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

Questions regarding Shii'ism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

According to characteristics of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which are against content of the hadith.

What about Fadak? Imam Ali could've taken Fadak back, but he didn't. 

11 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

It is going against Prophet's sunnah. Prophet (PBUHHP) rejected proposals of syeda Fatima Zahra on the basis that there were no equal among them except Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Imam Ali could also see that Hazrat Umer was not equal of her daughter. Thus, it is a fabrication added later on.

Yeah, well no one threatened to accuse the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of stealing and punish him for it if he didn't marry Fatima to them. 

11 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Secondly, this hadith missed one important point that for a marriage to occur, the consent of bride is essential which was not taken according to this hadith. So its futile attempt to prove its authentic.

If I'm not mistaken, I remember reading somewhere that Umm Kulthum did consent to the marriage. I don't know, maybe I'm getting mixed up with Uthman and his marriage to the Prophet's daughter. 

11 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

This might be your ideology. Where as Islam and Imam Ali disagrees with you. If Imam Ali had agreed to this, he would have paid allegiance to these three caliphs while his disassociation from them despite their forceful attitude prove them otherwise that they could not harm Imam Ali for it will start civil disturbance. Besides that Imam Ali's burial of Prophet Muhammad (pbuhhp) and Lady Fatima prove that those caliphs did not possess that much control always rather they were afraid of Imam Ali in those circumstances.

Like I mentioned earlier, why didn't Imam Ali take back Fadak? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

What about Fadak? Imam Ali could've taken Fadak back, but he didn't. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not take fadak back for various reasons one of which may be to show to the society that they did not depend on it rather it was meant to support impoverished class and newly converted poor Muslims or if taking fadak would ensue a civil disturbance, he would like to prevent this from happening that there should be no any losses of life involved in it. 

13 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Yeah, well no one threatened to accuse the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of stealing and punish him for it if he didn't marry Fatima to them. 

No one could threat and force Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as well as they could see that use of force could not achieve for them allegiance to Hazrat Abu bakr. They could see that use of force only would create hatred for them which could result in uprisings.

13 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

If I'm not mistaken, I remember reading somewhere that Umm Kulthum did consent to the marriage. I don't know, maybe I'm getting mixed up with Uthman and his marriage to the Prophet's daughter. 

She did not rather she showed displeasure according to available narrations. So, this is another weak point of such traditions.

13 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Like I mentioned earlier, why didn't Imam Ali take back Fadak? 

Already mentioned. 

Edited by Borntowitnesstruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

1. Your friend, nor anyone else, has any say in the judgement of Allah. It is wrong and audacious. Having said that, 9:100 and 48:18 are best understood as being conditional - Allah's satisfaction with a group of people at one point in time does not automatically stretch to Allah being satisfied with them for eternity. Allah may be satisfied with me today for having given charity, but if I become an apostate tomorrow, it is hard to say I would be deserving of His satisfaction. This is how Shi'as, generally, understand these verses. 
 

2. Ali (a) did not hate the caliphs. This is a very wrong perception. Ali disagreed with them on a multitude of things. He had a very different political outlook from his predecessors as well as his successors. But when the time came for his call, he became an advisor to them, and would go out of his way to stand by them if it was necessary for the honor and protection of Islam. This was the way of the Imams.

It is not clear to us that Ali (a) named his children after the caliphs. The three caliphs were not the first to carry those particular names and there is no supporting evidence that he took those names from them. For all we know, he might have named them after other people who may have carried those names. Similarly, regarding the marriage of Umar b. al-Khattab, there are various opinions about it - some of which also suggest that no such marriage even took place. Even if it did, I think it just goes to show that Ali (a) did certain things for a far bigger purpose that was the best for the infant Muslim community at that point in history, and not for personal advantage or an alleged hatred towards Umar.

 

3. Your friend almost certainly does not represent the majority of Shi'as. It is true we encourage free thought and criticism of personalities far more than our Sunni counterparts, but slandering any person - let alone a wife of the Prophet (s) - is not representative of Shi'ism.

 

4. No, it is an optional addition to the universal shahada that professes the belief in Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (s). It was not used by the early Muslims.

 

5. There is no prohibition in using a turbah from either of those places. The emphasis is on placing one's forehead on dust, as this was the sunnah of the Prophet (s). The reason we use clay from Karbala in particular is because of the exclusive importance given to it by the Prophet (s) and the Imams (a). 
 

6. A narration is a narration. History is history. It is not Sunni or Shi'a, it is either true or false. And both truth and falsehood can be found anywhere you look.

In the Qur'an, we see that a building was built over the graves of the people of the Cave. There doesn't seem to be any objection there. Even during the course of Islamic history, many of the caliphs preserved and built domes over graves, including the grave of the Prophet (s). These were caliphs who followed the Sunni fiqh. Again, there seems to be no objection there. In my opinion, this is rather a petty accusation, too easily misunderstood, and most Sunnis don't actually have a problem with shrines - until it becomes Sunni vs. Shia.

Edited by Ibn-e-Muhammad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 5/30/2022 at 8:10 PM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

if taking fadak would ensue a civil disturbance

So taking back a piece of land would cause civul disturbance, but amputating the hand of the brother of the Prophet wouldn't. Logik. 

On 5/30/2022 at 8:10 PM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

No one could threat and force Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as well as they could see that use of force could not achieve for them allegiance to Hazrat Abu bakr. They could see that use of force only would create hatred for them which could result in uprisings.

But they did use force. They stormed Imam Ali's house and beat his wife. Read the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah. Abu Bakr ordered Umar, Khalid, and a few other thugs to go and attack the house of Fatima Al-Zahra. Force was definitely used. 

Sorry brother, but can you also quote the narrations that say that Umm Kulthum was displeased with marrying Umar? Shukran. 

Edited by -Rejector-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

So taking back a piece of land would cause civul disturbance, but amputating the hand of the brother of the Prophet wouldn't. Logik. 

I thought you believed that amputating the hand would not cause civil disturbance. I believed that mere prosecution of allegation of theft would have resulted in chaos and uprisings.

10 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

But they did use force. They stormed Imam Ali's house and beat his wife. Read the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah. Abu Bakr ordered Umar, Khalid, and a few other thugs to go and attack the house of Fatima Al-Zahra. Force was definitely used. 

They didn't get what they wanted by the use of such force except being infamous that's why I said that use of force against Ahlebait is useless as proved in the above incident and in Karbala.

 

10 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

Sorry brother, but can you also quote the narrations that say that Umm Kulthum was displeased with marrying Umar? Shukran. 

There are many abominable narrations which reveal that this event was untrue because these mentions things which cannot be done by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) against will of Syeda Umm-e-kulsoom. For reference go through following book.

https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-umm-kulthums-marriage-umar-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I thought you believed that amputating the hand would not cause civil disturbance. I believed that mere prosecution of allegation of theft would have resulted in chaos and uprisings.

They didn't get what they wanted by the use of such force except being infamous that's why I said that use of force against Ahlebait is useless as proved in the above incident and in Karbala.

 

There are many abominable narrations which reveal that this event was untrue because these mentions things which cannot be done by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) against will of Syeda Umm-e-kulsoom. For reference go through following book.

https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-umm-kulthums-marriage-umar-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani

I just read a book about the marriage, and this is what it concluded:

Quote

Umar asked Ali ((عليه السلام).) for Umm Kulthum‘s hand in marriage and the Imam ((عليه السلام).) made the excuse that she was too young and that she was engaged to her cousin. After Umar‘s repeated proposal, frequenting and resorting to threat to intimidate the Commander of the Faithful, ((عليه السلام).) and Bani Hashemi, the Imam left the matter to be decided by his uncle Abbas; the marriage took place in the sense that only a marriage contract was concluded without Ali ((عليه السلام).) and his daughter consenting to it.

That was why no sooner Umar died than Ali ((عليه السلام).) returned his daughter to his house. Hence, what has been narrated in some Sunni books about the girl dressing up and going to Umar under the pretext of handing over a piece of garment is baseless and undocumented scientifically. The same is the case with the report about Umm Kulthum‘s death occurring simultaneously with the death of her child from Umar.

https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-umm-kulthums-marriage-umar-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/summary-book

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

I just read a book about the marriage, and this is what it concluded:

 

I disagree on the basis of Imam Ali's quote in which he said that by Allah! I will not snatch away someone's right even to the extent of a piece in ant's mouth. How could he just marry his daughter not carrying about her. Secondly, there are many evidences which show Imam Ali did not care about threats of his opponents as is shown by the events of burial of Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) and Hazrat Fatima Zahra (عليه السلام). Finally threats and intimidation does not work against Ahlebait (عليه السلام) as they resulted in failure and made oppressors more infamous as depicted by events when they wanted to get allegiance for Hazrat Abu Bakr and when they wanted to get allegiance for Yazeed ibn Mauwiya. 

These all facts invalidate such narrations that marriage might have taken place.

Lastly in the verse of Surah Baqarah, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) says that a divine representative is appointed on the basis of knowledge and courage. It is, therefore, evident that intimidation and threats will have no effect over a courageous divine representative like Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Edited by Borntowitnesstruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

, there are many evidences which show Imam Ali did not care about threats of his opponents as is shown by the events of burial of Prophet Muhammad (PBUHHP) and Hazrat Fatima Zahra (عليه السلام).

Salam He has surly cared about it which you have yo not read it that he said that "there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat." so therefore  "Imam Ali's quote in which he said that by Allah! I will not snatch away someone's right even to the extent of a piece in ant's mouth." is true which he has tolerated this dire situation for prevention  of doing injustice to whole of muslim community .

Quote

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

 

Quote

I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A’sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

 

Quote

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group4 and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If I speak out they would call me greedy towards power but if I keep quiet they would say I was afraid of death. It is a pity that after all the ups and downs (I have been through). By Allah, the son of Abu Talib2 is more familiar with death than an infant with the breast of its mother. I have hidden knowledge, if I disclose it you will start trembling like ropes in deep wells.

Quote

When the Holy Prophet died Abu Sufyan was not in Medina. He was coming back when on his way he got the news of this tragedy. At once he enquired who had become the leader and Chief. He was told that people had paid allegiance to Abu Bakr. On hearing this the acknowledged mischief-monger of Arabia went into deep thought and eventually went to `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib with a proposal. He said to him, "Look, these people have by contrivance made over the Caliphate to the Taym and deprived Banu Hashim of it for good, and after himself this man would place over our heads a haughty man of Banu `Adi. Let us go to `Ali ibn `Abi Talib and ask him to get out of his house and take to arms to secure his right."
So taking `Abbas with him he came to `Ali and said: "Let me your hand; I pay allegiance to you and if anyone rises in opposition I would fill the streets of Medina with men of cavalry and infantry." This was the most delicate moment for Amir al-mu'minin. He regarded himself as the true head and successor of the Prophet while a man with the backing of his tribe and party like Abu Sufyan was ready to support him. Just a signal was enough to ignite the flames of war. But Amir al-mu'minin's foresight and right judgement saved the Muslims from civil war as his piercing eyes perceived that this man wanted to start civil war by rousing the passions of tribal partisanship and distinction of birth, so that Islam should be struck with a convulsion that would shake it to its roots.

A Persian hemistch says: "Silence has meaning which cannot be couched in words."

Quote

 

2.About death Amir al-mu'minin says that it is so dear to him that even an infant does not so love to leap towards the source of its nourishment while in its mother's lap. An infant's attachment with the breast of its mother is under the effect of a natural impulse but the dictates of natural impulses change with the advance of age. When the limited period of infancy ends and the infant's temperament changes, he does not like even to look at what was so familiar to him but rather turns his face from it in disgust.
But the love of prophets and saints for union with Allah is mental and spiritual, and mental and spiritual feelings do not change, nor does weakness or decay occur in them. Since death is the means and first rung towards this goal their love for death increases to such an extent that its rigours become the cause of pleasure for them and its bitterness proves to be the source of delight for their taste.

Their love for it is the same as that of the thirsty for the well or that of a lost passenger for his goal. Thus when Amir al-mu'minin was wounded by `Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muljam's fatal attack, he said, "I was but like the walker who has reached (the goal) or like the seeker who has found (his object) and whatever is with Allah is good for the pious." The Prophet also said that there is no pleasure for a believer other than union with Allah.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-5-o-people-steer-clear-through-waves-mischief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam He has surly cared about it which you have yo not read it that he said that "there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat." so therefore  "Imam Ali's quote in which he said that by Allah! I will not snatch away someone's right even to the extent of a piece in ant's mouth." is true which he has tolerated this dire situation for prevention  of doing injustice to whole of muslim community .

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was sad about people but he did not allow it to interfere with his faith that's what I wanted to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

1. Your friend, nor anyone else, has any say in the judgement of Allah. It is wrong and audacious. Having said that, 9:100 and 48:18 are best understood as being conditional - Allah's satisfaction with a group of people at one point in time does not automatically stretch to Allah being satisfied with them for eternity. Allah may be satisfied with me today for having given charity, but if I become an apostate tomorrow, it is hard to say I would be deserving of His satisfaction. This is how Shi'as, generally, understand these verses. 
 

Read verse 100 of Surah at-Taubah again. Now, show us where is the condition that you are talking about?

As for the foremost—the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers—and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there for ever and ever. That is the ultimate triumph. Verse 100 Surah Taubah

Allah is pleased with them – No condition mentioned
and they are pleased with Him – No condition mentioned
And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, – No condition mentioned
to stay there for ever and ever – No condition mentioned
That is the ultimate triumph – No condition mentioned

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Allah's satisfaction with a group of people at one point in time does not automatically stretch to Allah being satisfied with them for eternity. Allah may be satisfied with me today for having given charity, but if I become an apostate tomorrow, it is hard to say I would be deserving of His satisfaction. This is how Shi'as, generally, understand these verses. 

Allah Almighty doesn’t flip flop in His Decision-making! He in Omnipresent. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there for ever and ever!!!!!

Allah Almighty has foretold that in the end these Noble people will have very happy ending! – They will definitely enter the Gardens under which rivers flow - to stay there for ever and ever!!!!!!

Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah's course Verse 23 Surah al-Fath

So, your understanding of the verse is faulty due to your sectarian bias, nothing else.

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

2. Ali (a) did not hate the caliphs. This is a very wrong perception. Ali disagreed with them on a multitude of things. He had a very different political outlook from his predecessors as well as his successors. But when the time came for his call, he became an advisor to them, and would go out of his way to stand by them if it was necessary for the honor and protection of Islam. This was the way of the Imams.

I agree with you that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) did not hate his predecessors Khalifs (may Allah be be pleased with them) and had very good relations with them.

The problem lies in Shia literature which is advocating the notion that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) harboured bitter resentment towards his predecessors Khalifs (may Allah be be pleased with them).

Just have look Dua Saname Quraish at this link https://www.duas.org/pdfs/Sanamequraish.pdf

This dua which is attributed to Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is full of serious charges.

And have a look at Sermon 3 Nahjul Balagha –  shows his anguish and bitterness.

Sermon 3 Nahjul Balagha (Popularly known as Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It is not clear to us that Ali (a) named his children after the caliphs. The three caliphs were not the first to carry those particular names and there is no supporting evidence that he took those names from them. For all we know, he might have named them after other people who may have carried those names.

So, if these names were good enough for his children [Hz. Hassan, Hz. Hussein and Hz. Ali ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased them) used the same names for their children] what is stopping present-day Shias using the same names?

Or are you trying to prove something which these Noble people didn’t know?

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Similarly, regarding the marriage of Umar b. al-Khattab, there are various opinions about it - some of which also suggest that no such marriage even took place. Even if it did, I think it just goes to show that Ali (a) did certain things for a far bigger purpose that was the best for the infant Muslim community at that point in history, and not for personal advantage or an alleged hatred towards Umar.

Care to share with us what was this bigger purpose for such a great sacrifice?

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

3. Your friend almost certainly does not represent the majority of Shi'as. It is true we encourage free thought and criticism of personalities far more than our Sunni counterparts, but slandering any person - let alone a wife of the Prophet (s) - is not representative of Shi'ism.

This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did. Quran verse134 Surah Al-Baqarah

And those who came after them say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” Quran verse10 Surah al-Hashr

I hope you follow the above ayahs from the blessed Qur’an

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

6. A narration is a narration. History is history

A narration maybe a narration. History maybe history but each will have various versions.

Every party will want to push their own narrative, others may have different views on the same story (or person) making it look different, others might want to make themselves look good to just want to justify their actions and at the same time make their opponents look bad, cruel and unworthy people.

On 5/30/2022 at 9:43 PM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

It is not Sunni or Shi'a, it is either true or false. And both truth and falsehood can be found anywhere you look.

You will definitely have Sunni version and Shia version of same history, each upholding their version as absolute truth. It’s when sincere person sits down and does proper research one will arrive at the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Allah is pleased with them – No condition mentioned
and they are pleased with Him – No condition mentioned
And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, – No condition mentioned
to stay there for ever and ever – No condition mentioned
That is the ultimate triumph – No condition mentioned

There doesn't need to be a condition mentioned explicitly in the Qur'an for there to be one. This is simply a matter of logic and faith: if a human can develop into a good person from a bad one, he can similarly go the other way as well. We are quite literally hardwired in our understanding that Allah's satisfaction is dependent on the sum of our actions, as this is the only just way. 

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

So, your understanding of the verse is faulty due to your sectarian bias, nothing else.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. I refuse to believe that Islam magically turned a bunch of polytheists into the best of believers overnight that forever earned the satisfaction of Allah. I will never make a judgment about heaven and hell that is Allah's to make, but as a person of reason, I also don't like to sugarcoat people's attitudes and actions when I can clearly see that they could have done better. If you want to choose that path, that is fine by me.

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The problem lies in Shia literature which is advocating the notion that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) harboured bitter resentment towards his predecessors Khalifs (may Allah be be pleased with them).

Well, literature across the schools of Islam can be very problematic and misrepresentative of personalities. Du'a Saname Quraish doesn't have much of a chain just like many other du'as, so scholars I have spoken to have dismissed it on those grounds. The sermon of Shaqshaqiya only proves that 'Ali (a) endured with patience, despite knowing he had the every right to authority. He says this right off the bat and I think it very well describes the state that 'Ali (a) was in during those years.

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

So, if these names were good enough for his children [Hz. Hassan, Hz. Hussein and Hz. Ali ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased them) used the same names for their children] what is stopping present-day Shias using the same names?

I am not sure. I assume it's due to there being an unpleasant association with these names and certain emotions in some cultures have just happened to develop this way over time. 

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Care to share with us what was this bigger purpose for such a great sacrifice?

It could have been anything. I have mentioned this elsewhere, but we tend to think of marriages back in those days with a 21st century yardstick. Marriage entailed far different things back then and relationships between prominent personalities went above and beyond things that we would consider to be deal-breakers today. Maybe it wasn't a sacrifice at all. Perhaps 'Umar desired it. Perhaps 'Ali (a) did it to let the rest of the world know that him and the government were on good terms and he would rather strengthen his ties with other clans and tribes than to sit in protest. Point is, it could have been for any reason or purpose at all.

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

I hope you follow the above ayahs from the blessed Qur’an

I sure do. I am not answerable for anyone but myself, but it is only right for me to be able to distinguish from right to wrong and from good to evil. This is why we have a system of open critique and Islam has not prohibited this.

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

You will definitely have Sunni version and Shia version of same history, each upholding their version as absolute truth. It’s when sincere person sits down and does proper research one will arrive at the truth.

That's a muddy ocean. The Sunnism we have today did not always exist; it evolved over time, mostly due to the support it had from the state. Shi'ism evolved parallel to Sunnism but very differently, since knowledge stayed with the Imam (a) and their network had no support from the government(s). So when we say "Sunni" or "Shia" versions of history and that we must "research" information to arrive at truth, we are subconsciously thinking of the current structure and principles of analysis we have inherited as knowledge, but when those historical events were taking place, the Sunni and Shi'a did not technically exist in the same way as they do today. However, we do the best to filter out as much as we can. 

Edited by Ibn-e-Muhammad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I am not sure. I assume it's due to there being an unpleasant association with these names and certain emotions in some cultures have just happened to develop this way over time. 

Just a quick response on this.  Your Noble Imams (may Allah be pleased with them), whom you are obliged to follow obediently, they didn’t find any “unpleasant association and certain emotions with using these names.”

It is NOT just some cultures but all Shia follow their Scholars rather than their Noble Imams.
Mullah Majlisi under the direction of Safavids initiated this practice to disassociate from using these names.

The rest I’ll respond to when and if get the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

Just a quick response on this.  Your Noble Imams (may Allah be pleased with them), whom you are obliged to follow obediently, they didn’t find any “unpleasant association and certain emotions with using these names.”

It is NOT just some cultures but all Shia follow their Scholars rather than their Noble Imams.
Mullah Majlisi under the direction of Safavids initiated this practice to disassociate from using these names.

The rest I’ll respond to when and if get the time.

I never said they (a) did either, in fact I am arguing for the opposite, really.

And yes, the Shi'a do follow scholars, and I have not come across any single scholar or any Imam (a) who has outright prohibited naming children 'Umar or Uthman or what have you. None of this is a jurisprudential issue and nor is inspired by the Imams (a). As I said before, it comes from a place of emotion and disassociation that developed over the course of time as the sectarian split became more and more realized. You cannot raise a question at Shi'ism based out of something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/2/2022 at 4:57 PM, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I disagree on the basis of

I mean we all have the right to our own opinion - but I just quoted what the scholar who wrote the book believes. Allahu a'lam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Debate follower said:

I agree with you that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) did not hate his predecessors Khalifs (may Allah be be pleased with them) and had very good relations with them.

Salam this is just wahabi rhetoric  which interpreting  cooperation  in well being of Muslim community even with tyrant  & usurper rulers equal  to having good relations with them.:blabla:

On 6/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Debate follower said:

The problem lies in Shia literature which is advocating the notion that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) harboured bitter resentment towards his predecessors Khalifs (may Allah be be pleased with them).

Just have look Dua Saname Quraish at this link https://www.duas.org/pdfs/Sanamequraish.pdf

This dua which is attributed to Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is full of serious charges.

This dua has no authenticity  which in response to your previous post about it , your claim  has been refuted although  you like to repeat such nonsense  rhetoric  too many times which you ignore it always we don't take any type of nonsense  Hadith as authentic  in similar fashion of Wahabists  & Salafis.

On 6/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Debate follower said:

And have a look at Sermon 3 Nahjul Balagha –  shows his anguish and bitterness.

Sermon 3 Nahjul Balagha (Popularly known as Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

His sermon is totally  fair & rational  whch only facts have beer  mentioned  in it by Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which all fair sunni scholars & historians have verified  it's authenticity nevertheless  typical  reaction of Wahabists  & Salafists  is denying  it or at least calling it weak & unreliable  which you can't stick it with anytype of glue or gimmickry  to unauthentic Dua Saname Quraish.:blabla:

On 6/4/2022 at 5:02 AM, Debate follower said:

It is NOT just some cultures but all Shia follow their Scholars rather than their Noble Imams.
Mullah Majlisi under the direction of Safavids initiated this practice to disassociate from using these names.

The rest I’ll respond to when and if get the time.

It doesn't  need wasting  time of anyone  because it's just a typical  rhetoric  of Wahabists  & Salfist against Allamah (Mullah is equal to it which has no negative  meaning) Majlisi (رضي الله عنه) & Safavids based on baseless  propaganda  of wahabists  & Salafists  because  you don't  have any reliable or authentic  report for proving your baseless  accusations .:blabla::hahaha:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 5:02 AM, Debate follower said:

It is NOT just some cultures but all Shia follow their Scholars rather than their Noble Imams.
Mullah Majlisi under the direction of Safavids initiated this practice to disassociate from using these names.

The rest I’ll respond to when and if get the time.

It's clearly  a nonsense  because  even since Safavid Sunni muslims have named their children in name of three caliphs even in name of Zubair who has fought with Amir Al Muminin Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) in battle of Jamal  is common between  Sunnis of Iran which they can register  these names freely  in all of their documents & Identity  cards which you can see refuting  of your nonsense  with this example  about Zubair Niknafs who is a fmous person  in Iran which also his name has been mentioned countless  times in all Football/Soccer matches reports in IRIB without  censoring  or insulting.

Quote

Zubair Niknafs, born on April 12, 1993 in Sanandaj, is an Iranian football player who plays as a defensive midfielder for Esteghlal Tehran Football Club in the Persian Gulf Premier League.
A summary of the biography of Zubair Niknafs

Full name: Mohammad Zubair Niknafs

Date of birth: April 12, 1993

Place of birth: Sanandaj, Iran

Height: 1.82 meters (5 feet 11 112 inches)

Position: Defensive midfielder

Biography of Zubair Niknafs آرگا

https://arga-mag.com/741055/بیوگرافی-زبیر-نیک-نفس/biography-of-zubair-niknafs-11

https://www.beytoote.com/sport/athletic/biography-zubair-niknafs.html

Quote

Midfield

Ahmad Noorollahi, Mohammad Karimi, Yasin Salmani, Zubair Niknafs, Alireza Jahanbakhsh, Saeed Ezatollahi, Vahid Amiri, Saman Ghoddos, Mehdi Torabi , Ali Gholizadeh.

List of Team Melli Players vs. Syria and Iraq – Team Melli

https://www.teammelli.com/list-of-team-melli-players-vs-syria-and-iraq/

Quote

Nikonfs: They made a similar mistake on the gesture for Persepolis

According to the sports reporter of Fars News Agency, Zubair Nikonfas said about this game after the goalless draw between Esteghlal and Persepolis: “The game was a low position and both teams played high pressure.”

Nikonfs: They made a similar mistake on the gesture for Persepolis

https://partonews.ir/en/nikonfs-they-made-a-similar-mistake-on-the-gesture-for-persepolis/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:05 AM, Debate follower said:

So, if these names were good enough for his children [Hz. Hassan, Hz. Hussein and Hz. Ali ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased them) used the same names for their children] what is stopping present-day Shias using the same names?

Or are you trying to prove something which these Noble people didn’t know?

 

Why did the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) name some of his children after the caliphs? Wasn't that a sign of their good relationship?

These letters were common in Arabic and people chose names based on the common culture of their time, so it can not be said that Ali (عليه السلام) named some of his children Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman because of his friendship with the caliphs and did not really It is possible to deny all the oppressions that have been inflicted on the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) in history just by naming them. To explain this answer in detail, the following points are made: The names of the three caliphs were not specific to these three, but before and after Islam, such names were common among the Arabs
 
Quote

The names of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Yazid and ... It is a public name and is not a specific name, and sometimes a name was chosen for many people who were also known by the same name, and there were no restrictions in this regard among tribes and nations. Ibn Hajar in book of

Al-Isabah Fi Tamyiz Al-Sahabah
(الاصابه)

chapter/section of «ذکر من اسمه عمر»، <<mentioning whose name was Umar >>, he has mentioned  twenty-one of the companions whose name was Umar and all of them are unrelated to the name of the second caliph. [Al-Isaba Fi Tamyiz Al-Sahaba, vol. 4, pp. 587-597.] [ الإصابه فی تمییز الصحابه، ج4، ص587 - 597.]

There are people named Yazid ibn Hatim or Mu'awiyah ibn Ammar; And it has nothing to do with hated figures such as Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah or Mu'awiyah ibn Abu Sufyan.

 

Quote

Some caliphs have interfered in the naming of some people; One of Umar's habits was to change people's names.


Al-Baladhuri (d. 279 AH) claims that Umar ibn al-Khattab named Ali's son "Umar" after himself [Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1, p. 297; و ر.ک:  Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala'i Imam Dhahabi v4, p 134  [سیر أعلام النبلاء ، ج 4 ، ص 134.].

He also changed the name of Ibrahim son of Harith and named him Abd al-Rahman [Al-Isaba Fi Tamyiz Al-Sahaba, vol. 5, p. 29.]

 

The naming of children was not based on the parents' interest in individuals and personalities, and if the naming was to express affection for the personalities, why did the second caliph issue a decree throughout the Islamic countries that no one has the right to name his child after the Messenger of Allah ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) [Fatah al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 10, p 572 ] [ فتح الباری شرح صحیح البخاری، ج 10، ص 572.]


If we consider the situation of suffocation, terror and pressure on the Shiites of that time, we will see that the infallible Imams (عليه السلام) from the Ahl al-Bayt inevitably took measures to save the Shiites that were permissible according to the Shari'a; Including: they named their children after the caliphs. They established kinship with the elders of the Companions through marriage in order to reduce these pressures, and the tyranny of the Umayyads and the Abbasids could not take advantage of the simplicity of the people under the pretext that they were opposed to the three caliphs. so then their Shiites should be severely beaten and killed and looted [Young Shiite Answer to Wahhabi Questions, p. 48.] [ پاسخ جوان شیعی به پرسش های وهابیان، ص 48.].


Of course, sometimes a name is hated by people at a time when people normally avoid it. But  on the other hand at that time these names were not yet hated and were used by the general public.

https://www.porseman.com/article/نام-گذاري-به-نام-خلفا/1309

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ibn Taymiyyah, the spiritual father of modern Wahhabism and Salafism, explicitly states that naming a person by name of someone is not a reason to agree with him. (7)

(7). منهاج السنة النبوية في نقض كلام الشيعة القدرية، ابن تيمية، ابوالعباس تقی الدين، مكتبة ابن تيمية، الریاض، 1986م، ج 1، ص 42 و 43.

 

Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah 1986 ,  v1, p 42& 43
(منهاج السنة النبوية)

 

Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah is a work by Ibn Taymiyyah. It was written as a refutation of a book by the Shi'a-Ithna'ashari theologian Al-Hilli called Minhaj al-karamah. Wikipedia

Their dispute was over a fundamental issue,  the leadership of society after the demise of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the issue of the Saqifa and the attack on the house of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to take allegiance and usurpation of Fadak and other injustices to the Ahl al-Bayt. (عليه السلام) have been  taken place, it never disappears with a few naming or occasional marriages.

The study of history proves to us that if the relationship between the caliphs and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was friendly and cordial, that Imam, instead of staying at home and digging wells for 25 years, would have ruled under the caliphs  instead of people who were not comparable to him in merit thus he would  Taken a position and a status for himself. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has not accepted any position from the caliphs. Not the command of the war, not the government of a province, not the Emirate of Al-Hajj, and nothing like that. Because accepting any of these positions meant giving up his inalienable right and validating the caliphs in the position of caliphate. The Imam explicitly in opposition  to a group who had been told that they were willing to pledge allegiance to him on the condition that he follow the Sunnah of Abu Bakr and Umar: أو أبا بكر و عُمَر عَمَلا بَغَرِ كِتَاب اللَّه وَسُنَة رَسُول الله ص لَم يَكُونَا عَلَى شَيْء مَنَ الحَق »(8); (Woe to you, if Abu Bakr and Umar acted contrary to the Book and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, what is the value that I want to act based on it ?!).

In any case, we believe that choosing a name is permissible for the children, and from naming the caliphs over someone can't  be assume suspicion of enmity with the Shiites , and on the other hand, just naming the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) is also not a reason for The friendship of Ahl al-Bayt whic it cannot be known. At the same time, according to the narrations narrated from Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام), naming names such as Muhammad, Ali, Hassan and Hussein is considered good. (13)[Young Shiite Answer to Wahhabi Questions, p. 47 & 404.] [ پاسخ جوان شیعی به پرسش های وهابیان، ص 47 و404.].

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=44&lid=0&catid=27651&mid=415243

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Umar ibn al-Khattab and opposition to the tradition of the Prophet in naming someone  "Muhammad"

This article has two parts. The first part is to prove the tradition of naming "Muhammad" and the order of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to this matter, and the second part is the opposition of Umar ibn al-Khattab to this matter during his caliphate.

It is a tradition to name people after the Prophet:

Quote

حدثنا محمد بن کثیر أخبرنا شعبة عن منصور عن سالم عن جابر رضی الله عنه عن النبی صلى الله علیه و سلم قال : تسموا باسمی ولا تکتنوا بکنیتی.
صحیح البخاری،ج3،ص1301،ح3345 ط دار ابن کثیر

Jabir quotes the Prophet that the Prophet said: Name similar  to my name me but do not name to my title.

Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, p. 1301 , H 3345

Similar hadiths have been included in other sources, including:

Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 1, p. 52,  Ibn Kathir
Sahih Muslim, vol. 3, p. 1682, H 2131, H 2133 and H 2134
Sunan Ibn Majah, vol. 2, p. 1230, H 3736


And many other sources that we will only be mentioned the addresses of the Sahih books in order to prevent the lengthening of the article.

 

Quote

Jabir ibn Abdullah says that a person from the Ansar had a son and wanted to name him Muhammad. They went to the Messenger of Allah and asked him. The Messenger of Allah said: Name him to my name, but do not name me's. Qasim, I was sent to dispense between you.

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ حُصَیْنٍ، عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ أَبِی الْجَعْدِ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ، قَالَ: وُلِدَ لِرَجُلٍ مِنَ الْأَنْصَارِ غُلَامٌ، فَأَرَادَ أَنْ یُسَمِّیَهُ مُحَمَّدًا، فَانْطَلَقَ بِهِ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَیْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَسَأَلُوهُ، فَقَالَ: سَمُّوا بِاسْمِی، وَلَا تَکَنَّوْا بِکُنْیَتِی، فَإِنِّی بُعِثْتُ قَاسِمًا أَقْسِمُ بَیْنَکُمْ.

مسند احمد،ج23،ص219،ح14963 ط موسسة الرسالة

Musnad Ahmad , v 23 , p219 H 1496

 

Quote
(371)
Chapter: The Names of the Prophets
(371)
بَابُ أَسْمَاءِ الأنْبِيَاءِ
 
Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "One of our men among the Ansar had a son and wanted to call him Muhammad. The Ansari said, 'I put him on my shoulder and took him to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. [Another variant has:
"He had a son and they wanted to name him Muhammad."] The Prophet said, 'Name yourselves with my name but do not use my kunya. I have been made the distributor (Qasim) to divide things between you.'"
 
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ، قَالَ‏:‏ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ، وَمَنْصُورٍ، وَفُلاَنٍ، سَمِعُوا سَالِمَ بْنَ أَبِي الْجَعْدِ، عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ، قَالَ‏:‏ وُلِدَ لِرَجُلٍ مِنَّا مِنَ الأَنْصَارِ غُلاَمٌ، وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يُسَمِّيَهُ مُحَمَّدًا، قَالَ شُعْبَةُ فِي حَدِيثِ مَنْصُورٍ‏:‏ إِنَّ الأَنْصَارِيَّ قَالَ‏:‏ حَمَلْتُهُ عَلَى عُنُقِي، فَأَتَيْتُ بِهِ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، وَفِي حَدِيثِ سُلَيْمَانَ‏:‏ وُلِدَ لَهُ غُلاَمٌ فَأَرَادُوا أَنْ يُسَمِّيَهُ مُحَمَّدًا، قَالَ‏:‏ تَسَمُّوا بِاسْمِي، وَلاَ تُكَنُّوا بِكُنْيَتِي، فَإِنِّي إِنَّمَا جُعِلْتُ قَاسِمًا، أَقْسِمُ بَيْنَكُمْ‏.‏ وَقَالَ حُصَيْنٌ‏:‏ بُعِثْتُ قَاسِمًا أَقْسِمُ بَيْنَكُمْ‏.‏
 
Grade:  Sahih (Al-Albani)   صـحـيـح   (الألباني) حكم   :
Reference  : Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 839
In-book reference  : Book 34, Hadith 29
English translation  : Book 34, Hadith 839
 
 

Clear error and explicit opposition of Umar ibn al-Khattab to the Sunnah of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)):

Quote

Clear error and explicit opposition of Umar ibn al-Khattab to the Sunnah of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)):

وقال آخرون : غیر جائز لأحد أن یسمى باسم النبى علیه السلام ذکر من قال ذلک : حدثنا محمد بن بشار ، حدثنا معاذ بن هشام قال : حدثنى أبى ، عن قتادة ، عن سالم بن أبى الجعد قال : کتب عمر إلى أهل الکوفة الا تسموا أحدًا باسم نبى.

شرح صحیح البخاری لابن بطال،ج9،ص344 ط مکتبة الرشد

And others have said: It is not permissible for anyone to name the name of Prophet for himself, and these people have mentioned the hadith that Salem ibn Abi al-Ja'd narrates that Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote a letter to the people of Kufa and said that no one should be named after name of any prophet.

https://al-shia.blog.ir/post/10/عمر-بن-الخطاب-و-مخالفت-با-سنت-پیامبر-در-نامگذاری-به-اسم-محمد

http://hai.rzb.ir/p/423 (video link)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

There doesn't need to be a condition mentioned explicitly in the Qur'an for there to be one. This is simply a matter of logic and faith:

There you go! Now we have your consent that there is no explicit condition. So, now you are going rely on your OWN logic and your OWN faith to ‘invent’ that obscure condition!!!

The Blessed Qur’an has explicitly prohibited Muslims from speculating meanings to the verses to suit their own personal agenda.

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

Human logic is irrelevant against Divine Decree.

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

if a human can develop into a good person from a bad one, he can similarly go the other way as well. We are quite literally hardwired in our understanding that Allah's satisfaction is dependent on the sum of our actions, as this is the only just way. 

Read verse 100 of Surah at-Taubah, yet again.

As for the foremost—the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers—and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there for ever and ever. That is the ultimate triumph. Verse 100 Surah Taubah

Allah is pleased with themAllah Almighty has declared His Pleasure for the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers” – There is no mention of any condition! Not even any hint.

and they are pleased with HimAllah Almighty has declared that “the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers” are pleased with Him!!!! - – There is no mention of any condition! Not even any hint.

And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, – Allah Almighty is revealing the rewards for “the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers”

to stay there for ever and ever

That is the ultimate triumph – “the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers” have earned Ultimate Triumph

But your LOGIC and FAITH are searching for that illusory ‘condition’.  This is only due to sectarian compulsions.

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I refuse to believe that Islam magically turned a bunch of polytheists into the best of believers overnight that forever earned the satisfaction of Allah.

There was no magic involved. You are exposing your ignorance of early Islamic history and its unparalleled progress!

Firstly, Allah Almighty Has Promised that He will make Islam triumph over all religions.

It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it. Verse 33 Surah at-Taubah

Secondly, our Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) struggled indefatigably, determinedly and resolutely to spread the Message. This was the Magic Bullet you were seeking.

Slowly but surely very sincere people kept joining his mission. Initially this growth slow but steadily kept increasing.

The Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was the best of Prophets and he was the best of teachers.  

This was the quality that “magically turned a bunch of polytheists into the best of believers overnight that forever earned the satisfaction of Allah.”  This extraordinaire and phenomenal quality inspired “a bunch of polytheists “to great heights unmatched in human history. Within a decade of passing away of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) these people smashed two super powers of those times [Roman Empire and Sassanid Empire].

But you “refuse to believe” - Your problem to clearly evident to all – Your inbuilt sectarian bias and flawed logic is getting in the way. This is how biased history learnt right from formative years influences and determines one’s outlook and mind-set.

Tariq ibn Shihab reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Verily, we were a disgraceful people and Allah honoured us with Islam. If we seek honour from anything besides that with which Allah honoured us, Allah will disgrace us.” Source: al-Mustadrak ‘alá al-Ṣaḥīḥayn 207

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I will never make a judgment about heaven and hell that is Allah's to make, but as a person of reason, I also don't like to sugarcoat people's attitudes and actions when I can clearly see that they could have done better. If you want to choose that path, that is fine by me.

Indeed, Judgment belongs to Allah Almighty alone. As a person of reason, you must agree that “sugar-coating people's attitudes and actions” is as bad as vilifying, maligning, bad-mouthing under the influence of ‘sectarian compulsions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Well, literature across the schools of Islam can be very problematic and misrepresentative of personalities. Du'a Saname Quraish doesn't have much of a chain just like many other du'as, so scholars I have spoken to have dismissed it on those grounds

Well, there are other scholars who vouch for its authenticity on same level as that of other well-known supplications likes of other duas - Dua’ Kumail, Dua al-Sabah, Dua al-Adilah, Dua Abu Hamza al-Thumali, Dua al-Nudbah, Dua al-Mashlool, Dua al-Jawshan al-Saghir and al-Jawshan al-Kabir.

In terms of the authenticity of the chain; this supplication falls under the same category of all the other known supplications. Dua’ Kumail, Dua al-Sabah, Dua al-Adilah, Dua Abu Hamza al-Thumali, Dua al-Nudbah, Dua al-Mashlool, Dua al-Jawshan al-Saghir and al-Jawshan al-Kabir and many other supplications; they are not recognised as having authentic chains by the convention of later scholars. However, this does not make Dua Sanamay Quriash fall from the rank of reliability, as assumed by ignorants today.

https://alhabib.org/en/is-dua-sanamay-quraish-authentic/

The prayer of Sanam-e-Quraish (the idols of Quraish) is a very authentic prayer of Amir-ul-Momaneen Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib asws and so has been recognised by all renowned Shia historians

https://www.hubeali.com/duas-online/dua-e-sanam-e-quraish/

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The sermon of Shaqshaqiya only proves that 'Ali (a) endured with patience, despite knowing he had the every right to authority. He says this right off the bat and I think it very well describes the state that 'Ali (a) was in during those years.

In reality the Sermon of Shaqshaqiya goes against Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him)

This is uttered nearly twenty odd years too late! This can be dated to around 18 to 20 years after passing away of the blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). (2 years for Hz. Abu Bakr, 10 years for Hz. Umar Al Khattab and around 7 years plus midway of Hz Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with these three Noble Souls immensely)). This is 20 odd years too late.

This sermon goes against Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). As I had said earlier, Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the foremost Believers in Islam. He was known for his wisdom and bravery.

In this Sermon Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) comes out as a weak man just protesting that he has been robbed of his rightful Divine appointed status which was being dismantled right in front of his eyes, but he could do nothing but protest 20 odd years too late. On top of it he was their advisor!

If, he was Divinely chosen to succeed the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him) he was duty bound to fight for it and restore it not worrying for the consequences.

He would have followed the illustrious example of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and fought for his cause not caring for the consequences. Following is reply of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when his dear Uncle had requested him mute down his opposition to the Mushrikeens!

“By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand on condition that I abandoned this course, I would not abandon it until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein.”"

Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) would have done the same, no doubt about this.

This Sermon should have been said just after the funeral of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he was Divinely Ordained.

Note also that he never recalled the event of Ghadeer Khumm. Never mentioned his Divine Appointment. This is the oft-repeated mantra by our Shia brethren (sisters included) as the strongest point of the Divine Appointment.

 As per Shia beliefs the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had conveyed the message and Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is duty bound to implement it come what may, trusting that Allah Almighty will protect him just as Allah Almighty had promised to protect the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Now this blessed Surah comes into effect.

O Messenger! Convey everything revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message. Allah will ˹certainly˺ protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the people who disbelieve. Verse 67 Surah Al-Maida

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

I sure do. I am not answerable for anyone but myself, but it is only right for me to be able to distinguish from right to wrong and from good to evil. This is why we have a system of open critique and Islam has not prohibited this.

Islam doesn’t give anyone ‘carte blanche’ to pass judgments except in light of the Blessed Qur’an and Hadith.

No, you will be answerable to Allah Almighty for any views in divergence the Blessed Qur’an and Hadith. To be fair in judgment one cannot rely on just selected source of information.  Take information for all sources to be fair in your judgment. Otherwise, your judgment will be deemed to be prejudiced and defective in logic and reason.

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

The Sunnism we have today did not always exist; it evolved over time, mostly due to the support it had from the state.

This is standard Shia partisan position – But the Blessed Qur’an negates this.

You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much. Verse 21Surat al-Ahzab

When Allah and His Messenger have decided something, no believing man or woman has a choice about [following or not following] it. Anyone who disobeys Allah and His Messenger is clearly misguided. Verse 36 Surat al-Ahzab

The Blessed Qur’an clearly states to follow “the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers” in goodness. This is because they obeyed Allah and followed the way of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

As for the foremost—the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers—and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there for ever and ever. That is the ultimate triumph. Verse 100 Surah Taubah

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

Shi'ism evolved parallel to Sunnism but very differently, since knowledge stayed with the Imam (a) and their network had no support from the government(s).

This is standard Shia partisan position – but the facts prove it otherwise.

Take the case of Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni. It contains total of 16121 hadith.  After thorough scrutiny other prominent Shia scholars concluded that 9485 hadith that were unreliable. That means only 6636 are considered reliable!! That’s 41.2%!!!!!??

Shias, just like Sunnis, take knowledge from their books. No Shia, even grand ayatollah, can claim that he receives knowledge directly from the Imam.

Prior to 1500s 12er Shia was a marginal faction within Shias. Zaidis and Ismailis were more prominent factions.

12er Shi’ism got a great boost from Safavids who were extreme Sufis but adopted 12er Shi’ism and by brutal and savage means converted Iran, Azerbaijan and surrounding areas from overwhelming Sunni to 12er Shi’ism.

Read the following with open mind and you will know why 12er Shi’ism came to prominence among Shia.

Before you point your fingers at others; check your own fingers. You’ll find your own fingers pointing back at you!!!

Shia development was never a smooth affair

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - (You’ll learn something new about history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

So when we say "Sunni" or "Shia" versions of history and that we must "research" information to arrive at truth, we are subconsciously thinking of the current structure and principles of analysis we have inherited as knowledge, but when those historical events were taking place,

I agree with you, 100 percent.  See the following case of Syed Raza Rizvi who was very active in Shia/Sunni debates in the UK for some years.  But he decided to go back and study his own history books from authentic sources.

Let’s Chat #1: Syed Raza Rizvi Speaks on Sectarian Bias and Polemics – if you have time, you can listen to his talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oi3zWWMVk

Having done his research within his own books – he is changed person. He claims that a lot false hadith against senior Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has been incorporated into Shia literature after Safavid brutal takeover of Iran.  Same is the case of Ahmad Al Katib – former 12er Shia scholar – you can check it up.

On 6/4/2022 at 12:39 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

the Sunni and Shi'a did not technically exist in the same way as they do today. However, we do the best to filter out as much as we can. 

Letter 58: Written to the people of various localities describing what took place between him and the people of Siffin

The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it. We suggested to them to appease the situation by calming the temporary irritation and pacifying the people till matters settled down and stabilized when we would gain strength to put matters right.

Note:

we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet
and our message in Islam is the same
We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger
nor did they want us to add any such thing.
there was complete unity

except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.

Clearly, Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) has stated the differences between him and his opponents were not on basis of Faith but rather political!

Note: No mention of Concept of Imamate.

None of most prominent Shia scholars ever benefited from gaining knowledge from any of Shia Imams (may Allah be pleased with them).

Important point. Sunnis take all ‘Shia’ Imams as men of knowledge and piety following Sunni Path. Of course, you have to dispute this due to Shia Faith. That’s your right.

Have a look at chronological order of Classical Shia scholars. None of them ever met or learnt from any ‘Shia’ Imam in their lifetime.

Mohammad Ibn Ya’qub Al-Kulayni Born: 250 AH /864 CE - Died: 329 AH /941 CE

Sheikh Al-Saduq Born: 305/917-8 — Died 381AH/991-2CE)

Sheik Al-Mufid Born:  338/948 CE - Died: 413 AH/1022 (aged 73–74)

Sheikh Al-Tusi Born: 385 H/; 995 CE - Died: 460 H/; 1067 CE

Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi ((عليه السلام).) was born on 15th Sha‘bān 255 A.H. (868 CE) 

The Ghaybat Sughra 260 A.H. (872 A.D.) to 329 A.H. (939 ... 69 years

The Ghaybat al Kubra 329 A.H – present and ongoing

Sunnis do have record that great Faqihs, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and others (may Allah have mercy on them) were contemporaries of Imams Imam Zainul abideen, Imam Baqir and Imam Jaffar (may Allah have mercy on them) and benefitted from them. None of most prominent Shia scholars ever benefited from gaining knowledge from any of Shia Imams (may Allah be pleased with them).

On 6/4/2022 at 1:49 AM, Ibn-e-Muhammad said:

And yes, the Shi'a do follow scholars, and I have not come across any single scholar or any Imam (a) who has outright prohibited naming children 'Umar or Uthman or what have you. None of this is a jurisprudential issue and nor is inspired by the Imams (a). As I said before, it comes from a place of emotion and disassociation that developed over the course of time as the sectarian split became more and more realized. You cannot raise a question at Shi'ism based out of something like this.

What is deemed okay with your Imams should be okay with 12ers, right? So, your collective emotions got the upper hand than what was the deeds of the Imams!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The Blessed Qur’an clearly states to follow “the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers” in goodness. This is because they obeyed Allah and followed the way of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

As for the foremost—the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers—and those who follow them in goodness, Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. And He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to stay there for ever and ever. That is the ultimate triumph. Verse 100 Surah Taubah

Salam first of them have been Amir al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام)  which wahabists  & Salafist neither   followed  him  nor recognized  him as an  Imam , then Um al muminin lady Khadija (sa) which wahabists  & Salafist consider Ayesha in higher status then her then Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه) who wahabists  & Salafist believe that Nauzubillah (Allah forbis) he died as unbliever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Debate follower said:

This Sermon should have been said just after the funeral of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he was Divinely Ordained.

Thanks Allah tha you don't  decide for any religious  matter because  due to your ignorance  you live in Lala land which you think everything  after demise of prophet  Muhammad (pbu) was good for Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding Verse 7 Surah al-Imran

Human logic is irrelevant against Divine Decree.

"who are firmly rooted in knowledge" which are infallible Imams even you have confirmed that your great  Sunni Imams have benefitted from them because infallible Imams have been more knowledgeable than them which you have benefited from their students as "great Faqihs, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and others " because infallible Imams have benefitted from Amir al Muminin Imam Ali(عليه السلام) which he benefited from divine knowledge of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which he received from Allah .

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Sunnis do have record that great Faqihs, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and others (may Allah have mercy on them) were contemporaries of Imams Imam Zainul abideen, Imam Baqir and Imam Jaffar (may Allah have mercy on them) and benefitted from them. 

If you belive in their knowledge so show only one naration from  Imam Zainul abideen(عليه السلام), Imam Baqir (عليه السلام)and Imam Jaffar (عليه السلام) in your books.:book:

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

None of most prominent Shia scholars ever benefited from gaining knowledge from any of Shia Imams (may Allah be pleased with them).

Shia scholars have benefited from aining knowledge from any of Shia Imams in similar fashion which "Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik and others"  have benefited from from Imam Zainul abideen(عليه السلام), Imam Baqir (عليه السلام)and Imam Jaffar (عليه السلام) .

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.

why you are free from his blood although Ayesha & cursed Muawiah & cursed Marwan caused his killing or you belive that Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has killed him so therefore we as Shias of Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) are responsible for his blood.:blabla::titanic:

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

What is deemed okay with your Imams should be okay with 12ers, right? So, your collective emotions got the upper hand than what was the deeds of the Imams!!!

Ibn Taymiyyah, the spiritual father of modern Wahhabism and Salafism, explicitly states that naming a person by name of someone is not a reason to agree with him. (7)

(7). منهاج السنة النبوية في نقض كلام الشيعة القدرية، ابن تيمية، ابوالعباس تقی الدين، مكتبة ابن تيمية، الریاض، 1986م، ج 1، ص 42 و 43.

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Mohammad Ibn Ya’qub Al-Kulayni Born: 250 AH /864 CE - Died: 329 AH /941 CE

Sheikh Al-Saduq Born: 305/917-8 — Died 381AH/991-2CE)

Sheik Al-Mufid Born:  338/948 CE - Died: 413 AH/1022 (aged 73–74)

Sheikh Al-Tusi Born: 385 H/; 995 CE - Died: 460 H/; 1067 CE

Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi ((عليه السلام).) was born on 15th Sha‘bān 255 A.H. (868 CE) 

The Ghaybat Sughra 260 A.H. (872 A.D.) to 329 A.H. (939 ... 69 years

The Ghaybat al Kubra 329 A.H – present and ongoing

 

Being in Ghaybat doesn't mean that they have not access to Imam Mahdi (aj) which there is authentic narration which "Sheik Al-Mufid Born: 338/948 CE - Died: 413" AH/1022 (aged 73–74)" have received a letter from Imam Mahdi (aj) therefore him & rest of mentioned great shia Schoolars have benefited from Imam Mahdi (aj) .

11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Having done his research within his own books – he is changed person. He claims that a lot false hadith against senior Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has been incorporated into Shia literature after Safavid brutal takeover of Iran.  Same is the case of Ahmad Al Katib – former 12er Shia scholar – you can check it up.

:blabla::titanic::hahaha::censored:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

12er Shi’ism got a great boost from Safavids who were extreme Sufis but adopted 12er Shi’ism and by brutal and savage means converted Iran, Azerbaijan and surrounding areas from overwhelming Sunni to 12er Shi’ism.

Read the following with open mind and you will know why 12er Shi’ism came to prominence among Shia.

Before you point your fingers at others; check your own fingers. You’ll find your own fingers pointing back at you!!!

this shows that you are inheretly biased minded about 12er Shi’ism also you have spread wrong information because current country of Azerbaijan has belonged to Iran since Qajar era which has been brutally seperated from Iran by Tsarian russia which before that it has been called Aran اران

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

I agree with you, 100 percent.  See the following case of Syed Raza Rizvi who was very active in Shia/Sunni debates in the UK for some years.  But he decided to go back and study his own history books from authentic sources.

Let’s Chat #1: Syed Raza Rizvi Speaks on Sectarian Bias and Polemics – if you have time, you can listen to his talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oi3zWWMVk

Having done his research within his own books – he is changed person. He claims that a lot false hadith against senior Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has been incorporated into Shia literature after Safavid brutal takeover of Iran.  Same is the case of Ahmad Al Katib – former 12er Shia scholar – you can check it up.

Since now we have respected true companions of prophet  Muhammad (pbu) anyway  we don't deny controversial wrong narrations  about insulting  revered Sunni figures which Syed Raza Rizvi is still a shia scholars that follows  great Ayatollah  Sistani & Imam  Khameni & Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) about fighting with secterianiasm 

Ahmad Al Katib – former 12er Shia scholar is a fake scholar which his proof for being a shia scholar is an old black & white photo from his youth which at that time wearing it has been common between Iraqis whether Sunni or Shia.:titanic::titanic::respect::sign_war:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Let’s Chat #1: Syed Raza Rizvi Speaks on Sectarian Bias and Polemics – if you have time, you can listen to his talk.

 

Quote


Syed Ali Raza Rizvi - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Syed_...

Allama Syed Ali Raza Rizvi (Arabic: السيد على رضا رضوى) is a prominent Pakistani Twelver Shia Scholar. ... He is the president of Majlis e Ulama e Shia (Europe), ...
Nationality: Pakistani
Religion: Usuli Twelver Shia Islam
Title: Allama, ‏Maulana‏
Based in: London, ‏UK

image.jpeg.4937cab3c3a35928c5b9171d65ad5e79.jpeg

https://www.al-islam.org/person/syed-ali-raza-rizvi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/13/2022 at 2:23 AM, Debate follower said:

Take the case of Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni. It contains total of 16121 hadith.  After thorough scrutiny other prominent Shia scholars concluded that 9485 hadith that were unreliable. That means only 6636 are considered reliable!! That’s 41.2%!!!!!??

Salam

Fabricated hadiths were so prolific that Sahih al-Bukhari includes 2761 non-repetitive hadiths selected from among nearly 600,000 hadiths, and Sahih Muslim includes 4000 non-repetitive hadiths selected from among 300,000 hadiths, as claimed by their authors.

Accuraracy of Sahih al-Bukhari is 0.004601666667=0.46% lesser than 0.5% which is lesser accurate than  39.73 % is Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni

Accuracy of Sahih Muslim is 0.01333333333 =1.3% which is 39.9% or 40% is lesser accurate than Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Hadith_Ban

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/13/2022 at 2:23 AM, Debate follower said:

Take the case of Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni. It contains total of 16121 hadith.  After thorough scrutiny other prominent Shia scholars concluded that 9485 hadith that were unreliable. That means only 6636 are considered reliable!! That’s 41.2%!!!!!??

Jamal Albanna a sunni Scholar argues that

653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.

His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).

Quote


I think there are some Hadith in this book are not compatible with Quran.

Also I think this is not a logic term to say "Sahih Bukhari is Sahih (authentic) because its name is Sahih"

Bukhari was an Iranian written this book near 200 years after prophet and indeed any human can have mistakes.

Also Jamal Albanna a sunni Scholar argues that

653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.

His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).

there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.

Quote

for example this article says Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Tahzib al-Tahzib volume 10 page 461 (تهذیب التهذیب، ج 10، ص 461) says there are some narrators in Sahih Bukhari that Muslim never consider them reliable and even critiqued them and did not narrate any hadith from them. for example one narrator Muslim never considered him reliable is نعیم بن حماد مروزی[Naim ibn Hammad (Ḥammād al-Khuzā'ī al-Marwazī ]. some sunni scholars considered him reliable but still many not. I think evidences from sunni books mentioned in this article prove there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.

Nu'aym ibn Hammad was a teacher of imam al-Bukhari and he was a great scholar of fiqh and faraa'id (inheritance matters) and author of many books, but his hadith narrations have a bad taste as a-Dhahabi said in his Siyar a'alaam an-Nubala'

Quote

On Nu'aym ibn Hammad نعيم بن حماد

Nu'aym ibn Hammad ibn Mo'awiyah ibn al-Harith ibn Humam ibn Salamah ibn Malik al-Khoza'i al-Marozi (abu 'Abdillah) نعيم بن حماد بن معاوية بن الحارث ابن همام بن سلمة بن مالك الخزاعي، المروزي (أبو عبد الله) was a teacher of imam al-Bukhari and he was a great scholar of fiqh and faraa'id (inheritance matters) and author of many books, but his hadith narrations have a bad taste as a-Dhahabi said in his Siyar a'alaam an-Nubala' سير أعلام النبلاء (see here in Arabic) we he quoted a couple of hadith narrations which were rejected by many scholars which Nu'aym ibn Hammad al-Marozi narrated and spread. Imam al-Bukhari has only quoted a hadith of his teacher once in his Sahih in the book of "Merits of al-Ansaa"r on the authority of 'Amr ibn Maimun (see here) who only described what he 'Amr ibn Maimun (not the prophet()) witnessed in Jahilya. So the authenticity and correctness of this narration doesn't really matter as it is strictly speaking not a hadith...

Jamal al-Bana or Gamal al-Bana wasn't a scholar but one could say an author and a Muslim thinker or better less a scholar than a liberal Muslim thinker

In his book he didn't say that all these 635 hadiths (or narrations) - this is equal less than 8.7% of the content of musnad narrations in the Sahih al-Bukhari, while the amount refers to both al-Bukhari and Muslim's Sahih - are fabricated or incorrect. But he said that they don't have any meaning/use or are not binding for Muslims

Quote

Jamal al-Bana and his book

Jamal al-Bana or Gamal al-Bana wasn't a scholar but one could say an author and a Muslim thinker or better less a scholar than a liberal Muslim thinker (for example he didn't regard hijab obligatory on women except with the wives of the prophet(), nor smoking as breaking fast for a person who can't stop it, beside other strange views)! He was the younger brother of Hassan al-Bana the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood!

In his book he didn't say that all these 635 hadiths (or narrations) - this is equal less than 8.7% of the content of musnad narrations in the Sahih al-Bukhari, while the amount refers to both al-Bukhari and Muslim's Sahih - are fabricated or incorrect. But he said that they don't have any meaning/use or are not binding for Muslims: This means they don't affect anything in their live, for example who cares about what the Messenger (peace be upon him) used to wear (which colors) etc. as long as there is no clear order to do the same.

https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2419/is-sahih-al-bukhari-considered-as-100-authentic-by-sunni-scholars

The number of hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is around 9,082....without repetition this number reduces to around 2,602. This is from a total of around 600,000 traditions

(all the above material is from Prof. Azmi’s books).

Quote

The number of hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari is around 9,082. But without repetition this number reduces to around 2,602. This is from a total of around 600,000 traditions that the Imam collected (all the above material is from Prof. Azmi’s books).

Imam Bukhari mentions that he learned from over 1,000 sheikhs and some scholars have put the number above 1,000 by 80. Every person Imam Bukhari heard a hadith from was his sheikh or teacher. 

https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/is-sahih-al-bukhari-authentic-part-1/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 6/13/2022 at 2:23 AM, Debate follower said:

Take the case of Al Kafi – the most prominent Shia book authored by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni. It contains total of 16121 hadith.  After thorough scrutiny other prominent Shia scholars concluded that 9485 hadith that were unreliable. That means only 6636 are considered reliable!! That’s 41.2%!!!!!??

 

Contradictions within Bukhari

How old was the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) when he died?

Bukhari 4:56:747 and 4:56:748 - He was 40+10+10=60 years old.

Bukhari 5:58:242 and 5:59:742 – He was 63 years old.

How long did the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) stay in Mecca after revelation commenced?

Bukhari 4:56:747 and 4:56:748 – He stayed in Mecca for 10 years.

Bukhari 5:58:190 and 5:59:741 – He stayed in Mecca for 13 years.

Quote

Contradictions within Muslim

How old was the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) when he died?

Muslim 030:5794 – He was 60.

Muslim 030:5805 – He was 40+15+10=65 years old.

 

The exchange of gold for gold or silver

In the Quran God prohibits something called “riba” in Arabic. A number of hadith elaborate on what constitutes riba.

Quote

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 344:

Narrated Az-Zuhri from Malik bin Aus:

that the latter said, "Who has change?" Talha said, "I (will have change) when our store-keeper comes from the forest."

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: Allah's Apostle said, "The bartering of gold for silver is Riba, (usury), except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount, and wheat grain for wheat grain is usury except if it is form hand to hand and equal in amount, and dates for dates is usury except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount, and barley for barley is usury except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount."

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 388:

Contradictions

In Bukhari 3:34:344 above gold cannot be bartered for silver “except if it is from hand to hand and equal in amount.”

In Bukhari 3:34:388 there are no restrictions on how gold is sold for silver.

A contract for the sale of a camel

Many of the principles of Islamic commercial law are derived from analysis of hadith. There are a number of hadith regarding one particular transaction involving a camel. Only a few of them are reproduced below.

Muslim Book 010, Number 3886:

Contradictions

What was the agreed price of the camel?

Muslim 010:3886 – one uqiya
Muslim 010:3891 – five uqiyas
Muslim 010:3893 – two uqiyas and a dirham or two dirhams
Muslim 010:3895 – four dinars

The contradictions demonstrate that it is simply impossible to regard all hadith as 100% reliable, which is the naive belief sometimes put forward by Muslims who lack understanding of the way that hadith scholars classify hadith on a scale of reliability.

https://www.mohammedamin.com/Community_issues/How-reliable-are-hadith.html

It is worth adding that the transmitters of the Ṣaḥīḥ infrequently provided comments (taʾlīqāt) and added material to the text (ziyādāt). The direct transmitter of the Ṣaḥīḥ Ibrāhīm ibn Sufyān added thirteen chains of transmission and his students al-Julūdī added four. By no stretch of the imagination can these additions be considered tampering with the text. 

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/tracing-transmissions-the-accuracy-of-sahih-muslim

 

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...