam and the foremost to faith. Your station to me is like that of Aaron to Moses ((عليه السلام)). Then he added: O `Ali! One who claims that he loves me but he is your enemy is telling a lie, for love for you is love for me and enmity with you is enmity with me.[41] 
When the Qur’anic verse “And warn your nearest relations” (26:214) was revealed, the Holy Prophet (s.a) gathered `Abd al-Muttalib’s sons numbering forty altogether in Abu-Talib’s house and had a meal of a leg of mutton, one Kilo of wheat and some milk prepared for them whereas the meal of each one of them at one meal was four-year camel and sixteen pounds of milk. This group of people ate from that little food and felt full. This was nothing but a miracle becoming manifest in that gathering. ................................................

 O `Ali, remain in your place. Verily, you are my heir, successor, brother and vizier. When the Holy Prophet (s.a) completed his words, those in the gathering rose up and addressing Abu-Talib mockingly said: Congratulation to you that if you accept the religion of your nephew, your son, `Ali, will be your leader and chief.[42] 

- Knowledge
It is unanimously believed that `Ali was the wisest among the people of his time. All people resorted to him learning from his rational and transmitted science. There are proofs testifying to what we have said:

First: `Ali ibn Abi-Talib was extremely clever and intelligent, having a hunger for knowledge. He was a constant company of the Holy Prophet, from childhood to the day the Messenger of Allah departed from this world, benefiting from the ocean of his knowledge.

https://www.imamali.net/?id=2561

 

https://www.imamali.net/?id=2561

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/19/2021 at 12:51 PM, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Jumu'ah Mubarakah!  إن شاء الله you and your family are doing well.

No problem أخي:

1) Please highlight the parts you think I mistranslated.

2) As far as taking it out of context, I thought that I stated the context: "The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc."  I even kept the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes to show I didn't change anything, lol.  If you can show how I took it out of context, I would really appreciate it, بارك الله فيك.

3) As far as misunderstanding it, well I guess we'll see what you have to say here:

I'm not sure what I misunderstood then, do you think that when I read the phrase "وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير" that I thought that he literally thought they were dirtier and smelt worst than dogs and pigs?  Obviously, he is speaking "metaphorically" here, he is saying that the hukm shar'ee for them is that they are not najis even though they are filthier than dogs and pigs.

And I mean this with all sincerity, do you really think that any concerned Muslim who brings this phrase to you will feel relieved when you tell them that Ayatollah Khomeini is calling Umm Al-Mu'mineen Ayesha, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife, filthier than dogs and pigs "metaphorically?"  Do you think any one will, who feels that 12erism is based on hate, is going to suddenly feel comforted by the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, in a book on Fiqh (!), is discussing a) whether Ayesha is Najisa, and b) coming to the conclusion that she isn't, even though she is filthier than a dog or a pig "metaphorically"?  بارك الله فيك, I really think you really need to rethink this answer.

Well, إن شاء الله, I presented my case.  Ayatollah Khomeini did say وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about them, and he did discuss whether they were Najis in a fiqhi sense or not.  I believe that, not only is this an example of the clergy's emphasis on hatred, but your explanation also shows the laymen's emphasis on hatred in 12erism as well.

Well, I certainly don't think that's the case at all.  However, even if it was, how do you think the vast majority of Muslims would feel if they read this quote?  Second of all, the vast majority of Muslims also don't believe that those people revolted, they believe they were out to get the killers of Uthman.

So, if you don't think that the discussion that Ayatollah Khomeini was having wouldn't be controversial to a majority of Muslims, if not Kufr (I'm not saying it is by the way, I'm just appealing to the "vast majority of Muslims" like you did), then I think you are living in denial.

I think that next time, بارك الله فيك, it would be better to quote what I say and respond to it, because this is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote, غفر الله لك.  Lets break this down what I actually wrote:

I never claimed Saqifa was Ijmaa, please read what I wrote carefuly, أحسن الله إليك.  I said, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?"  This in response to when you said, "At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام))."  I then said, "I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal.  The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام.  Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons."

As you can see أخي, you grossly misunderstood what I wrote.  I was pointing out to you that in the first case, Abu Bakr and Omar didn't go against an Ijmaa, something you agree with as I bolded in the quote, and in the second case, Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair did not revolt against Imam Ali عليه السلام.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed in your response now, because I feel like you didn't actually read anything I said, and instead, had a knee-jerk reaction, بارك الله فيك.

But my point still stand, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?  What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim.  There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم."  I would love if you can respond to this, نفع الله بك.

Again, another disappointing response, هداك الله.  How did you reach the conclusion that I am "re treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia" when I literally said, "First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings.  I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in  your madhhab.  So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com?  I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in.  As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni."  They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup.  They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them.  If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك."

Please reread and actually respond to what I said, غفر الله لك.  I said that YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings (please note that I respected your wishes to not use his name, which I obviously indicates that I don't believe you support him) while the group that you alluded to (lets not use their name either, جزاك الله خيرا) doesn't represent any Sunni school or authority.  However, YH DOES represent a strand within 12erism.

Obviously the brothers at al-islam.org don't agree, but I would love a list of Ayatollahs who don't view it as inauthentic.  I know Ayatollah Fadlalulah رحمه الله felt that way, and I'm guessing moderate Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamini, and Ayatollah Sistani all disagree with it, but I would need an actual fatwa from them on this.  For example, I checked Ayatollah Sistani's website and I found a list of questions and answers about Ziyarat Ashura, but I didn't seem to find him raising doubt about any of it, just generally praising it and giving ahkaam shar'eeyyah regarding it.  Please let me know if I missed anything

http://www.alhakeem.com/en/questions/713

This is the second time you claimed the majority for something that I think you are way off.  Just look at the posts on Shiachat regarding this very topic!  I will say, there are some brothers that have raised some doubts about the the parts that I raised, but to claim a majority don't recite that part is something that I don't believe.  I suppose we could try doing a post and seeing how the members of Shiachat would feel about this, at least.

I agree with you, akhi, obviously I don't think that these Ziyarat have sources back to the Imams, so naturally they will differ greatly between them.  However, to see you just brush off Ziyarat Ashura and its importance in the 12er world is just strange to me.

And ALL of their descendants, بارك الله فيك!

Well, the version that is quote on al-islam.org goes like this:

At this point the post has gotten WAY TOO LONG and I'm afraid no one will read it!  So I will leave it here, probably full of spelling errors and grammar mistakes and move on with my life!

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!

1) As others have said on this thread, YH isn't endorsed by any 'Grand Ayatollah', however you are defining this term. He has been openly denounced by many highly esteemed scholars and figures in the Shia world. Some brothers and sisters love to talk about him, as if he is the 'Grand Ayatollah' that represents all Shia scholars when in fact he is an extremely minor figure in the Shia world that people barely discuss, except in threads like this or to denounce him. 

2) When I am talking about Ziyarat Ashura, I am only talking about this last part (the lanat, lanant, lanantx100, etc). The first parts is authentic and accepted by almost all Shia and it is considered highly recommended to recite it reguarly. There are many scholars, such as Sayyid Fadlallah(رضي الله عنه), who believe this last part was added later and was not part of the original ziyarat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته...

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

your answer is just a typical procedure of wahabists & Nasibis

سبحان الله والحمد لله ولا إله إلا الله الله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

when they face with undeniable facts & answers to their accusation which likewise a drwning man you stick to any straw by repeating your nonsense ina losing battle because yo have understood that your logic has been defeated but arrogantly you are trying to postpone your defeat by repeating your nonsense likewise a broken record because you know that you can't justify enemies of Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) more than this so there you accuse anyone to spreading hatred

غفر الله لك أخي, this was a very "interesting" but disappointing reply.  I guess I'll just leave this reply to be interpreted by the neutral reader.  Yet, I would sincerely make the case that, from this interaction with you, most people would say you are overwhelmed with hatred, هداك الله.

10 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 nevertheless you are only person that blindfully due to your high affection with wahabi & Nasibi nonsense has spread hatred.

سبحان الله والحمد لله ولا إله إلا الله الله أكبر اللهم إني استغفر وأتوب إليك

8 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

1) As others have said on this thread,

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

8 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

YH isn't endorsed by any 'Grand Ayatollah', however you are defining this term.

I thought he was endorsed by Grand Ayatollah (by the way you are quoting it, you are making it seem like I made up this term) Sadiq al-Shirazi as well as Ayatollah Rida al-Shirazi.  However, we seem to have gotten side tracked from what this discussion was originally about, بارك الله فيك.

8 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

He has been openly denounced by many highly esteemed scholars and figures in the Shia world. Some brothers and sisters love to talk about him, as if he is the 'Grand Ayatollah' that represents all Shia scholars when in fact he is an extremely minor figure in the Shia world that people barely discuss, except in threads like this or to denounce him. 

Please note how this discussion started, why YH was brought up in the first place.  Please recollect that it was you that said, "Extremist speakers like Yasir Habib (who does emphasis cursing) do not represent Shiism or the vast majority of Shia the same way that ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis."  I replied by saying, "There is a big difference though, the people that promote these idea in your sect (whether they are a minority or not) is actual clergy and Ayatollahs.  Remember, it was Ayatollah Khomeini who said that Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair were filthier than dogs and pigs.  On the other hand, ISIS is run by completely unknown people who the entirety of the Ummah was done tabarra' from.  Notice, I hate ISIS, I do tabarra' from them, and yet you don't see me dedicating dua's and gathering to curse them.  Imagine that the Muslims had a Du'a where they cursed someone for 40 days!"  Notice, I never once mentioned YH!  You then went on to keep side tracking the discussion back to him, when I never used him as a reference.  I used Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini and the Shirazis as the example, not YH.  I also referenced Ziyarat Ashura, which for some reason you took to me referencing something YH did (which, I actually didn't even know about, since I don't learn about 12erism from an obvious extremist like him).

So I would appreciate it أخي if we can stay on the topic at hand, as YH has nothing to do with it and there's no need to keep sidetracking the discussion with him.  The emphasis on hatred I see is from the famous Ayatollahs and members here on Shiachat.  You can't possibly read the rant @Ashvazdanghewrote to me and not see him steaming with hate and vitriol and not come to that conclusion.

And I want to point out something to you, بارك الله فيك.  Ayatollah Khomeini, when discussion wether the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife was najis to touch or not (you don't deny this do you?) and coming to the conclusion that she is not, he used the phrase وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about her, Talha and az-Zubair.  Please note, that this word is the أفعل form that comes from the root خبث يخبث, of which the word خبيث is derived.  Allah سبحانه وتعالى in the Qur'an says: "الْخَبِيثَاتُ لِلْخَبِيثِينَ وَالْخَبِيثُونَ لِلْخَبِيثَاتِ"  So I was wondering أخي, this phrase from Ayatollah Khomeini, is it sabb or is it la3n, بارك الله فيك and what is your impression of someone describing the Prophet صلى الله وعليه وسلم's wife that way when Allah says the Khabeethat are for the Khabetheen?

إن شاء الله we can focus on this for now.  I will be back later, إن شاء الله to discuss Ziyarat Ashura in a little more detail.

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!

Edited by Cyrax
Just a bit of rewording بارك الله فيكم
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
17 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

At the battle of Jamal, Imam's army captive Abdullah, but Imam Ali forgave him and told him: Go I do not want to see you again. Also, Imam Ali caught Sayid ibn al-Aas after the Battle of al-Jamal and Sayid was his enemy, Imam Ali turned away from him and did not say anything to him. all people know what Aisha did, when Imam Ali granted victory against her at the battle of Jamal, he honored her and sent twenty women from Abd Qays with her and sent her to Medina. The women were dressing turbans and carrying swords. During the way, Aisha said bad things about Imam Ali and grumbled and said: Ali bin Abi Talib exposed me by his men and soldiers, who commanded them to be with me. When she reached Medina, the women throw their turbans and said to Aisha: we are women like you. 

 

No need to be apologetic bro, he didn't "honour" her in the least lol. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) merely had a high level of self-respect and dignity. She, on the other hand, fought Imam and "the khalifa of her time", and according to sunnis this latter criteria would normally make a person "not-so-special" =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Cyrax said:

And I want to point out something to you, بارك الله فيك.  Ayatollah Khomeini, when discussion wether the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife was najis to touch or not (you don't deny this do you?) and coming to the conclusion that she is not, he used the phrase وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about her, Talha and az-Zubair.  Please note, that this word is the أفعل form that comes from the root خبث يخبث, of which the word خبيث is derived. 

Salam this is batalant lie & mistranslation by you & rest of wahabists & Salafist which Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) never has mentioned Ayesha as Najis to touch in similar fashion about Talha & Zubair nevertheless  even according Sunni jurisperudence/Fiqh anyone who uprises caliph of time so therefore rebellious  people are people of hell which people  of hell are filthier than pig & dog in hereafter  but on the other hand in this world they are normal people which in hereafter pigs & dogs won't  go to hell but these rebels will go to hell so then they are filthier than pig & dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Cyrax said:

and what is your impression of someone describing the Prophet صلى الله وعليه وسلم's wife that way when Allah says the Khabeethat are for the Khabetheen?

Salam!!

Brother I think there is some sort of problem in your understanding of the verse you are trying to apply here. 

What would you say about Prophet Noah (عليه السلام) or Prophet Lut (عليه السلام), the wives of both the two prophets are presented as examples for disbelievers in Quran:

ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا امْرَأَتَ نُوحٍ وَامْرَأَتَ لُوطٍ ۖ كَانَتَا تَحْتَ عَبْدَيْنِ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَيْنِ فَخَانَتَاهُمَا فَلَمْ يُغْنِيَا عَنْهُمَا مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا وَقِيلَ ادْخُلَا النَّارَ مَعَ الدَّاخِلِينَ {10}

[Shakir 66:10] Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.

A kafir is najis as well as khabeeth, now applying "alkhabethaato lil khabetheena"  here would contradict Quran, specifically the very same verse which mentions the two Prophets as عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَيْنِ 

This very chapter (66) revealed about the two wives, I hope you know the very well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, dragonxx said:

No need to be apologetic bro, he didn't "honour" her in the least lol. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) merely had a high level of self-respect and dignity. She, on the other hand, fought Imam and "the khalifa of her time", and according to sunnis this latter criteria would normally make a person "not-so-special" =)

Salam It's not being apologetic which she still has had title of wife of messenger  of Allah so then she still has been one of mothers of belivers  so therefore Amir al Muminin Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) has protected her honour in similar  fashion of rest of mothers of belivers no more no less which for Sunnis she is still a special figure although she has fought with Imam and "the khalifa of her time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Cyrax said:

ISIS does not represent the vast majority of Sunnis."  I replied by saying, "There is a big difference though, the people that promote these idea in your sect (whether they are a minority or not) is actual clergy and Ayatollahs.

Salam we can say same thing about you which wahabi/Salafi Muftis & Maulanas have endorsed ISIS/Daesh  terrorists even they have encouraged  people  to join them & issued sexual fatwa of Jihad of Nikah for sexual  prleasure of ISIS/Daesh terrorists  which majority of Sunni scholars except few brave ones have turned blind eye on their filthy Fatwa but on the other hand majority of  shia clergies and Ayatollahs have boycotted  YH & Shirazi grouplet  then  stopped Shia community  from any support toward them by forbidding supporting  of hateful grouplet(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If we want to pick and choose, then we can say Sheikh Adnan Arour supports ISIS and represents Ahlus-Sunnah. He even asks Israel to help their soldiers. But of course that would be dishonest, Arour is a scoundrel and he doesn’t represent Ahlus-Sunnah. Neither do YH and his gang represent Shia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam according to sunni narration  two weighty things have mentioned by Allah's Messenger (pbu)as the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah.

which in response  of his companions he has answered that his wives are not members of  his household  so therefore his wives have not been rope of Allah which only his members of  his household so then rope of Allah have been "his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited."  which clearly according to verse of Mubahala Amir al muminin Imam Ali(عليه السلام) has been "his ownself" & lady Fatima (sa) & Imam Hasan(عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) have been "his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood)" which clearly  wives of Allah's Messenger (pbu) have not been members of his household .

Quote

Book 31, Number 5922:

This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Abu Hayyan but with this addition: "The Book of Allah contains right guidance, the light, and whoever adheres to it and holds it fast, he is upon right guidance and whosoever deviates from it goes astray.

Book 31, Number 5923:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household ? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.

https://www.iium.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/031_smt.html

FATIMA (A) IN THE VERSE OF MUBAHALA

Allah, the Exalted said:

"If anyone disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee, say: `Come! Let us gather together; our sons arid your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves. Then let us invoke the curse of God on those who lie!'"(3: 61)

This event is famous and is known to all Muslims. Islamic scholars are united on the fact that it was revealed in regard to the Christian delegation who came from Najran to dispute the issue of Isa Ibn Maryam (A) with the Prophet (S).

 

All Muslims have agreed that the Prophet took Ali with him to represent "ourselves,"

Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain to represent "Our Sons," and Fatima Zahra to represent "Our Women," It is also a given fact that he did not accompany any other woman including his wives, his aunts, or any other Muslim women.

This proves that there was not a woman as excellent, great, holy, and chaste as Fatima (A) was. The Prophet called Fatima alone to join him, because she was the only woman capable of fulfilling the qualifications of the verse

Quote

The next morning, the Prophet finished his morning prayers and ordered Ali to follow him and Fatima, in turn, holding Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain to follow Ali.

The Prophet (S) then told them:"When I supplicate you should say: Amen."

When the delegation saw the holy family and that the Prophet (S) had spread a mat for himself and family, they said to each other:

"By Allah, he is a true Prophet; and if he curses us, surely Allah will answer his prayer and destroy us. The only thing that can save us, is to ask him to relieve us from this meeting."

Razi, in his interpretation of the Holy Quran states:

'The Archbishop said: "O Christians, I surely see faces of men, who if they were to ask Allah to move a mountain, He would surely do it. Do not hold this meeting, or you shall be destroyed and no Christian will remain on Earth until the Day of Resurrection."

The delegation proceeded toward the Messenger and said:"Abu Al-Qasim, relieve us (from this) solemn meeting."

The Prophet said: "Indeed I will; but the One who sent me with righteousness is my witness that had I cursed you, Allah would not have left a Christian on the face of the earth."

This has been a summary of the story. What matters to us here, is Allah's saying in the verse:

"Our women and your women."

All Muslims have agreed that the Prophet took Ali with him to represent "ourselves,"

Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain to represent "Our Sons," and Fatima Zahra to represent "Our Women," It is also a given fact that he did not accompany any other woman including his wives, his aunts, or any other Muslim women.

This proves that there was not a woman as excellent, great, holy, and chaste as Fatima (A) was. The Prophet called Fatima alone to join him, because she was the only woman capable of fulfilling the qualifications of the verse


FATIMA IN SURAH AL-INSAN (76)

https://www.erfan.ir/english/6831.html

Quote


These traditions demonstrate that Fatima AS was transferred from heaven to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and she did not pass through any womb except of that of our great lady Khadeeja (عليه السلام). As such, being a fruit of heaven, unlike all other women, she was pure and was never witnessing what other women witness often (menses and other bloods). This is a hard proof on her being a Huri (nymph) besides being a human. Peace be upon her, her father, her husband, and her sons

https://imamhussain-lib.com/en/pages/f217.php

Quote

Fatima; the Mother of her Father

In the year 5 AH, after the Battle of al-Ahzab a new rule with regards to the wives of the Prophet was revealed.

 

“The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers.” [33:6]

 

This revelation taught Muslims to respect the wives of the Prophet like their own mothers and that they were forbidden to ever marry them. Thus, none of the wives of the Prophet were ever able to remarry after the demise of the Messenger of God. To this end, every wife of the Prophet was referred to as ‘the mother of the believers’ which means as the believers could not ever marry their mother they could not possibly ever marry any of the wives of the Prophet. After the revelation of the above law, the Messenger of God said to his beloved daughter, “O Fatima. If my wives are the (spiritual) mother of the believers, then you are my (spiritual) mother.”

 

The etymology of the term ‘al-Omm’

The term mother is referred to in Arabic as ‘Omm` whether a direct biological mother or indirect and hence, Eve is also referred to as our ‘mother`. Linguistically, the term ‘mother` is quite similar in all different languages. Omm in Arabic, mum or mother in English, madar in Farsi, ma in Urdu, and mama in Italian.

 

The term al-Omm in Arabic is defined by the renowned Arabic linguist al-Raghib “Everything and everyone who is the source of the existence of something or its rearing or reforming.” Therefore, anything that is the origin of the source of something or has a fundamental role in its existence is called al-Omm in Arabic. For instance, in Surah 43 Ayah 4 the Holy Quran is introduced to be in the Mother of the Book,

 

“And verily, it (this Quran) is in the Mother of the Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom.” (43:4)

 

The term ‘the mother of the book` in the above Ayah is meant for al-Lauh al-Mahfuz which is the source of all the divine knowledge and its producer.

 

The first Surah of the Quran is also called ‘Ommul Kitab’ the mother of the book for its seven Ayaat contain the summary of the entire teachings of the Holy Quran and hence is the root and the origin of the rest of the Quran.

 

Ummah in Arabic is a community that has a common religious and spiritual goal.

http://shiastudies.com/en/797/fatima-a-s-in-qur-an/

Quote

Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) was certainly neither modernized5 nor separated from other Prophets. Hence, he would not have left his followers without any successor or leader. It is critical to remember that the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) did not even keep the city of Medina without a leader whenever he was out of town. No matter how short his leave, he would have definitely chosen a leader and a successor for himself.6 Indeed, it is impossible that the Last Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) as well as other Prophets leave the Islamic society for the rest of history (i.e. after their departure from this world) and assign no successor after themselves. In fact not only Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) did choose a successor but also we can find amazing similarities between him and other Prophets.
For Example, as mentioned earlier, Joshua was at “Mount Sinai”7 with Prophet Moses ((عليه السلام).) and didn’t worship the calf; then Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ordered Moses ((عليه السلام).) to make Joshua his successor and leader fter him. In other words, make Joshua the shepherd of lambs (people) in order to avoid getting lost.
Imam Ali((عليه السلام).) was with the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) in the “Cave of Haraa” and he never worships idols. In the same manner that Moses((عليه السلام).) was ordered to choose his successor in front of people, similarly Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ordered Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) to announce Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) as the successor and leader after him in the return from the final pilgrimage (Hajjah al-Wida’) to the people who were with him. Therefore, Allah most certainly ordered Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).) to keep the Islamic society with a leader after him.

http://shiastudies.com/en/3787/from-adam-to-the-last-prophet-from-seth-to-ali-a-s/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The Prophet's (عليه السلام) Love for Fatima az-Zahra (sa)

According to Dhakhear al-Uqbi, Aisha said:

"Once the Messenger of Allah kissed Fatima's throat so I said, Messenger of Allah! You have done something which you have not done before!"

The Prophet (S) answered: "Aisha, whenever I long for Paradise, I kiss Fatima's throat."

Quote

3. Bazl al-Harawi said to al-Husayn Ibn Roah:

"How many daughters did the Messenger of Allah have?"

Ibn Roah said: "Four"

Bazl then asked: "Who was the best of them?"

He said: "Fatima"

Bazl said: "Why was she the best while she was the youngest and least company to the Prophet of Allah (S)?"

Ibn Roah then said: "(She was the best) because she possessed two special characteristics:

1. She inherited the Messenger of Allah.

2. The Prophet's progeny are her children. Besides, Allah gifted her with these traits because He knew her sincere adherence and pure intention (to worship Him)."

4. Khawarizmi wrote in his book Maqtal al-Husayn that Huthiefa said:

"The Messenger of Allah used to kiss Fatima all over her face before he went to sleep ...."

5. Ibn Umar said:

"Once the Prophet (S) kissed Fatima's head and said: `May your father be your sacrifice; stay as you are ...."

6. According to Dhakhear al-Uqbi, Aisha said:

"Once the Messenger of Allah kissed Fatima's throat so I said, Messenger of Allah! You have done something which you have not done before!"

The Prophet (S) answered: "Aisha, whenever I long for Paradise, I kiss Fatima's throat."

Fatima The Gracious

Abu Muhammad Ordoni

https://www.al-islam.org/fatima-gracious-abu-muhammad-ordoni/prophets-love-fatima-az-zahra-sa

 

Hazrat Fatima ((عليه السلام)), the most oppressed Lady in the world

Quote

. It is also recorded in Sahih Bukhari Chapter of "The battle of Khaibar", Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381–383, also v4, Tradition #325) that Hazrat Fatimah was angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him before she died.

Hazrat Fatimah is also reported to have said, according to Sunni sources, about Abu Bakr and Umar, "I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (S) I will complain about you two."

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/430853/Hazrat-Fatima-A-S-the-most-oppressed-Lady-in-the-world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

"Fatimah ((عليه السلام).) is the Master of All the Women of the Worlds."

Quote

It was in these days that Umar and Abubakr went to visit Fatimah ((عليه السلام).). Although Fatimah ((عليه السلام).) rejected them and didn't let them in at first, they finally came to her bed. Then, Fatimah ((عليه السلام).) reminded them Prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).)statement:" Anyone who makes Fatimah angry has made me angry and one who pleases her has pleased me." They confirmed that Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).)had said such a thing. Then, she called Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and angels to witness that:"You (Abubakr and Umar) had made me angry and never pleased me and I would certainly complain to the Prophet of you."

https://www.erfan.ir/english/82249.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 11/19/2021 at 12:51 PM, Cyrax said:

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

Jumu'ah Mubarakah!  إن شاء الله you and your family are doing well.

No problem أخي:

1) Please highlight the parts you think I mistranslated.

2) As far as taking it out of context, I thought that I stated the context: "The context is he is talking about whether certain groups of people are considered impure or not, such as non-Muslims, people who stopped praying, people who say eating an slaughtered carcass or drinking alochol is halal etc."  I even kept the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes to show I didn't change anything, lol.  If you can show how I took it out of context, I would really appreciate it, بارك الله فيك.

3) As far as misunderstanding it, well I guess we'll see what you have to say here:

I'm not sure what I misunderstood then, do you think that when I read the phrase "وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير" that I thought that he literally thought they were dirtier and smelt worst than dogs and pigs?  Obviously, he is speaking "metaphorically" here, he is saying that the hukm shar'ee for them is that they are not najis even though they are filthier than dogs and pigs.

And I mean this with all sincerity, do you really think that any concerned Muslim who brings this phrase to you will feel relieved when you tell them that Ayatollah Khomeini is calling Umm Al-Mu'mineen Ayesha, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's wife, filthier than dogs and pigs "metaphorically?"  Do you think any one will, who feels that 12erism is based on hate, is going to suddenly feel comforted by the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, in a book on Fiqh (!), is discussing a) whether Ayesha is Najisa, and b) coming to the conclusion that she isn't, even though she is filthier than a dog or a pig "metaphorically"?  بارك الله فيك, I really think you really need to rethink this answer.

Well, إن شاء الله, I presented my case.  Ayatollah Khomeini did say وإن كانوا أخبث من الكلاب والخنازير about them, and he did discuss whether they were Najis in a fiqhi sense or not.  I believe that, not only is this an example of the clergy's emphasis on hatred, but your explanation also shows the laymen's emphasis on hatred in 12erism as well.

Well, I certainly don't think that's the case at all.  However, even if it was, how do you think the vast majority of Muslims would feel if they read this quote?  Second of all, the vast majority of Muslims also don't believe that those people revolted, they believe they were out to get the killers of Uthman.

So, if you don't think that the discussion that Ayatollah Khomeini was having wouldn't be controversial to a majority of Muslims, if not Kufr (I'm not saying it is by the way, I'm just appealing to the "vast majority of Muslims" like you did), then I think you are living in denial.

I think that next time, بارك الله فيك, it would be better to quote what I say and respond to it, because this is a gross misrepresentation of what I wrote, غفر الله لك.  Lets break this down what I actually wrote:

I never claimed Saqifa was Ijmaa, please read what I wrote carefuly, أحسن الله إليك.  I said, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?"  This in response to when you said, "At the same time, I will say that, obviously, we don't hold these three individuals in high esteem. They attempted to engineer a political coup de' etat against an individual who Muslims agreed by Ijma was the Imam of the Time, i.e. Imam Ali((عليه السلام))."  I then said, "I think what is happening here is you are skipping around in your head between the events of Saqeefa and the Battle of Jamal.  The Battle of Jamal was obviously not a coup de' tat, and if there is a consensus on anything (at least with the early Muslims) is that the part of Ayesha, Talha and Zubair were NOT khawarij and were NOT revolting against Imam Ali عليه السلام.  Interestingly, even Ayatollah Khomeini says they were not fighting for religious reasons."

As you can see أخي, you grossly misunderstood what I wrote.  I was pointing out to you that in the first case, Abu Bakr and Omar didn't go against an Ijmaa, something you agree with as I bolded in the quote, and in the second case, Ayesha, Talha and az-Zubair did not revolt against Imam Ali عليه السلام.

Honestly, I am a little disappointed in your response now, because I feel like you didn't actually read anything I said, and instead, had a knee-jerk reaction, بارك الله فيك.

But my point still stand, "How can Abu Bakr and Omar somehow engineer a coup de' tat against the Ijmaa' of the Muslims?  What kind of authority would these individuals have against the entirety of the Ummah, which would include the entirety of Bani Hashim.  There was no way on earth that Bani Hashim, or even Bani Ummayyah being that they are Bani Abdi Manaaf would ever allow two people with such distant lineages to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to rule if there was even a hint that someone from their lineage was supposed to succeed the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم."  I would love if you can respond to this, نفع الله بك.

Again, another disappointing response, هداك الله.  How did you reach the conclusion that I am "re treating the Shia as one block, who all agree with the decisions of every other Shia" when I literally said, "First of all, YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings.  I don't what his status is, but he learned from someone who is considered a Marji' in  your madhhab.  So, who should I trust regarding what is Shi'asm, YH and the Grand Ayatollahs, or the moderator on Shiachat.com?  I don't mean to insult you, بارك الله فيك, but you can see the kind of predicament I'm in.  As far as your constant allusion to ISIS, well بارك الله فيك, again, this is your issue where you take anyone who is not in your madhhab as a "Sunni."  They don't represent any Sunni school nor do they have any backup.  They are not part of the four madhhabs, they are not Sufis and even the Salafis take issue with them.  If you want to attribute them to someone, attribute them to the Salafis; but leave the rest of the 90% of the Ummah alone, بارك الله فيك."

Please reread and actually respond to what I said, غفر الله لك.  I said that YH is a student of Grand Ayatollahs who openly endorse his teachings (please note that I respected your wishes to not use his name, which I obviously indicates that I don't believe you support him) while the group that you alluded to (lets not use their name either, جزاك الله خيرا) doesn't represent any Sunni school or authority.  However, YH DOES represent a strand within 12erism.

Obviously the brothers at al-islam.org don't agree, but I would love a list of Ayatollahs who don't view it as inauthentic.  I know Ayatollah Fadlalulah رحمه الله felt that way, and I'm guessing moderate Ayatollahs like Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamini, and Ayatollah Sistani all disagree with it, but I would need an actual fatwa from them on this.  For example, I checked Ayatollah Sistani's website and I found a list of questions and answers about Ziyarat Ashura, but I didn't seem to find him raising doubt about any of it, just generally praising it and giving ahkaam shar'eeyyah regarding it.  Please let me know if I missed anything

http://www.alhakeem.com/en/questions/713

This is the second time you claimed the majority for something that I think you are way off.  Just look at the posts on Shiachat regarding this very topic!  I will say, there are some brothers that have raised some doubts about the the parts that I raised, but to claim a majority don't recite that part is something that I don't believe.  I suppose we could try doing a post and seeing how the members of Shiachat would feel about this, at least.

I agree with you, akhi, obviously I don't think that these Ziyarat have sources back to the Imams, so naturally they will differ greatly between them.  However, to see you just brush off Ziyarat Ashura and its importance in the 12er world is just strange to me.

And ALL of their descendants, بارك الله فيك!

Well, the version that is quote on al-islam.org goes like this:

At this point the post has gotten WAY TOO LONG and I'm afraid no one will read it!  So I will leave it here, probably full of spelling errors and grammar mistakes and move on with my life!

والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته!

Alekum Salam, 

We have to ask ourselves is wahidat (unity) our goal or is playing a game of 'stump the sheik' our goal. Before I write anything on this forum, I always try to think 'What would Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) want me to write ?' and try to write that. Sometimes I fall short of accomplishing that, but I always try to make this my goal 

If Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) were standing next to me, while I was writing, he would want me to write something to try to create Silah(reconciliation and concordance) between brothers and  sisters. If you look at almost any prominent figureand alim in the Shia world who are widely accepted as such, you will see a general trend and pattern. You will see two things, most prominently (which is why I consider myself a member of this mathab). First, they are loyal to the Haqq above all else. If there is a fact of history that is clear from authentic hadith, they will not shy away from mentioning it in order to serve a political state or ruler, or for some other reason. They do not 'cozy up' to the Sultan of the time just to gain favor with him. Second, they try as much as they can to refrain from creating mistrust or bad feelings between brothers and sisters of different mathahib, when they can avoid it. 

If you look at Sayyid Sistani, Imam Khameni, Sayyid Fadlallah(رضي الله عنه), Ayatollah Al Khoei(رضي الله عنه), Imam Khomeni(رضي الله عنه), they all had cordial relationships and ongoing dialog with members of all Mathahib who weren't actively engaged in a terror campaign against them. This was who they were and how they acted. These are our leaders, today, tommorow, and always. They are worthy of emulation, in their words and actions. It is very easy to take someone's words out of context, mistranslate them, and twist them around to say what you want them to say. I could do the same thing with your posts, chop them up, mistranslate them into another language, and I could fully convince people of something that wasn't true. I don't choose to play this game, and I don't think anyone who is interested in Wahidat and who wants to please Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h), and Imam Ali((عليه السلام)), should do this either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/23/2021 at 4:49 PM, Abu Hadi said:

When I am talking about Ziyarat Ashura, I am only talking about this last part (the lanat, lanant, lanantx100, etc). The first parts is authentic and accepted by almost all Shia and it is considered highly recommended to recite it reguarly. There are many scholars, such as Sayyid Fadlallah(رضي الله عنه), who believe this last part was added later and was not part of the original ziyarat.

Hmm.

The majority of the scholars emphasize the authenticity of the entirety of the Ziarat, and I mean entirety.

With all due respect to the deceased, aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, how many scholars have disputed it?

Edited by Sabrejet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

she still has had title of wife of messenger  of Allah

Salam bro. Doesn't matter, there are other wives in the history of Islam who had the title "wife of the Prophet of God" and they are promised hellfire. So I disagree with this point.

9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

she still has been one of mothers of belivers

Context is everything. In the context of Aisha, this is not an honour, all it means is nobody can marry her after the Prophet. In the context of Sayeda Khadija ((عليه السلام)), it means more than that with all she has given to Islam and emphasized to use through ahadith; I know you know all of this

9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Amir al Muminin Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) has protected her honour in similar  fashion

He hasn't really protected her honour; he protected his only by conducting himself in the highest of moral standards in spite of being capable to act otherwise and as most others would act.

Define honour: "high respect; great esteem."

Nobody respects/honours people who fought Allah, His Prophet (pbuhf) and Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)). Simple.

Make no mistake, all the honour in those acts belong to Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)), and none of it bestows honour to Aisha; on the contrary, it's shameful that she had to be forcibly taken down from her camel in the midst of 1000s of men, carried away by her brother by force, and ordered back home with escorts, again forcibly. Where is the honouring in any of that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No, I disagree, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) honored ummul Mu’minin Aisha (رضي الله عنه), although she was CLEARLY with the gang who even Some ahlus sunnah scholars themselves have said were bughat. As pointed by some hadith here, that even Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) slapped her due to her insolence. I have no idea why people try to raise her status to a level even she never said she was.

you can compare how Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) treated her and how Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه), and therein lies the difference. Which sunnah do you want to follow? The sunnah of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) or Rasullullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Slap her or be patient with her? 

But still, she is ummul Mu’minin (رضي الله عنه) and we should treat her like how Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) treated her, with respect.

Edited by 145_turbo_16V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, 145_turbo_16V said:

you can compare how Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) treated her and how Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه), and therein lies the difference. Which sunnah do you want to follow? The sunnah of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) or Rasullullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Slap her or be patient with her? 

There are more than the two options you presented. I'll leave that to you to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
9 hours ago, dragonxx said:

He hasn't really protected her honour; he protected his only by conducting himself in the highest of moral standards in spite of being capable to act otherwise and as most others would act.

Actually the reason why he acted in that way is to protect his shias that would have been killed and abused more by his enemies. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
23 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

Hmm.

The majority of the scholars emphasize the authenticity of the entirety of the Ziarat, and I mean entirety.

With all due respect to the deceased, aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, how many scholars have disputed it?

Here is the answer from his website (tranaslated). 

http://english.bayynat.org.lb/Editorials/Miscellaneous_Debunking_distortions.htm

In summary, his main objections are two. First,  is that it is not consistent with the style of the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) to keep saying La'nat, La'nat , La'nat many, many times. They didn't do this. They would do La'nat but not in a way that would make 'Lanat' into a spectacle. This is not consistent with the concept of Khashi3at(humility and sincerity). Second, the Isnad is weak, according to him. 

His first objection is based on a very thorough and detailed study of the personality of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). It says in the Holy Quran that Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) was sent as a Rahma lil Alameen, as a mercy to all the worlds. His mercy and compassion extended to all of creation, even to his enemies. He knew that some people would stubbornly resist his Message and would die in that state, and would therefore go to hell. At the same time, this fact made him sad, and he definitely didn't prefer this and he preferred that everyone, from the first to the last, would enter Paradise because of their following of his Message. He definitely didn't get any joy out of the fact that his enemies are going to hell, and he definitely didn't do anything to broadcast this fact, aside from what he was commanded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to do for the guidance of those who wish to follow guidance from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

The Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) were from the same line, in every way. So they didn't do anything that could be interpreted as them celebrating or pointing out in ways that are not necessary, the fact that their enemies are cursed and bound for hell. 

BTW, there are many Ziyarat Ashuras out there. The main point of these is to send Salams to Aba Abdillah((عليه السلام)), and the Shaheed of Karbala((عليه السلام)), and to do Tabarrat from the enemies of Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)), who are the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). There are many other authentic Ziyarat in books such as Mufatih Al Jinan. 

There is something which is missed in this which is consistent with all the authentic hadith I have read on the subject. The main way to do Tabarrat is by actions, not by words. Brothers and sisters should consider how many minutes or hours they spend saying 'La'nat, La'nat, La'nat' vs actually doing the important La'nat. Earn your money 100% from halal, don't eat haram food, don't listen to music or any form of media which includes images or ideas which are against the teachings of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). Observe the physical and social hijab. Make actual Ziyarat (to the Baqi, Najaf, Karabala, Sammara, Kathemia, Mashad) if you can, do the Arbaeen walk if you can. Do your Salat on Time. Don't stay single for one second if you have the chance to do an Islamic marriage. The most important action, according to authentic hadith are 1) Make Salat and take it seriously, 2) If you have the ability to help anyone who is in legitimate need, and especially, especially a mumin or mumina, then do it immediately and to the fullest extent that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has given you the ability. 

If you do these things, you will close off any pathways for the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to reach you. This is the real Tabarra, as this will put real distance between you and the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Words are part of it, but a small part of it. 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

Here is the answer from his website (tranaslated)

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

In summary, his main objections are two. First,  is that it is not consistent with the style of the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) to keep saying La'nat, La'nat , La'nat many, many times. They didn't do this. They would do La'nat but not in a way that would make 'Lanat' into a spectacle. This is not consistent with the concept of Khashi3at(humility and sincerity). Second, the Isnad is weak, according to him.

 

1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

BTW, there are many Ziyarat Ashuras out there. The main point of these is to send Salams to Aba Abdillah((عليه السلام)), and the Shaheed of Karbala((عليه السلام)), and to do Tabarrat from the enemies of Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)), who are the enemies of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). There are many other authentic Ziyarat in books such as Mufatih Al Jinan.

 

I'm aware of his views. The point was, you mentioned that quite a few scholars have raised doubts on this Ziarat, especially the la'an part. Aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, are there any significant number of other scholars who have raised doubts on it's authenticity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 11/24/2021 at 5:10 PM, 145_turbo_16V said:

No, I disagree, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) honored ummul Mu’minin Aisha (رضي الله عنه), although she was CLEARLY with the gang

Brother, how can you honour someone who  had instigated a war where 1000's people had died for defending the truth? On bases can you honour someone when he/she perpetuated a crime on a false pretenses ? FurthermoreI, what  rational or a logical reasons can a murderer can be honoured with the killing of masses? 

And finally I would say, those who fought on the side of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and gave their lives in upholding the truth, the Honour belongs to those soldiers.   

 Its unjustness by honouring the culprits and dismissing  those who fought for justice.

 

 

Link to comment
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...