Followers

19 January, 2011

Who are Ahle-Bait اهل بيت? An Explanation of Surah Al Ahzaab 33:33


Why do Sh’iaa scholars use Surah Al Ahzaab 33:33 to prove infallibility of the twelve Imaams. See a detailed discussion on the Ayah, and understand the true meaning of the term Ahle Bait.
Muhammad - Peace be upon him



Around 'Aashoora 10th Muharram this year, I attempted to discuss the irrationality in mourning over someone who is actually enjoying in paradise, with our Shi'aa brothers. One way or the other, academic or un-academic Shi'aa, Sunni discussion would be diverted to the issue of Ahle-Bait. Shi'aa would blame us for not valuing the Ahle-Bait the way we should, and many a times they'll be proving their point not through logic but through their 'genealogy'. The major sect of Shi'aas, isna-'ashriyaa (the twelvers or the muswee), they believe that 12 imams are m'asum (infallible). Ignoring the history of the divide, this is the major difference between sunnis and shi'aas that stands to the present day. This is the reason for the difference in our beliefs and actions. Although, different sects of shi'aas themselves differ in who actually the m'asum (infallible) are. You can read the differences amongst Isma'ilis, Muswee (twelvers), Zaidi etc to understand this point.
So, how to resolve this difference? Sunnis also have a concept of Imaams (leaders) but our deen doesn't revolve around Imaams as the Shi'aa deen does. Shi'aas and Sunnis don't have common books of hadith. In the Shi'aas books of hadith you'll see narrations ending at the imaams, and the sayings of imaams are a source for them. So, the books of hadith can't be used to reach a common belief. One thing to note here is that when debating with Shi'aas you'll often see Shi'aas quoting references from Sunni books of hadith and history to prove their point. We can't do the same often because Shi'aas filtered most of the Sahaba as unauthentic and their views can go to as extreme as all sahaba apostated after the death of Rasulullah except the Ahle-bait (their understanding of it) and four others. And this is not a totally scarce concept in Sh'ism, it can be found in the books of their famous scholars, like the Persian Baqir Majlisi. Also, when you are quoting for Sunni references you have to take-care of rules formulated by sunni muhaditheen. We don't use the books of history (especially when they contain weak chains of narration or contain no chain at all) as a proof of matters of Shar'iah (jurisprudence) and Shi'aas use them wen to prove the matter of 'Aqaid (beliefs) for which the Sunni scholars have laid down very even stricter conditions. Also, you will very commonly find narrations with D'aeef (weak) and Mawdhu' (fabricated) chains from Sunni sources used as evidences by Shi'aa scholars. The common Shi'aa might also make fun of you when you tell him that the narration you quoted isn't authentic, but, the fact is that even the Shi'aa scholars laid down rules of Hadith, and you find Al-Kaafi with Tehqeeq and it does contain many D'aeef (weak) narrations. One should also note here that the most authentic book of hadith with Shi'aas, Al-Kaafi, contains many D'aeef (weak) narrations as opposed to the Saheehain with the Sunnis. So, the only thing common between us and the Shi'aas is the Qur'an. Few Sunni scholars do highlight that even Qur'an is not common between Sunnis and Shi'aas and one can find some absurd sayings regarding the Holy Qu'ran in few books of Shi'aas though Allah has himself taken the responsibility of protection of the Holy Qur'an. But, this is a view that isn't really common amongst the Shi'aas of the day, so we can easily ignore it. Some sunnis might argue that they don't openly express their beliefs regarding Qur'an because of Taqiyyah. I'd rather ignore this for the time being as well, and I'd like some Shi'aa to tell me what they think of Baqir Majlisi and his books. Things can become really clear if we know what they think of him.
So, can the Shi'aas prove to us from the Holy Qur'an that:
1. The Ahle-Bait only includes Fatimah, Ali, Hasan, Hussain and their children.
2. And the twelve imams are m'asum (infallible)
One Important thing to note down here is that the Sunnis do not speak against the great virtues of Fatimah, Ali, Hasan and Husain رضى الله عنهم. Another important think to note down is that a generic proof for Qur'an for the significance of Ahle-Bait won't really prove anything because the significance and status of Ahle-Bait is something that even Sunnis believe. Also a generic proof will mean that everyone from the children of Hasan and Hussain is infallible which is not actually what Shi'aas believe in general, though few Shi'aas do think that Syeds are 'more' Muslims than non-Syeds and they also use darood e ibrahimi to prove this which is discussed in the end of this article. What is to be proven is: the twelve imaams are m'asum (infallible). It would be really irrational to believe that Allah forgot to certify the future twelve in the Holy Qur'an as we see that Qur'an repeats the basic beliefs so often. It leaves no doubt in our minds that we've to follow the Prophet Muhammad. It gives us no room to think bad about the Sahaba (companions). Amazingly, Qur'an gives no direct, in-direct information of twelve infallible leaders to come. So, the shi'aas did come up with a proof from the Holy Qur'an. It is Ayah Number 33 from Surah Al Ahzaab. In this writing we'll try to understand what Qur'an is actually saying this Ayah, as this Ayah is commonly quoted by Shi'aas while debating with Sunnis.
وَقَرْنَ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّ وَلَا تَبَرَّجْنَ تَبَرُّجَ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ الْأُولَىٰ ۖ وَأَقِمْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَآتِينَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَطِعْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ ۚ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
(Surah Al Ahzaab 33:33)


Discussion A – Where are the twelve Imaams mentioned?

By no direct or indirect method of language is this 'Ayah referring to the infallibility of twelve imaams to come. We can find lots of debates between sunnis and shi'aas as to who Ahle-Bait are and what is referred to as Ahle-Bait in this Ayah, but sometimes we forget that even if we for the sake of argument agree with the Shi'aas that this Ayah directly refers to Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Hussain, but by no stretch of explanation can they bring the numeric 12 in the equation. It's against the Sunnah of Allah to mention such an important belief in such a vague way. If the shi'aas believe this Ayah refers indirectly to all the descendants of the Hasan and Hussain, than they will put them self in the trouble of proving the infallibility of all the rapists, drinkers, murders in history who were known to be Syeds. This will also put them in the tough task of proving Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani as sinless, which I'm sure they'll never wish to.

Discussion B – Does this Ayah actually refer to infallibility?

Shi'aas have not only misconstrued this verse to the extent that they have made the word ahle-bait exclusively applicable to `AIi and Fatimah and their children to the exclusion of the holy wives (discussed ahead), but have gone even further and concluded wrongly from its words "Allah only intends to remove uncleanliness from you and purify you completely", that 'Ali and Fatimah and their children are infallible like the Prophets of Allah. The term Rijs is repeated many a times in the Holy Qur'an for different meanings. They say that Rijs (uncleanliness) implies error and sin, and, as Allah says, ahle-bait have been purified of this.
Point # 1: The words of the verse do not say that uncleanliness has been removed from them and they have been purified. But the words are to the effect: "Allah intends to remove uncleanliness from you and purify you completely."
Point # 2: The context also does not tell that the object here is to mention the virtues and excellences of the Holy Prophet's household. On the contrary, they have been advised here what they should do and what they should not, because Allah intends to purify them. In other words, they have been told that if they adopted such and such an attitude and way of life, they will be blessed with cleanliness, otherwise not.
Point # 3: However, if the words "Allah intends to remove uncleanliness from you . . . " are taken to mean that Allah has made them infallible, then is no reason why all the Muslims who perform their ablutions before offering the Prayer are not held as infallible, because about them also Allah says: "But Allah wills to purify you and complete His blessings upon you."
(Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:6) 

Discussion C – What is referred to as Ahle-Bait in the Ayah?

Point # 1: Shi'aas believe that the term Ahle-Bait used in the Ayah refers to Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Hussain رضى الله عنهمand their descendants. But at the same time they use the Ayah to prove the infallibility of the twelve imaams. So, the same Ayah refers to all the descendants of Ahle-Bait and it doesn't refer to all but only the twelve, and they decide whether it refers to twelve or all the descendants according to the situation at hand.
Point # 2: From the context it's proven easily that those whom the Qur'an is directly addressing when using the term Ahle-Bait are the wives of Rasulullah. I'm not trying to prove here that Fatimah, Ali, Hasan and Hussain رضى الله عنهم are not included in the Ahle-Bait. Rather, I'm highlighting the fact that Qur'an directly addresses the Azwaaj e Mutahiraat , the Ummahatul Mo'mineen when using the term Ahle-Bait, and Fatimah, Ali, Hasan and Hussain are included as well as evident from the narrations that will be mentioned ahead. It is worth mentioning that not all the Sunni commentators (mufasireen) of Qur'an have mentioned wives of Rasulullah under the term Ahle-Bait. The reason for that being an un-ignorable influence of Shi'aa beleifs in some of our discussions, like the Shi'aa version of Karbala and also the term Ahle-Bait.
Ibn e Kathir says in the explanation of the Ayah
هذا نص فى دخول أزواج النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم فى أهل البيت ها هنا ، لأنهن سبب نزول هذه الآية
"This is a solid proof that the wives of Rasulullah are included in 'the people of the house' here, because they are the reason for the revelation of this Ayah'
Zamakhsari says
وفي هذا دليل بيّن على أنّ نساء النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل بيته
"In it there is a clear proof that the wives of Rasulullah are from 'the people of his house' "
Point # 3: This Ayah, the Ayaat before it and the Ayah after it all are addressing the Ummahatul Mo'mineen directly. It is very 'tough' to believe that Qur'an suddenly changed the addressee without even using the word يا. This is simply not compatible with the style of Qur'an. It is likely that Qur'an included a broad term that included others than the Ummahatul Mo'mineen, but, to believe that it doesn't include Ummahatul Mo'mineen is very tough to prove.
Point # 4: Literal Meaning of اهل البيت
It is mentioned in Lisaab ul 'Arab:" اهل البيت سكانه, the people of home are its residents". The word اهله is used very commonly in Arabic referring to 'his wife'. It is said in Arabic تاهل فلان, meaning 'so and so became one with a wife'. It is also used in hindi/urdu in the same sense: 'ghar wali' and in farsi as 'ahle khana'.
A very important rule of Tafseer is that a portion of Qur'an elaborates other portion. The word اهل البيت only appears at one more place in the Holy Qur'an and there it is used for the Sarah عليها السلام (the wife of Ibrahim عليه السلام) and for Ibrahim عليه السلام. At that time Sarah عليه السلام had no child so we can't say that it directly addressed the children as well. The very Ayah that I'm referring is to the one where angels come and give her glad tiding of a child in her old-age:
They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!" (Surah Hud 11:73)
Point # 5: The Qur'an uses the word و (and) at the beginning of the Ayah # 34 which proves that it is related to what was being said earlier. Al-Qurtabi says in his Tafseer: "the correct thing is that وَاذْكُرْنَ مَا يُتْلَىٰ فِي بُيُوتِكُنَّis related to what was before it".
Clarification: Why does Qur'an use masculine?
Shi'aa scholars argue that if Ahle-Bait refers to the Azwaaj (wives) of Rasulullah
صلى الله عليه و سلمdirectly then why it uses the masculine term for them. Somehow who knows 'arabic grammar can easily make-out that just because Qur'an uses the masculine term we can't 'conclude' for certain that those referred to are all masculine too.
  • Ar-Raazi says in the Tafseer of this Ayah: "The reason for masculine addressing (tazkeer ul Khitaab) is the word اهل (Ahl) and اهل (Ahl) is masculine ". The point raised by Imam Raazi is very valid because the word اهل البيت is used at one more place in the Holy Qur'an and again with a masculine address. رَحْمَتُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ  , this is in Surah Hud 11:73.
  • In Arabic plural masculine is used to address women out of respect. There are numerous examples of it in ahadith and even in the Holy Qur'an. Just a couple of Ayaat before this Ayah in Ayah # 31: وَمَن يَقْنُتْ مِنكُنَّ, it should be ومن يقنتن when addressing females. There are narrations quoted in Bukhari which tell us that Prophet Muhammad used to ask 'Aisha كيف تيكم when she was ill, this is an example of similar use. So, using a masculine plural for feminine is common in Arabic. The famous word زملونى which Prophet Muhammad said to Khadija is an example of it. It is there in ahadith, Qur'an and in the old Arabic poetry. I can give tens of examples for it. For more details we can see the commentary of Tabari on this Ayah where has quoted numerous examples from daily life for using plural masculine terms for addressing women.
  • If those who are addressed are male and female then we also use masculine terms for addressing in Arabic. So, if we think that Ali, Hasan and Hussain رضى الله عنهم are directly included then Qur'an can use masculine for that reason. This has been elaborated by Tantawi in his Tafseer:
    وقد أجمع أهل اللسان العربى على تغليب الذكور على الإِناث فى الجموع ونحوها
    "All the linguist agree Arabic agree to give priority to males over females when addressing a crowd of both and so on"
    Clarification: Why doesn't Qur'an use people of the 'houses'?
    Few shi'aa scholars argue that if it refers to all ummahatul mo'mineen then the word used should be اهل البيوت (the people of the houses) because the wives of rasulullah used to live in separate hujraat (حجرات).
    Point # 1 – Although ummahatul mo'mineen lives physically in different hujraat, but they were part of the same home, the home of rasulullah.
    Point # 2 – اهل البيت is اسم جنس which is used for both plural and singular both.


    Clarification: The hadith of the cloak حديث كساء
    There are various narrations in which Prophet Muhammad wrapped Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Hussain under a cloak and recited the Ayah under discussion (Surah Al Ahzaab 33:33) and in some narrations he also اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلَاءِ أَهْلُ بَيْتِي " Oh Allah ! These are people of my home". This hadith is very famous amongst Shi'aas as the Hadith of cloak (كساء), and they use it to prove that Ummahatul Mo'mineen are not included in the Ahle-Bait. For us, these ahaadith contain evidence that Fatimah, Ali, Hasan, Hussain are also included in Ahle-Bait and Ummahatul Mo'imneen are of-course included by default. The hadith of the cloak are narrated from 'Aisha, Umm e Salamah, Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Abi Sa'eed Al Khudri, Al- Bara' bin 'Aazib, Abdullah bin J'afar, Ans bin Malik, Abi Al Hamraa', Hassan bin 'Ali and Waathla
    رضي الله عنهم.
    Narration from 'Aisha رضي الله عنها
    'A'isha رضي الله عنها reported that Allah's Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying). (Sahih Muslim, Kitab Al-Fada'il Al-Sahabah)
    There are narrations in which 'Aisha رضى الله عنها asked Rasulullah 'Am I included amongst them' and he replied that 'Indeed You are on the good'. This is not a 'No' as Shi'aas portray it, but it actually shows that she is on an even better status, and that is because she is the directly part of Ahle-Bait as Qur'an includes them, and for others Prophet Muhammad made a d'uaa as it is evident from few narrations: اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلَاءِ أَهْلُ بَيْتِي. There is a narration from S'ad bin Abi Waqqas in the Al-Kubra of Nasai where he uses the following words
    دعا رسول الله عليا وفاطمة وحسنا وحسينا اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي
    "Rasulullah made d'uaa for Ali, Fatimah, Hassan and Hussain : Oh Allah these are the people of my home"
    There are various narrations from S'ad bin Abi Waqqas which say the same thing, and the Prophet Muhammad made this d'ua immediately after the Ayah was revealed.
    Narration from Umme Salamah رضي الله عنها
    Sayyidah Umm Salamah رضي الله عنها reported that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم put a cloak over Hasan, Hussain, Ali and Fatimah and prayed, "O Allah, they are people of my house and closest to me. Remove from them evil and purify them a perfect purification." Umm Salamah (RA) submitted, "I too am with them, O Messenger of Allah!" He said, "Indeed you are on good." (Jami Tirmidhi, Kitab ul Manaqib, Authenticated by al-Albani)
    There is a narration in the Tafseer of Al- Baghawi (بغوى) which has been authenticated by Abdur Razzaq Al-Mahdi which has the following words in the reply to the question of Umme Salamah: بلى إن شاء اللّه, Indeed, Yes, if Allah wills.
    In another narration in Tabari he replied: إنك من أهلي, 'Indeed you are from my home'.
    And in many other narrations Prophet Muhammad gave her the same reply that he gave 'Aisha: "Indeed you are on good or towards good"
    Also, to be noted that the if the thing is the way Shi'aas claim that only those who were in the cloak are amongst the ahle-bait, then how do they include the 12 imaams in them ?
    Narrations regarding Wathla (واثله رضى الله عنه )
    There are authentic narrations in which Prophet Muhammad made the d'uaa: اللهم هؤلاء أهلي for Ali, Hassan, Hussain and Fatimah and Wathla (واثله) asked Rasulullah 'Am I among your home (family) too? '. Prophet Muhammad replied 'And you are from my family'. This hadith is in Masnad Ahmed and is authentic. There are other narrations where Prophet Muhammad included Salman Al Farsi in Ahle-Bait as well, but they are not authentic. This also proves that Rasulullah when doing d'uaa to Allah to include the-four in Ahle-Bait wasn't looking at their genealogy alone.
    So, the conclusion we reach is:
  • Ummahatul Mo'mineen are the ones address in Ayah 33:33 of the Holy Qur'an directly.
  • Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Hussain رضى الله عنهم are also included in the Ahle-Bait because of the d'uaa of the Rasulullah. So, hadith of the cloak is actually a d'uaa.
  • Hadith cannot abrogate a Qur'anic Ayah and as Ummahatul Mo'mineen are the direct addressee of Ahle-Bait according to Holy Qur'an; no hadith can take them out of the list, no matter how authentic it is.
  • The fact that Prophet Muhammad included other than his progeny in the Ahle-Bait proves that there are no 'reserved' seats for people just because of their blood-line.

    Discussion # D -
    Darud e Ibrahimi and the word Aal آل

    Many Sh'iaas use the Darud e Ibrahimi to prove their point regarding their lineage's supremacy or the infallibility of their imaams, which is actually almost impossible to prove from the darood. You will commonly listen to terminologies like Aal e Rasool, Aal e Muhammad, Aal Kisaa', Aal e Ataa' amongst sh'iaas for this reason. We don't disagree that Aal have a special position in Islam, that is why we make d'uaa for them in our Salah, but what we understand from آل محمد is different from theirs.
    Allama ibn e Mansur Afreeqi Misri writes in Lisaan ul 'Arab: "The آل of a person is his اهل, and the آل of Allah and his Messenger are their friends (followers)..."
    The discussion will extend to several pages if I give examples for usage of آل in Quran, hadith and common Arabic. I'll briefly elaborate our understanding of the word آل.
    آل حقيقى : These are the wives and the children of Prophet Muhammad.
    An important point to note is that in a narration in Bukhari the word ازواجه و ذريته (his wives and his children) is used, hence, explaining what the word آل is used to refer to directly.
    آل مجازى: These include the son in law and grandchildren of Rasulullah.
    آل نسبى: These include the guided followers of Rasulullah, who try their best to follow him and his mission.
    Once again, those who use it to prove the infallibility of the-twelve imaams should point to us where the word 12 is hidden. And those who use it too generically should tell us whether they would want to pray for Syed Yusuf Raza Gillani or not.

    Conclusion

    In the end I would like to clarify that this is just an attempt to move towards Sh'iaa-Sunni Unity and not a hate speech. If some Sh'iaa disagrees with what I said in this article should kindly reply to that in comments, but please don't pick-up the point of your choice only, but reply only if you have answer to all the raised points. I would also request the Sh'iaas to re-consider their views regarding the Sahaba (companions of Rasulullah) because Qur'an gives them a certificate at many places in the Holy Qur'an. When you prove the infallibility of the-twelve through so many U-turns and their superiority through indirect means, why do you speak about bad about the Sahaba?
    Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. (Surah Al Fath 48:29)
    The vanguard (of Islam)- the first of those who forsook (their homes) and of those who gave them aid, and (also) those who follow them in (all) good deeds,- well-pleased is Allah with them, as are they with Him: for them hath He prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein for ever: that is the supreme felicity. (Surah At Tawbah 9:100)
    Also, I'd be really grateful if some Sh'iaa replies to these questions:
  • What are your views regarding Baqir Majlisi? (Don't reply to this question if you google to find out first who Baqir Majlisi is)
  • Khomeni made separate chapters against Umar and Abu Bakr رضى الله عنهما in his book and said that they used Qur'an just to attain power and even called them infidels. If you don't speak badly about them both, then why did Khomeni express his hatred so bluntly?
  • What is your understanding of Surah Al Fath 48:29, Surah at Tawbah 9:100?
  • Do you really believe that Ali رضى الله عنهor Fatimah رضى الله عنها had enmity for Umar رضى الله عنه ? If so, then why they married their daughter ام كلثوم to him?


    اللهم فقهنا فى الدين

     
    اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد كما صليت على إبراهيم وعلى آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد اللهم بارك على محمد وعلى آل محمد كما باركت على إبراهيم وعلى آل إبراهيم إنك حميد مجيد

     
    Author: Mohammad Awais Tahir

    The author may or may not have the same views on the topic and would not like to be quoted on what has been said above. The author, however, deems nothing wrong with changing opinions, hence, he does not wish to amend/remove posts that do not resonate with his current thinking. 
    “Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.”

    Send your comments and suggestions to feedback@exploringpsyche.com

    SEE THE COMPLETE LIST OF ARTICLES HERE
  • Get Updates for New Post:

    125 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    Salam upon you brother,

    Where did Khomainee called Omer (ra) and Abobakr (ra) infedils ? (nauzbillah)

    Anonymous said...

    Thanks for the post, and keeping a civil tone. I think such posts are too often full of emotional rants and absolutist claims. I think you've done a very good job at voicing your concerns.

    I will use terms such as sunni and shia in my reply. I hate doing so, but getting around it would mean I might miss the point I am trying to make.

    I do agree that *some* sunnis do not respect the Prophet's family. Don't agree? Go ask your friends what the name of the granddaughter of the Prophet was. People won't know her name, let alone know her speeches against Yazid. Surely she was close to the Prophet, and with parents like Ali and Fatima she would have great understanding of Islam. I think there's a structural problem too. How often do the Sahih books of sunni islam quote ahadith from Ali, Hassan, Hussain? What about Fatima and Zainab? Again, all sunnis do not ignore these people. But many people do.

    Regarding ahadith: Just to clarify, shias DO believe in the infallibility of the sayings of the Prophet, but not the infallibility of the 6 authentic books. Simply put, if the Prophet said something it is absolute. But something being in the 6 authentic books does not NECESSARILY mean that the Prophet said it. It may have been a true saying, might not have been. Even 'sunnism' does not consider these books as absolute. They were compiled by individuals a few hundred years after the death of the Prophet, and could easily have unauthentic ahadith in them. Note, I am not questioning the status of the Prophet, or the integrity of the compilers of these books.

    Shia's do not have any 'Sahih' books of ahadith. The shia view is that each individual hadith needs to be analyzed (looking at content, chain of narrators, time line etc) so even if a shia book contains a zaeef hadith it doesn't make a difference. Regardless of whether its a 'major book of shia hadith' or not, each hadith needs to be analyzed on is own. I do not agree with your view that sunnis and shias do not have ahadith as a common source of Islamic knowledge. But the problems associated with it are obvious.

    I find it extremely offensive that you suggest that shias might not consider the Quran as complete and perfect. Its a dangerous thought, even though you admit that its not common among shias.

    Anonymous said...

    My counter question is this: Just because Salman Rushdie (born a sunni muslim) believes it is acceptable to curse Allah and the Prophet, does it mean all sunnis consider it acceptable? Just because certain sunni muslims in history considered themselves as "part of Allah" (mysticism in Islam), does it mean that all sunnis believe in it? What about the actions of Yazid (some sunnis consider him a rightful caliph), do all sunnis agree with his actions and life style? Its a ridiculous argument. Even if some shia did doubt the authenticity of the Quran in the past, it should be ignored. You might consider him as a shia scholar, but I would consider him deeply misguided. Again, I find it extremely offensive that you might doubt the beliefs of hundreds of millions of shias just based on something some random person wrote (or is said to have written) a few centuries ago.

    Next, I find it extremely offensive that you think that shias might be practicing Taqiyyah and lying about their beliefs. And its somewhat absurd too. Hundreds of millions of people lying about their beliefs? Taqiyyah is one of the issues shias are (in my opinion) unfairly criticized. Its simply saying that it is permissible to hide your faith if someone is killing you. I don't see what is wrong with it. By the way, I said permissible (not necessary).

    I don't know / care about Baqir Majlisi and his books. I believe in Allah, his Messenger, Book etc. Shia faith is based on these principles (along with imams etc), not people like Baqir Majlisi or Khomeni. If you have any specific question about something they said/ wrote, I'd love to answer that. But Baqir Majlisi is not a part of shia faith. He can write anything in his books, it doesn't change shia faith.

    Here are a couple of ahadith regarding the Ahlul Bayt:


    From Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5920:
    I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of ...Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas.

    Anonymous said...

    It says that the Quran and Ahlul Bayt are the two weighty things. And that the offspring of Ali are part of the Ahlul Bayt.

    Second hadith is:

    'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

    both ahadith can be verified on:
    http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/031.smt.html
    just press control F to find them

    The second hadith is regarding the verse 33:33 that you quote. Again to clarify, yes this is a hadith from a sunni book. Shias do not believe all ahadith in sahih muslim are inauthentic. They simply say that some ahadith *might* be inauthentic.

    The ahadith above are used to argue that the Ahlul Bayt includes a certain group of people and not others. I'm not an Arabic speaker so can't discuss the language (which is frequently used as 'proof' of what the ayah means). Not sure of what you mean when you make point 1. Surely Allah will not go back on his word? Anyway, many scholars more knowledgeable than us have argued about the change to masculine tone. Shias see it as evidence, sunnis don't. Feel free to disagree. In my opinion, no one in the world can "prove" to you what Allah meant here. I think its a matter of faith. My humble request is that you appreciate that hypothetically speaking it is possible that the shia understanding is correct. That the concept of infallibility of certain individuals is not a concept a bunch of deviant infidels dreamed up. Just like the 4 schools of sunni Islam, I believe there needs to be more mainstream acceptance of shia fiqh. You might argue that this belief has profound implications, but I don't think that is true. I can expand on that if required. By the way, shias say that the first part of 33:33 is addressing the Ummahatul Mo'mineen, and the second part is addressing Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain. Again, feel free to disagree.

    Anonymous said...

    Your questions at the end of the post:

    1) I won't bother answering because I don't know much about him. Not sure why he is important.

    2) I'm not sure when Khomeni said that. He has no right to call them (or anyone) infidels. Any verbal attacks (abusing, cursing etc) on any companions of the Prophets goes against the teachings of Allah and His Messenger. But I think any academic criticisms should be acceptable as long as they are respectful and civil. People say the Prophet erred (sinned?) in his life. As long as this argument is made in a civil and academic manner, we should be ready to talk about it (regardless of how offensive an argument we consider it to be). Same for any other individuals.

    3) Not sure what you're getting at. I haven't read the Tafsir of these verses. I guess there might be something in there. But I will say this: just because certain shias subscribe a certain interpretation to specific verses, it does not mean shia faith has the same interpretations. Individual shias can do some weird stuff, but it doesn't mean shia faith agree with it.

    4) Shias don't believe any daughter of Fatima was married to Umar.
    Something I want to add. I hate to see a divided Ummah, and the deep rooted issues between shias and sunnis. I think there is more than enough similarity for us to be a true united nation (in my opinion, the only real difference is the belief in imams). Also, I'm skeptic of many of the incidents that shias frequently quote. BUT saying that Ali and Fatima had no disagreements with the first two caliph and a wife of the Prophet is well off the mark. I'm not saying they hated each other or anything, rather simply mentioning that incidents like Fadak, Jamal, funeral of Fatima (done in secret at night). There clearly seems to be some friction between these individuals. I'm not saying who was right and who was wrong. I'm not saying that this makes anyone a saint or infidel. I'm not saying they were enemies. Simply noting there were issues of friction between them. I don't think these should cause any problems between shias and sunnis. Those incidents were between those individuals and Allah. We have no right to abuse / slander anyone. There are much more important issues we need to work on.

    May Allah guide us all. Again, thanks for a respectful post. I hope to see your reply, and can clarify anything I've said.

    Once again, here is my request to anyone reading my reply:

    Feel free to disagree with shia interpretations of the verses / sahih hadith that I quote. But please recognize that these verses and ahadith exist and the shia view point could potentially be correct. Shiaism should not be equated with what shias do. Shiaism should have the same acceptance as the other 4 schools of sunni islam. I hate using the terms shia and sunni, to me they mean nothing.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    You shias better respond to the article if you are able.

    If a Sunni doesn't know the name of the grand daughter of Prophet (SAW), how does it mean Sunnis do not respect the Ahlulbayt(ra). This is childish argument.
    There are Sunnis who don't know the name of Khulafa Al-Rashideen.

    Great article brother.

    Anonymous said...

    how can you respect the family of the prophet without knowing who they were? also, why aren't ahadith attributed to these individuals mentioned in sahih bukhari and sahih muslim?

    i have responded to the article. if u disagree with something, please point it out specifically so that i can respond to it.

    Salam Neshapuri said...

    "Shias don't believe any daughter of Fatima was married to Umar."

    Shia Hadiths/Narrations admit that this marriage occured. The shia authentic website al-islam.org also admits that Ali (ra) did give his daughter to Omar (ra).

    Anonymous said...

    There is nothing such as a shia authentic website. If you don't believe me, go ask any shia aalim. Open wikipedia.

    I respect the caliphs as important figures in islamic history. I find it as disrespectful to islam when people abuse them. However, its wrong to say there were no disagreements between the first two caliphs and the daughter of the Prophet. I use the word disagreement, which is a very mild term.

    Anyway, if u want to read about the disagreements open up sahih muslim. for example, look at Book 019, Number 4352
    http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4352

    which says stuff like:

    So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life.

    I don't think this is our most important problem. We need to worry about the fact that muslims around the world are killing each other, dying hungry and are illiterate.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    "I respect the caliphs as important figures in islamic history. I find it as disrespectful to islam when people abuse them. However, its wrong to say there were no disagreements between the first two caliphs and the daughter of the Prophet. I use the word disagreement, which is a very mild term."

    Thanks for respecting the 4 Caliphs(ra).

    No one said that there no disagreements. But the shias create fitna from those disagrements. They make it like an issue of 'Aqeedah'.

    Again the issue of Fadak. We have discussed this many times and I can't bother write everything here. Please know the Sunni view of the issue of Fadak.

    I agree with your last paragraph. These issues will give us no benefit neither in this world nor in the hereafter. Allah says in the Quran that "Whatever people did, you will not be asked about it". We will have to answer our own deeds.

    Anonymous said...

    There was more than just "disagreements" between the first two caliphs and Imam Ali(as). The events, if i recount them here, will not do justice to the efforts of Imam Ali(as) to keep on-sided peace as much as possible.

    As to the explanation of this particular Ayah 33:33, the first part clearly states "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display..." Can anyone explain that does this order by Allah pertain to only the life-time of Holy Prophet (saww) for the Nisa-e-Nabi (ra), or for their entire lifetime. If the later, then can someone explain why Ayesha (ra) was at the land of Basrah, participating in the Battle of Jamal ??

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    Can you please mention what are those 'more than just disagreements' ?

    The verse doesn't mean that they should stay 24 hours in their houses and never leave.

    BB Ayesha Siddiqa (ra) didn't go for war. She left her house to bring peace but you know Abdullah bin Saba and his followers infiltrated between the two groups and they were the ones who caused this war.

    Allah says in the Quran "The believers are but a single brotherhood so make peace and reconciliation between your two contending brothers and fear Allah that you may recieve mercy" [Quran]

    Anonymous said...

    @ more than just disagreements:

    I showed you the hadith. I'm not saying who was right and who was wrong. Sunni muslims can rationalize the incident in any way they please. But the fact remains that Sahih Muslim says (not my words) that Fatima was angry at Abu Bakr and did not talk to him till she died. It also says Ali buried her in secret at night. Fact remains that there were 'disagreements'.

    I don't know whether Shias use these incidents to create fitna. For starters, these are not issues of faith (Tawheed, Books, Prophets, Imams etc are matters of faith). As a shia I disagree with the actions of the first two caliph, and the wife of the Prophet. However, this doesn't allow me to curse or abuse them. They are important figures in islamic history, regardless of whether you agree with some of their actions. They will answer for their own actions.

    Anonymous said...

    @ Mr. Salman

    Then please point out where in Quran does Allah mention the timings, the dates and places where the wives of Prophet (saww) could leave and go to. I would be much obliged.

    "It is reported that when Ayesha (ra), after the Battle of Jamal used to recite the verse "And stay quietly in your houses... ", she used to weep so much that her clothings would become wet. It is without doubt that Ayesha (ra) after her travel to Basra and Battle of Jamal was very upset and regretful."
    سیرت اعلام النبلا ج ٢، ص ٧٧

    @ Abdullah ibne Saba
    ROFL. Please point out to any authentic and solid proof to even the possibility of the existence of this character. Yes, a character.
    But if by this guy you mean Marwan ibne Hakam, then i will have no objection, coz it was surely the family of Ummayah that was the true enemy of Islam from the day 1.

    After the Ahle-Bait (as) were taken to the court of Yazid (la), he said "Wish my forefathers, who were killed in Badr and Uhad were present to see i have avenged them."

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    I can give about Abdullah bin Saba from your own Books. He was the first who made takfeerr of Abubakr , Umar and Uthman and he was the first who claimed the Wilayat of Ali (ra). These are all mentioned in your own books.

    Let me give you some examples of this guy.

    "Abdullah bin Saba', was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and the Companions and disowned them.
    ...He was the first to publicly mandate the Imamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opposers...." [Firaq al-Shi'a: Nubakhti, pp. 43,44]

    "Abdullah Ibn Saba was the first to show hatred and enmity for the first three Caliphs and he disassociated himself from them and claimed that ali ordered it (Al Qummi, al Maqalat wal Firaq P20).

    "...He was the first to subscribe to the belief of Imamah, and he openly abused his enemies [the first three Caliphs, etc.] and branded them as infidels." (Bihar al-Anwar, 25:287)

    and more and more...

    Your Word:
    "Sahih Muslim says (not my words) that Fatima was angry at Abu Bakr and did not talk to him till she died "

    BB Fatima Zahra (ra) was angry but she later became pleased with Abubakr (ra). These are mentioned in other hadiths. This hadith in Sahih Muslim is narrated by Aisha (ra). It could be possible that she didn't that Fatima Zahra (ra) became pleased with Abubakr (ra).

    Your Words:
    "It is reported that when Ayesha (ra), after the Battle of Jamal used to recite the verse "And stay quietly in your houses... ", she used to weep so much that her clothings would become wet. It is without doubt that Ayesha (ra) after her travel to Basra and Battle of Jamal was very upset and regretful.
    سیرت اعلام النبلا ج ٢، ص ٧٧ "

    There are other authentic versions of this narration and and those narrations do not mention the sentence 'That she read that verse and wept so much".

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Assalam u 'Alaikum all!

    I'm surprised to see all these comments!

    And I'm really happy to see a non-emotional academic response from the Sh'iaa side! (Yes, we have no other option to use the word Sh'iaa and Sunni, and later in my response you'll understand why) !

    Discussion # 1- Narrations
    The Sunnis have not filtered out any Sahabi when it comes to narration and our rule is الصحابة كلهم عدول. so, when coming to other narrators we have to see their lives, but for Sahabi , we just need to prove that he was a Sahabi and we accept his narration, because we can't ever think that someone trained by Rasulullah used to misquote narrations. Another thing, we Sunnis even accept narrations from Sh'iaa narrators in general, and on the other hand Sh'iaas went so much ahead that they even filtered the Sahaba. Its not necessary to respond to everything. This is a fact, and you should admit it!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 2 - Names of Family of Rasulullah:
    Point # 1 - With Sunnis the hierarchy according to Significance of Sahaba is not as it is with the Sh’iaas with whom everything revolves around ahle-bait and only a particular line in ahle-bait. On the top are the Khulafa e Rasshideen, then ‘Ashra e Mubashira, then the Ashaab e Badr, then Ashaab e Shajarah and so on.
    Point # 2 – There are many in the family of rasulullah, whose names the Sh’iaas don’t know. Can they even name all the wives of rasulullah or all the daughters and sons? What about all the grandchildren, not all those from a particular line. So, please don’t bring such an invalid argument. The fact is that you have particularized things so much for yourself that is easy for you to memorize the ‘few’ names and we have a whole treasure of Sahaba whom we consider as our ideals. Tell me the two names of Daughters of Rasulullah who were married to Uthman RA? And do you think the choice of Rasulullah was right?
    Point # 3 – Please don’t reply to this point and just agree that you raised an invalid point, that’s it!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 3 - Sahih Hadith

    We have a methodology of testing hadith as you know it. And Sahih Bukhari is not classified as a book free from any weak or fabricated hadith because of any emotional reason. But, Alhamdulillah, it stands out because all the chains in it are authentic, and its open for criticism even today if someone can prove some weakness in some chain today.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 4 – Change in Qur’an

    I can give you names of books written by famous Sh’ia scholars in the past that Qur’an is changed. And those are scholars highly appreciated by the late Khomeni himself!

    Discussion # 5 - Why am I forced to doubt?

    I am forced to doubt the beliefs of Sh’iaas because even to date we have so many Sh’ia scholars speaking bad about Sahaba on the pulpit. Even today I can show you many scholars abusing Abu Bakr and Umer RA. And I can show you the pathetic stuff written in the books of Baqir Majlisi. And do you know that Khomeni asked his followers to read the ‘great work’done by Baqir Majlisi. I actually have the quotation where Khomeni said so. So, after the concept of Wilayat ul Faqih, and Khomeni being the first in that chain, we have millions of followers of Khomeni don’t we? And on one side Khomeni himself called Abu Bakr , Umer RA as infidels (directly and indirectly) both in his book Kashf ul Asraar, which was his first book published in 1942. And also, in his prescription he told you Sh’iaas to take dozes from Abu Bakr and Umer. So, either you stop taking ideals in such a person, who wasn’t even clear in such basic beliefs or we have no other option to believe that truth is contrary to what you say to us. And I know you’ll say to me that Khomeni is not the proof. So, kindly tell me what are the sources of Sh’iaa ‘Aqaid ! So, I’m not basing my view just on the basis of what any tom, dick and harry says out there. Its something that ‘famous’ sh’iaa scholars have been saying at all times. So, the way to ‘unity’ is that sh’iaas declare that they have nothing to do with such beliefs that ridicule sahaba and abuse them, and they have nothing to do with scholars who say such things. We can’t simply be united with those who speak bad about our ‘mothers’ (the wives of Rasulullah) and our ideals (the companions of rasulullah), and infact we have authentic narrations in our books of hadith which speak of kufr of those who abuse the sahaba.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 6 – Taqiyyah

    Taqiyyah what I was referring to is Taqiyyah from the Sunnis, to hide your beliefs for some other reason than to save your life. And that also has been mentioned in many books of Sh’iaas including the man approved and recommended by Khomeni : Baqri Majlisi.

    Discussion # 7 – Disagreements

    Lot has been said by you guys on disagreements between Companions and specially the first four Khulafa. Ofcourse, there were differences, but no one blamed each other as Kaafir and Ali RA used to say: “Never forget Umer when mentioning the Saaliheen “. So, these differences or disagreements went to the point where few Sh’iaas have taken them and they so easily make fun of all sahaba and Umer and Abu Bakr RA and the Ummahatul Mo’mineen. Brother, it’s out there, and its common, and its in the book of main stream Sh’ism. So please don’t close your eyes, and acknowledge the truth and declare that you have nothing to do with such people and such scholars, and also point out to use what the sources of Sh’ism are. ! From where can you prove to sh’iaas that what you believe is actually not a part of your religion? How can you make Sh’ism free from corruption? How can you revert to the right beliefs?

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Also, I express my sad feelings that you raised so many issues, but you never admitted that Qur’an or the Ayah under discussion never meant the infallibility of Imaams, as this was the main point of the complete article.
    Also, why be anonymous? Can’t you specify your name to make things easy for us !

    Next :
    1- I will give you an introduction to Baqir Majlsi in a short while, but I don’t want to include every thing in this discussion so that will be coming soon.
    2- I will give you proofs where Khomeni has made fun of Abu Bakr and Umer.
    3- The Ayaat that I’ve mentioned are clearly certifying the sahaba as those with whom Allah is happy. It is amazing that one side ‘few’ sh’iaas can stretch few ayaat too much to prove infallibility of their imams, and on the other side they can easily over-look so many ayaat speaking about the virtues of sahaba in general.
    4- ‘Ali RA did marry his daughter to Umar RA and that is proven from the Sh’iaa books as well, and even the famous Faru’ al Kaafi has a couple of narrations testifying this, and those narrations have been graded as authentic by Sh’ia scholars themselves. I will deal with that in details sometime if you want.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Brother Salman Nishapuri & Brother Anonymous (which I believe is Taha Hussnain)

    Can you kindly leave your email addresses here !

    Anonymous said...

    Well I'm the anonymous who wrote the initial reply. my name is Hamza, i'm anonymous only because I don't use gmail and can't log into the blog. my email address is:
    s_hamza_h@hotmail.com

    Re the daughter of the Prophet "later becoming pleased with Abu Bakr". I think its a silly, almost laughable, argument. The narration says she did not talk to him till she died. Her funeral was conducted in the dark, so that none of these people attended it. Her grave was not told to any of these companions even later. This hadith is narrated by many people apart for the Prophet's wife. This is a 1400 year old society, people lived together. If the two had overcome their differences, I'm pretty sure people like the Prophet's wife (caliphs daughter) would know.

    Discussion 1: I'm not sure you understand my point. Quantitatively, how many ahadith quote people like Hussain and Zainab?
    Also, ahadith in these books are not all narrations of the Prophet. eg the hadith regarding the daughter of the prophet being "angry" with the first caliph, it is not a tradition regarding the prophet. then why aren't other traditions of people like zainab quoted (eg when she told the story of karbala).

    Discussion 2: I get your point. We're treading in dangerous waters here. Shias would argue that many of the people who you talk about don't really exist. If you don't think its important to know about the (only?) granddaughter of the prophet who saw him, had the parents and brothers she had, and went through the tortures after karbala, well yes then you are correct in saying that knowing these people is not important. The Prophet will be really proud of us.

    Discussion 3: You might consider the chain to be reliable, others won't. Plus, there is no guarantee that if a name is used in the chain the person actually said it (eg if a chain says Mr XYZ said something, that's not necessarily true). Humans can make mistakes.
    Don't get me wrong. I agree that Bukhari and Muslim have done a decent job given the time line (long time after death of sahabas) and political constraints when they compiled their books. I'm simply saying they are not perfect. More importantly, they do not record a number of ahadith. There are some very well documented ahadith which satisfy the criteria for bukhari and muslim, yet aren't included.

    Discussion 4: You might consider them scholars. Anyone who doubts the perfection of Quran won't be a scholar to me. As I said earlier, my allegiance is to Allah and His Messenger, not the scholars you quote.

    Anonymous said...

    Discussion 5: Some shias badmouth the companions because they believed that they committed crimes against the family of the Prophet. this is a matter of history, not faith. If the companions committed these crimes, they will answer God. In my opinion, most scholars refrain from speaking bad about the pulpit. If they continue to do that, they should stop.
    Sunni scholars more frequently sit on the pulpit and explain how shias are kafir and wajibul qatal. I've never heard shias doubt the faith of the 4 schools of sunnism based on such incidents.

    Btw, my holy Book is the Quran, not Baqir Majlisi. Calling anyone an infidel goes against principles of Islam since that's for God to choose. May I remind you, some of the biggest historical scholars of mainstream sunnism have called all shias kafir. surely branding all shias kafir on the basis of views of some is zulm? I think we all need to move forward.

    Once again, in my opinion academic criticisms (like we're having here) should be acceptable. Any foul language should be explicitly forbidden. And killing people should be punishable.

    Discussion # 6: Well then all these discussion are a waste of time. Maybe I'm spending an hour writing this post just so that I can deceive you. As if I have nothing better to do.

    Very frankly, I can't answer this question of yours. You are insisting that shias can lie to sunnis just for fun. I am shia. Even if I tell you shias cannot lie at will, you can doubt me because I might be lying to start off with. Its a logical loop that I can't get past. I guess 200 million people in the world continue to lie.

    Discussion 7: I completely agree with you. Couldn't put it better. There were some obvious differences, and no one branded the other as kafir.
    I fully acknowledge that some shias disrespect the companions and wife of prophet in an unacceptable way. I think most aalims refrain from doing so, at least in places like pakistan and india.
    We can follow the true islam by following the quran and authentic ahadith. and the seerat of the ahlul bait (I leave unto you two weighty things.. Quran and Ahlul Bait). Any ahadith and narrations of ahlul bait that disagree with the Quran are probably corrupt. Quran explicitly forbids slandering and abusing. I doubt any shias would disagree that the Prophet and ahlul bait never slandered / abused / cursed anyone (friend or enemy).

    Anonymous said...

    regarding infallibility: there are many scholars on both sides of the boat who actually speak arabic. they fail to agree on the linguistic evidence of the verse. i could google the shia explanation for change in gender midway through the verse and "prove" that the shia interpretation is correct.

    fact remains i could go on for a million years and you won't accept my argument. especially since i can easily be a liar who is deliberately trying to deceive sunnis.

    what im simply saying is this: the quran does say that the ahlul bait are freed of all filth. the verse was revealed when the 5 people were together. a sahih muslim hadith does say that the verse doesn't include the wives (the two ahadith i quoted in my initial post). i don't think its two far fetched to understand that Allah meant that these 5 people are free of sins. frankly, that seems logical to me. im assuming you don't agree with that.

    i've never read baqir majlisi in my life. if you are so insisting on mentioning it, my advice would be to discuss it with someone who actually follows it. i can understand your concerns regarding the books, but i'm not the right guy to discuss it with.

    if khomeni was unfair with the first two caliphs, then he will answer God. khomeni is neither a prophet nor a imam for me. i disagree with many things he did. i like many other things he did. if he abused or cursed the first two caliphs, i'd disagree with him for that.

    shias in general do accept things like first caliph freeing slaves (including hz. bilal, right?) and the third caliph spending part of his wealth for islam. then they criticize them for other reasons. if the quran called the wives of the prophet as mothers of the faithful, no shia can deny that. however, that does not mean they can't respectfully disagree with them on other issues.

    note i said no daughter of fatima ever married umar. shias believe that she only had one daughter, and that was zainab.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 1 Narrations

    You are lengthning the discussion for no good. We didn't filter out Zainab RA as a weak narrator, or an infidel (Nauzubillah) like the Sh'iaa muhaditheen did with many of the Sahaba ! If her narrations didn't reach very often with chains to our muhaditheen that doesn't mean what you are 'force-fully' concluding out of it. Read the books of Asma Ur Rijaal to clear your doubts ! Please don't lengthen this discussion, and admit that your muhdaitheen ignored/filtered-out narrations from hundreds of sahaba !

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 2

    I'll take that as a confession !

    Discussion # 3

    I'll take that as a confession too ! I never said they are infallible, but this a science on which narrations of both Sh'iaa, Sunnis depends and even the Qur'an is transmitted through narrations ! Its not sane to start 'ignoring' everything just because its not 100 percent true for you !!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 4

    AlhamduliLLAH, that crosses out many 'scholars'!

    Discussion # 5

    The Sunni scholar who call Shi'aas as Kaafir, they call those shi'aas as Kaafir who ridicule the companions or abuse them , and that constitutes as an act that takes out of the bounds of Islam according to many Sunni Scholars !

    Also, there are few shi'aa sect who went to extreme and claimed Ali RA to be Messenger or a GOD, they were called as infidels and rightly so.

    You are most welcome to call Qadiyaanis as Kaafirs who deviated from main-stream sunnism and invented a new nabi!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    For the Rest !

    Mere Disagreement with Khomeni won't serve the cause of unity ! For that you have to announce clearly that one who abuses/ridicules any sahabi or atleast the first four caliphs and the Ummahatul Mo'mineen isn't actually on the right shi'aa beliefs. Such slanders are so commonly practiced amongst Sh'iaas. Can you give me of Sh'iaa scholars asking people to respect all sahaba? Also, tell me how many Sh'iaas have you met in life who think regarding Khomeni the way you do? The fact that he made fun of Abu Bakr and Umer and promoted reading books of a fanatic who abused our mothers, doesnt it make you angry? And if so how many shi'aas have you actually me, who'll get angry if someone abuses Abu Bakr/ Umer?

    (Please only reply to this last point, otherwise things won't move in the right direction)

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    We don't claim that Sahabis were 'innocent' but they were the best ! Having a peaceful-respectful disagreement with any of them is OK, but what is really common amongst Sh'ias is ridiculing them, as if they were enemies of Ali RA !

    I would also like to ask you, Do you believe in the infallibility of the 12 imaams? And where is the 12th imaam, if you believe so ?

    Anonymous said...

    Discussion 1: the story and speech of zainab is well documented. i assure you zainab to muhammad baqar to jaffer sadiq would have been a reliable chain of narration. you seem to be claiming that there were no reliable traditions of her a mere hundred years after her death.

    there are many ahadith not mentioned in bukhari and muslim even though they satisfied the criteria to be part of them.

    Discussion 2: As long as you don't consider her traditions important, you can take it as a confession.

    Discussion 3: Um, what did i "confess" over there? I'm simply saying bukhari and muslim did a job, they had many constraints. and that the books are not infallible. you seem to agree. no one has said every hadith in them is wrong. we shouldn't ignore every hadith in them. i've quoted a bunch of them here.

    Discussion 4: Good to know you're happy with that.

    Discussion 5: Last time I check, you're muslim as long as you believe in one God and in the finality of the last Prophet.
    You can call such people as shias. I won't consider them muslims. if you have a problem with their beliefs, i think you have a valid case.

    i won't label qadianis as anything. however, if anyone believes in a prophet after muhammad, i think he is leaving the bounds of islam.

    @ rest: do me a favor. go up this page and count the number of times i've said its unacceptable to curse or abuse companions of the prophet. if anyone abuses or curses them, i will denounce their action. its not about respecting or agreeing with them. i will disagree with some of their actions (eg jamal). however, i won't abuse or curse.

    i have never asked shias whether they would (or wouldn't) be angry if someone cursed the first two caliphs. i hardly ever poll on such questions.

    Anonymous said...

    i agree with you. we have the right to have a peaceful disagreement with them, and have absolutely no right to curse them. we don't even have the right to abuse actual enemies of ali. we don't have the right to abuse false gods (things that don't actually exist).

    i believe in the infallibility of the 12 imams. i think the 12 imam is in 'hiding'. if you want me to explain his actual physical state, i'll first ask you to explain the exact physical state of hz. essa. Allah knows best.

    Anonymous said...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIJejoU19d8&feature=related

    Interesting video. Research on it more, and come with a justifying answer, not just blinding jabs here and there. Is it just a mere coincidence that Prophet (saww) appoints Ali (as) as his brother at the time of Mawakhaat ?

    You do such injustice to the efforts of Ayatollah Ruhallah Musawi al Khomeini on the issue of Summi-Shia unity. The support extended to the people of Palestine, Kashmir, Lebanon, Chechnya and countless other place where Shias are less heard of in majority, and Sunnis are in majority. You intend not to bring unity by constantly flaring some few contents, which cannot be ignored (for they DID happen in history). In these days, some "scholars" from Arabia and Egypt have declared leaders of Hamas as "illegal", and their removal imminent. And call about unity when the flanks of Sunnis are not united themselves. Can you name any Sunni prominent scholar who has supported the oppressed state of Palestine ? Al-Quds day is a glowing example (search it if u don't know what it is).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FE2006UFqE

    Hear the virtues of the late Imam from a prominent scholar of your own faith.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ the last post Mr Anonymous !

    So must for Khomeni's efforts for Unity with Sunnis. We believe that Abu Bakr RA is the best of the believers after all the Prophets, and according to Khomeni he's an infidel. And he has recommended reading Baqir Majlisi, who has abused our mothers in his Book, and who is so evidently proclaimed the benefits of taqiyyah with Sunnis which is in short fooling them. I wish you yourself read the books of Khomeni's books, especially his first one ' Kashf ul Israar' , which I don't think has been translated into Urdu or English, maybe there's something that you wish to hide from us, thats why !

    I can give you hundreds of Sunni Scholars not only speaking in favour of Palestine, but actually fighting themselves physically, and raising funds. So, please refrain from emotional statements and don't stray from the topic under discussion.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 1
    Yes, there are many narrations which were on the conditions of Bukhari and Muslims but are not in Bukhari and Muslim. Why? Its not because they had some 'secret mission' for not including them. The simple thing is those narrations didn't reach them and never did they claim to have collected all narrations. Infact, Bukhari wrote other books as well, in which he himself included narrations which weren't in his Saheeh.

    Discussion # 5
    There are many things that takes one out of the bounds of Islam. They are known as 'Naaqis ul Islam' as there are 'Naaqis ul Wudhu' and they include for example ridiculing any Qur'anic Ayah, and similarly they include ridiculing or abusing any Sahabi according to majority of sunni scholars.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Now, in your next comment just reply to this :

    If you believe in Infallibility of 12 imaams, can you show it to me where is it mentioned in Qur'an? And you expect such a basic belief to be not present in the Qur'an? Why did Allah leave out something so important?

    Understand the consequence of believing in someone's infallibility. You have to agree and follow whatever he says. Its like having a Paul after Christ !

    Anonymous said...

    Where in the Quran is mentioned the following of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen (and in any Hadith book the establishment of them as Rightful)?

    I just showed you the presence of a Sahih hadith in the video indicating the following of 12 Caliphs of Muhammad (saww). (or did you just avoid the video, or wished not to comment on it)

    And there is a Hadith stating Prophet (saww) the relationship of Ali (saww) to Him as that of Haroon (as) to that of Musa (as), so there remains no doubt who was more pious and rightful in the eyes of Muhammad (saww).

    I thought Ahmed Deedat was a respected and prominent scholar, either agree with him or disown him, no diplomatic way in between.

    In regards to the infallibility of the 12 Imams, the "true" words of Holy Prophet (saww) hold the same importance as that of the Holy Quran. It is the wisdom of Allah that he did not mention the number, neither the names, for history would have produced both the numbers and names as the people at helm of it wanted.

    Alhamdoliah, we truly understand the infallibility of whom we follow with the eyes of our minds and ma'arfat, not emotions. And the truth will appear before everyone one day. But it might be too late then.!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    I never claimed that the Khulafa e Raashideen are infallible !

    Brother, you are against diverting to emotional sentiments. I would simply ignore your future comments if they don't contain any thing rational.

    I didn't give you a book to read, or a series of videos to watch. I want you to just prove me here where the infallibility of 12 imaams is mentioned in Qur'an ?

    Brother, there are many virtues of Sahaba mentioned in Narrations, including Abu Bakr, Umer, Ali & Uthman RA. And the narrations for virtues are not 'used' to prove who had to be the first khalifah. Its totally irrational to debate now who 'should have been' the first khalifah. This is just an attempt to make the complete deen revolve around the twelve and ignore all others. Don't you know that Abu Bakr RA used to lead people in Salah when Prophet Muhammad was ill ? Don't you know Prophet Muhammad said that Abu Bakr's imaan stands out from the imaan of all others because he didn't think for a second, and immediately accepted my message? Don't you know that Abu Bakr was the one with Rasulullah in cave ? Don't you know that Prophet Muhammad said that had I taken anyone a Khaleel beside Allah that would be Abu Bakr? Don't you know the narration where Prophet Muhammad said that had there been any other Prophet after me that would have been Umar? Please, don't 'use' the narrations that fit your view, and understand the complete scene. Don't start 'competing' Sahaba based on their virtues. The Ummah trained by Rasulullah was the best one to decide whom their leader would be and they elected Abu Bakr. Or If you consider Rasulullah's trained people to be such a failure, than thats a different story.

    Neither did he mention number, nor the name... :) Thats all I wanted to know. This means you can make any belief and then say Allah didn't mention it for some hidden wisdom ! Tomorrow a new prophet will come and you'll accept him, Allah didn't mention him before for some wisdom ! If there is some solid proof from Qur'an or even the Hadith (narrations from Rasulullah) which prove the 'infalibility' of 12 imaams then bring one. Don't lengthen the discussion and divert it to things that aren't concerned with this topic. You can explode your emotions somewhere else !

    Hamza said...

    @ Discussion 1:
    there are certain ahadith (like man kuno maula) which everyone knew, everyone recognized and they passed all tests of authenticity (i think tahir ul qadri had a lecture on it). i think its preposterous to suggest bukhari and muslim never came across them.
    @ Discussion 5:
    i have never heard of Naaqis ul Islam. i won't get into a discussion of jurisprudence, but even assuming that some shias curse the companions that doesn't make all shias kafir. these ulema declared all shias kafir.
    @ infallibility: the infallibility of the first 3 imams is derived from 33:33. the infallibility of the other 9 derives from the sayings of these 3. surely we've been through this before? btw, not everything is mentioned in the Quran (that's why we have ahadith).

    i don't think its consequences are too big. sunni muslims will never contradict the first 3 caliphs or the wife of the prophet, even though they aren't considered infallible. u follow everything they say and did because of how close they were to the prophet. surely u haven't created a paul after christ?

    Hamza

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    And yes there are many authentic narrations proving that those who would be the immediate successors of Rasulullah would be pious, and according to Sunnis it includes at-least the first 4 , and by lingustics it would include atleast 3, because there is a separate word for 2 in Arabic.

    There are authentic narrations in which Prophet Muhammad SAW said

    عليكم بالسنتى و سنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين
    ' On you is following my Sunnah, and Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Khulafa (Caliphs) '

    Deedat never approved the 12 imaams infallibility belief ! I've read his article regarding Shi'aas !

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 1-
    No its not preposterous because the narration doesn't have too many 'chains' ! And even if it had on you is to think 'good' about them and not assume that they ignored them for a 'reason' !

    Discussion # 2 -
    I agree there are some scholars who declare all
    Shi'aas Kaafir in one go! There is another problem too actually ! Do all shi'ass believe in that the Imaams are Infallible (M'asum) ? Well, there are many things are Naaqis ul Islam, and they are derived from Qur'an directly.

    Infallibility : Well, the hierarchy with the Sunnis is as follows :

    1- Qur'an
    2- Prophet Muhammad's Sayings, Actions

    And If we don't find any direct reference to anything in the above (which seldom happens) then we resort to the lives of the First Four Caliphs because they were guided (though not infallible) and if anything they did went against Qur'an or Sunnah, then it is surely not a proof. But when you consider someone to be infallible, then he can even 'abrogate' the previously established rules , exactly what Paul did with the laws of Jesus ! And the actual law sources are ignored !!

    Hamza said...

    Discussion 1: The prophet said these words when returning from his final hajj. these words were uttered right next to the "i leave unto you two weighty things". it has the same chain of narrators as that hadith. this hadith was mentioned in bukhari and muslim (im pretty sure its in both), but the man kunto maula one wasn't.
    i haven't questioned the integrity of bukhari and muslim.

    Discussion 2: And how can you label me a kafir when i don't abuse or curse any companions? or do u not need any support in islamic law for doing that.
    The infallibility of imams is an integral part of shia faith. im not sure what the problem is with that. Allah can choose to keep anyone away from sin. he could do it to you, me or anyone else. its His choice.

    the traditions of the imams are used in the same way as sunnis use for the caliphs. since i haven't seen the imams say those words, anything that clearly contradicts the quran / strong ahadith will be seen as unauthentic.

    from what i see, the sunnis respecting and following the caliphs is in a practical sense the exact same as shias following imams.

    you've called me a kafir and liar without even knowing who i am. Allah janay kis islam ko hum follow karte hain. God bless us all.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Brother ! I never called you a Kaafir ! I don't know from where you concluded this ! I always thought that discussion is going on in a nice manner !

    Discussion # 1
    You should ask the Sahabas that If it was said immediately after that then why they didn't relate it too. That is an 'assumption' that it was said at the same time, and you are using that assumption to conclude something.

    The question still remains. Where is the infallibility of Imaams mentioned in any hadith (be it from your sources) or Qur'an ? I think there is a chapter on infallibility of Imaams in Al-Kaafi, does it contain any narration that ends at Rasulullah? You can take your time for it !

    The first three are by no means explicitly mentioned in 33:33. Bring any other proof then 33:33. I don't have 1 percent doubt regarding it ! Or try and disprove everything I said above in its explanation !

    Hamza said...

    you said you agree with the scholars who brand all shias as kafir. anyway, you are free to your opinion.

    @ discussion 1: actually im pretty sure the man kunto maula has many narrators, who mention the entire incident (the hadith of the pond of kausar and the man kunto). tahir ul qadri narrated many chains of the incident.

    @ infallibility: there are many ahadith, but you will either question their interpretation or their authenticity. just as u disagree with 33:33's interpretation, im sure you will disagree with these too. feel free to doubt them. im guessing no one here is a arabic speaker, so we're simply copy pasting explanations of the internet. if you're so keen for a shia explanation for it, please google it up. the shia argument goes something like the first part of the verse addresses in the feminine (ie wives), but the second part addresses in masculine. it was narrated at the time when these 5 people were together. a sahih muslim hadith says wives are not a part of the ahlul bait mentioned here.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    I said I agree that there are some scholars who brand all Shi'aas as Kaafir in one go, but I never said I agree with them :)..

    I Understand Arabic Alhamdulillah, not just because I've lived in Saudi Arabia, but I've been striving to understand Qur'an and Hadith since long, and I assure you its not a copy-paste work. You can google to find out :)

    Hamza said...

    oh yea there is plenty of linguistic arguments. i don't know the roots of each word, and arabic is a rich language

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    Good Points by brother Tahir.

    @Hamza
    You said you don't agree with those who insult the Sahaba.

    Now your all Major scholars (from whom you take your beliefs) insulted and made takfeer on Sahaba (ra). This means you take your belief from those that you don't agree with. Why not stop following them? If you are truthful. Why not follow the way of Ahlulbait (ra) who didn't insult the Sahaba esp the first 3 Caliphs (Radialahu anhuma).

    You might say, that you follow 12 Imams, but I disagree. The Imams (May Allah have mercy on them) did not write a single book. Narrations were invented and attributed to them by fallable people like Al-Kafi, majlisi etc.

    You said why we don't have narrations of Hazrat Zainab (ra)? Brother, Tahir has explained well.

    I ask you how many narrations of Hazrat Fatima (ra) are in Al-Kafi (the earliest and most authentic shia book) ?

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Hamza
    The People of Cloak (Ahl-Kisa) were not present when the verse was revealed.

    Only, the Umahatul Muminin (ra) were present. Those five individuals (May Allah be pleased with them) were later included when Prophet (SAW) made dua for them.

    It is unfair, that you exclude the main members of Ahlulbait (ra).

    Hamza said...

    @ why do i "follow" clerics who curse the companions:

    firstly, i follow God, Messengers and Imams, not clerics. secondly, i don't think this is good logic. will u quit your fiqh because some scholars from it are saying things u don't believe in. more importantly, will u change ur fiqh if the founder of ur school of law said something u don't agree with?

    the narrations of imams follow the same mechanism as the narrations of the prophet. i sure hope u don't refuse the value of hadith just because there are some inauthentic ahadith out there?

    @ why granddaughter of prophet or the event of karbala isn't mentioned: i didn't see any good explanations up there. nor for ahadith like man kunto maula. i don't want to repeat myself, my explanations are up there. and if you're saying that maybe the compilers didn't hear of ahadith regarding these people. well then the question is why did people forget them and their lives.

    @ main members of ahlul bait:

    From Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5920:
    I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of ...Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas.

    ie it says wives are not in ahlul bayt

    regarding whether the 5 were present:

    Sahih Muslim
    Book 031, Number 5955:

    'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)

    Hamza said...

    also, sahih muslim
    Book 031, Number 5923:
    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.

    some of ahadith (that i haven't seen myself before this)

    Thirmidhi 3205:
    The step-son of Prophet said, "What these Ayat were revealed to the Prophet (SAAW), 'God only wishes to remove the Rijs (evil deeds) from you, O Members of the family (Ahlul Bayt), and to purify you with a thorough purification (Verse 33:33)'. The Prophet (SAAW) called Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain"

    Thirmidhi 3206:
    For six months, The Messenger of God (SAAW) would pass by the door of Fatima when going to the Fajr prayer saying: "As-Salat, O people of the house! God only wishes to remove Rijs (evil deeds) from you, O Members of the family (Ahlul Bayt)", and to purify you with a thorough purification (verse 33:33)"

    Umm Salamah narrated: "The Prophet (SAAW) put a garment over Al-Hasan, Al-Husain, Ali and Fatima, then he said: "O God, these are the people of my house (family),"so remove Rijs (evil and sins) from them and purify them thoroughly (Quran 33:33)." So Umm Salamah said, And am I with them O Messenger of God (SAAW)?He said: "You are upon good" (Hasan)

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Hamza

    The Hadiths you have quoted are out of context and it easy to reply to each of them. Inshallah I will try to respond later.

    Brother Hamza, I can show you many Authentic hadiths in which the Prophet (SAW) called Aisha (ra) "Asalam Alaikum O Ahlebait".

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Hamza

    For now think about these verses of Quran which prove that the Wives are Ahlulbait.

    Brother Tahir also given examples but it seems that you have not read them. No worries I will repeat it for you.

    Some examples from Quran:

    قَالُواْ أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللّهِ رَحْمَتُ اللّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ

    She said: O wonder! shall I bear a son when I am an extremely old woman and this my husband an extremely old man? Most surely this is a wonderful thing. They said: Do you wonder at Allah’s bidding? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house(ahlebayt), surely He is Praised, Glorious.(11:72-73)

    Brother Hamza, you see the wife of Ibrahim (as) is refered to as Ahlebayt by Allah.

    2nd EXAMPLE:

    فَلَمَّا قَضَى مُوسَى الْأَجَلَ وَسَارَ بِأَهْلِهِ آنَسَ مِن جَانِبِ الطُّورِ نَارًا قَالَ لِأَهْلِهِ امْكُثُوا إِنِّي آنَسْتُ نَارًا لَّعَلِّي آتِيكُم مِّنْهَا بِخَبَرٍ أَوْ جَذْوَةٍ مِنَ النَّارِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَصْطَلُونَ

    When Moses completed the term of the contract and departed from his employer with his family(ahli), he saw a fire (on his way) on one side of the Mount (Sinai). He asked his wife(ahli), “Stay here. I can see some fire. Perhaps I will be able to bring some news of it or some fire for you to warm-up yourselves.”(sarwar shia translator, 28:29)

    The wife of Hazrat Musa (as) is refered to as Ahl.

    3rd EXAMPLE:

    وَحَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَرَاضِعَ مِن قَبْلُ فَقَالَتْ هَلْ أَدُلُّكُمْ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتٍ يَكْفُلُونَهُ لَكُمْ وَهُمْ لَهُ نَاصِحُونَ

    And we ordained that he refused suck at first, until (His sister came up and) said: “Shall I point out to you the people of a house(ahli bayt) that will nourish and bring him up for you and be sincerely attached to him?”.(28:12)

    Even in the verse above the mother of Moses(as) is termed as ahlebayt.

    and many more...

    Hamza said...

    um, ahle bayt means people of the house. other members of the families of previous prophets have been called people of the house.

    however, this seems to be a special case for the last Prophet, as there are many ahadith which specifically say it. you're saying that these ahadith have been taken out of context. u seem quite certain about it. if u know it for a fact, surely it shouldn't take u too long to explain their context? i mean why didn't u simply tell me the actual context?

    anyway, please come up with evidence before making allegations. i'm waiting for the real context.

    Syed said...

    Im just LMAO at "The Hadiths you have quoted are out of context and it easy to reply to each of them. Inshallah I will try to respond later."

    Second Hamza on the last comment.

    @Salman

    Just answer me this: Is there any permission what-so-ever to stand up against the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, especially when they are the "Rightfully Guided" ashaab of Prophet (saww) ?

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    1- We are not discussing those on whom Zakah is prohibited. That is a seperate issue. We are not discussing 'status' we are discussing infallibility issue here.
    2- We are discussing whom Qur'an refers to as Ahlul Bait in 33:33.
    3- And we are discussing whether there's any mention of infallibility in that Ayah or not.

    It is so easy to start hundreds of things at a moment, and ignore the actual thing.

    Hamza said...

    all of the hadith specifically state that the last Prophet's wives are not included (or mention certain names, not including the wives).

    we've talked about 3) many time, i don't see the point of repeating myself.

    but there was a claim made about the context of those ahadith. i'd like to read about it.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Brother ! They are not included in those on whom Zakaat is haram, but they are certainly amongst Ahlul Bait. The hadith of Sahih Muslim quoted above is actually a saying of Sayyidiniah Zaid bin Arqam RA, and it comes to us with various chains. There is another chain in Sahih Muslim also from Zaid RA in which he elaborated so that no doubt remains :

    قال نساؤه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة

    "He (Zayd) said, 'His wives are from his house (ahl ul bait) but the members of his house (in this context) are those for whom charity is forbidden."

    If you had quoted both narrations then there is no doubt whatsoever.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Muhammad Awais Tahir

    YOu are right. We should stick to the topic but it is their habit to change the topic without finishing the first topic.

    The Quranic verses proves that the wives are Ahlulbait yet the shias use some hadiths without checking other Sahih/Authentic hadiths.

    @ Brother Hamza Let me show you other SAHIH versions of hadith you posted about Wives being part of Ahlulbait. Also, the hadiths you have posted does not exclude the wives.

    Umm Salmah said: in my house these verses were revealed ” God wants to remove all kinds of uncleanliness from you Ahlul-Bayt and to purify you thoroughly.” So the Prophet PBUH called for Ali and Fatima and Hassan and Hussein and then said: These are Ahlu-Bayti, In the Hadith of al Qadi and al Summi: They are Ahly. So I said: O Messenger of Allah! aren’t I also from your Ahlul-Bayt? He said: yes you are Inshallah.

    Muhaddith: Al Hakim from al Sunan al kubrah for Bayhaqi.
    Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH narrators all trustworthy.

    b. ...So Umm Salamah said: O Messenger of Allah? am I not also from your Ahlul-Bayt !? He said: yes Inshallah.

    Narrator: Umm Salamah Hind bint Abu Umayyah.
    Muhaddith: Al baghawi. in Sharh al Sunnah.
    Hadith rank: Isnad SAHIH

    @hamza, and NOW more examples...

    "...He (the Holy Prophet) then proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as−Salamu ‘alaikum to every one of them and said: Members of the household, how are you? They said: Messenger of Allah, we are in good state ‘How do you find your family? He would say: In good state. (sahi muslim Bk 8, Number 3328)

    (Similar narration is present in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 316)

    @Hamza You see Prophet (SAW) calling his wives 'O Ahlulbait' after giving them salam.

    2nd EXAMPLE:

    2. Sahi bukhari (Volume 6 hadith 274)…“So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family(ahli bayti)? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me,”…

    The Prophet (SAW) calling his wife 'Ahlebayt'.

    3rd EXAMPLE.

    3. ...She (Hadrat ‘A’isha) said: He forbade us, the members of his family [Ahlal Bayt], to prepare Nabidh in gourd, or varnished jar...

    Sahi muslim (Bk 23, Number 4918) Ibrahim

    The wife of Prophet (SAW) consider herself member of Ahlebait.

    and I can go on...with many more examples.

    @Hamza
    Don't you know that apart from five individuals one more person was also brought under the cloak by Prophet (SAW). That person was Wathilah. This proves that the wives are the main members of Ahlulbait (ra), and others were included after the dua of Prophet (SAW).

    Wathilah narrated: I came seeking... I said: O prophet of Allah! am I not from your Ahel? He said: And you are from my Ahel. Wathilah said: this is what I had always wished for.

    Source: Bayhaqi in Sunan al kubrah.
    hadith rank: Isnad is SAHIH.

    Hamza said...

    okay, i think my iq level just fell a few dozen points

    you're saying that the ahadith i quoted were taken out of context.

    sahih muslim 5920 is talking specifically about the ahlul bayt being one of the two "weighty things". and when asked if wives are included, it says no and tells who is.

    sahih muslim 5955 talks about the five in the cloak, and mentions the verse specifically.

    thirmidhi 3205 says that 33:33 was revealed and prophet called the other 4

    Thirmidhi 3206 says prophet would recite 33:33 when passing by his daughter's door

    now lets look at the ahadith you quoted:
    first and second ones: they're not from the sahih books? i specifically asked for book and hadith number. though i agree, at least this being taken in context

    regarding muslim 3328 and bukhari 316:
    um, he's simply saying salam to his wives. um, i don't see a "yes, you're included in 33:33". all the ahadith above in this post specifically talk about 33:33. God knows how your ahadith (saying salam to his wives. i mean they are part of his household literally. doesn't mean they're included in 33:33).

    the sahih muslim 4918 is even more ridiculously quoted. they're talking about cooking utensils and a green pitcher. the prophet's wife says "we, the members of prophet's family, were forbidden to prepare Nabidh in a varnished jar. God, you're telling me about context?

    i'm not sure if this is your idea of a joke. cooking utensils?

    Hamza said...

    no one is saying that literally speaking they weren't part of his family. everyone agrees that they were his legally wedded wives. the claim is they weren't included in the specific instance ie 33:33.
    even the first hadith i quoted says the wives are part of his family, BUT the ahlul bayt mentioned in 33:33 include x, y and z

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    They are included in 33:33, and there are so many proofs for it in the above article. Ignore everything else and prove to me from linguistics that they are not included, because you are failing to understand that the Zakaat matter is different and 33:33 is different. You are claiming things as if the narrations say that these are those who are included in 33:33. First you 'assume' that this is referring to 33:33, and you use you assumption as a proof.

    Next, this has nothing to do with what I wanted you to prove. You have to prove to me the infallibility of the 'twelve' from Qur'an or any narration that goes to Rasulullah ! You don't have prove the superiority of the Ahl ul Bait, you don't have to prove that wives were included or not, you don't have to prove who is to be given Zakaat and who is to be not ! You have to prove the 'aqeedah' that 12 imaams are infallible !

    Hamza said...

    um, the narrations quote the verse, so im assuming its safe that they refer to them. please re-read my previous post, i have NOT quoted the zakat hadith.

    next, i'll repeat for the 25th time that no one can prove anything. reread the last few dozen posts, they are talking about whether the wives are included or not, not shia aqeedah.

    its interesting that whenever u guys say something stupid (like the wife of the prophet saying "as a part of his family, we are not allowed to use varnished glass" to 'prove' she is part of 33:33) you get back to the initial topic of infallibility of 12 imams. open your eyes, that's not what we've been discussing.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Hamza come on.
    What silly comments you make. "this doesn't say they are included in 33:33"

    If 33:33 is revealed for those 4 indivuals, then why there was a need for the Prophet (SAW) to bring them under his cloak? Why there was a need to make dua to Allah to include these 4 individual also in his Ahlulbait (ra) ?

    Thanks for the Tirmizi hadith, this proves that the incident of cloak happened after the revealation of verse.

    This verse was revealed for the wives, and later the Prophet (SAW) called the other 4 and made dua to Allah (Swt) to included them also in his Ahlulbait (ra).

    The Prophet (SAW) also included Wathilah in his Ahlulbait (ra).

    The Wives are the Ahlulbait (ra) both in Quran and Sahih Hadeeths. Others are only Ahlulbait (ra) in Hadeeths.

    You first reject the clear verses of Quran and then you reject the Sahih Hadeeth.

    One more point, if you read verse 33 of Surah Ahzab, it starts with
    "And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance..."

    Now let me ask you, do you think Allah (swt) is saying this to Ali (ra), Hussain and Hasan (raa)? that they should stay in their houses and do not display theirselves..." or is this verse is about Women only?

    Which one makes sense.


    @ Hamza: Please answer what brother Tahir has asked you? Prove the infallabality of your Imams.

    Hamza said...

    this is the stupidest conversation i have had in a very long time.

    the ahadith you quoted did not mention the verse 33:33. they were random events in the lives of the wives, where they say "as the wife of the prophet, we are part of his family". the only exception to this is the umm salmah, which is not mentioned in bukhari or muslim.

    i don't know if there is a 'need' to make dua for them. just like there isn't a 'need' for u to pray to Allah to raise the prophet to the status he is promised (but in fact you do).

    im not denying the verse, i didn't read the part which said that the wives are a part. again, im skeptical about your ability to read (or maybe you are deliberately being stupid). the claim is that the wives are being mentioned in the first part of the verse, and the 5 are being mentioned in the second part. its about time you realized that.

    there is nothing such as "proving" proving their infallibility. do u believe in the existence of Allah? go prove that to an atheist. im not sure how educated you are or what you are studying. but if you've done anything quantitative, you would know that religion isn't math.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    When you have agreed that you have no proof for this 'Aqeedah (belief) there's no point in lengthening the debate anymore.

    Hamza said...

    i said the same thing 10 days back, that no one can prove anything. not sure you guys know what proof means, because you seemed to have "proved" so many things. don't know what you mean by debate. this seems like a bunch of stupid comments where one of the people realizes, 2 weeks after the initial post, what the claim actually is.

    i think im done with this blog. u guys say stupid things, then when i question u ure saying "lets go back to only 1 question". when i say religion is not math, ie you can't prove stuff, then u say lets quit.

    i've seen many stupid people in my life. i recommend a class in logic (from a philosophy dept).

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    You can exit if you want to. I don't want you to prove it to me in form of an equation, and I don't want you rationally analyze for me the concept of 12 Imaams.

    I requested you to bring a proof from the 'texts' that are counted as a source for belief !

    JazakAllah for your time :)

    Syed said...

    "There is enough light for one who 'wants' to see".... Imam Ali (as)

    There is no point in arguing with some arrogant guys who 101% believe they are on the right track, as if (nauzubillah) Allah sends His revelations to them.

    @ Mr Salman

    As to yr point
    "One more point, if you read verse 33 of Surah Ahzab, it starts with
    "And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance...""
    In case you didn't notice, the addressees of this part of Ayah are "Nisa-e-Nabi(sa)" and not "Ahle-Bait" ... The "Ahle-Bait(as) are addressed in the next part of the Ayah, and it is not a surprise that the Ayahs containing multiple parts may have been revealed at different times.

    How conveniently you ignored my last comment... go back to it if you can and answer me.

    As to the 12 Imams,
    "It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I joined the company of the Prophet (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) with my father and I heard him say: This Caliphate will not end until there have been twelve caliphs among them. The narrator said: Then he (the Prophet) said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: All of them will be from the Quraish."
    Can anyone prove me twelve caliphs from Ummayah, Abbassid or any other line of caliphs, instead of proving to me the "WEAK CHAIN OF NARRATION" as an excuse !!!

    When people here don't believe the infallibility of Holy Prophet (saww) [He nauzubillah made errors, an unimaginable notion], how can i prove to them the infallibility of the twelve Masoom Imams (as).

    Syed said...

    The above narration from Jabir b. Samura is quoted from Sahih Muslim

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    no matter how much effort you make, you can not exclude the wives of Prophet (SAW) because they are Ahlebait in the Quran.

    @Syed AND @Hamza

    so you can't prove the infallability of your Imams from the Quran. This is the most important part of your belief yet you find it hard to prove it from Quran.

    by bringing silly arguments "Prove God". Is this your answer ?

    So better admit that you can't prove the infallability of your Imams.

    @ Syed

    The hadith of 12 Caliphs. All of them from Quraish not Ali (ra). If you read other Sahih Versions of this hadith which are more clear states that Allah (swt) will give strenght to Islam through them. Islam will be powerful during their RULE.

    Muslim Book 020, Number 4482:
    It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peeace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish.


    Now tell me, how many of your Imams ruled the Muslim Ummah ? Only 2 (Ali and Hasan (ra)) what abou the other 10 Imams?
    Did these 10 Imams ruled the Muslim Ummah ?

    @ SYED AND HAMZA brothers

    It is so SAD that you can't prove the FOUNDATION of your mazhab from Quran or Hadith.

    Syed said...

    I don't believe in any other 'mazhab' than Islam, the foundations of which are in believing Almighty Allah as the all powerful, and Muhammad (saww) as the last messenger of Allah. I don't know what religion you follow, Mr Salman, and what you have already concluded of Hamza and me.

    Ruling over the people by sitting on the throne, and wearing a crown is not enough. It requires the ultimate key to knowledge, and wisdom which Allah grants to his special servants. As to yr supposed from of ruling, then Prophet Ibrahim (as) is out of the Divine Leadership (nauzubillah) because Pharaoh was the one on the throne ? or Prophet Musa (as) or Prophet Isa (as) ? Allah made Prophet Ibrahim (as) as the Prophet as well as Imam (2:124), the meaning of which we agree is "The Divine Leader" of the time. Hence, it is not necessary for an Imam to be on a throne and an official head of kingdom to be called as the true rulers of Ummah as in the pretext of Islamic ruling.!

    Secondly, can you give me any example in the Quran where it predicts the future ? I would love it, and answer yr last comment on that answer of yours.

    Lastly, do you believe that Prophet Muhammad (saww) was an Infallible guide, free from every error, sin possible whatsoever or not ?

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Prophet Muhammad was free from 'sins' : m'asum !
    That's a simple answer!

    Qur'an is filled of prophecies , see the beginning Ayaat of Surah Ar Rum !

    Anonymous said...

    Muslims are so stupid. They believe in god even though they can't prove the main concept of their faith.

    Hail atheism!

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Syed

    Islam will become dominant and powerful through them. But you shia claim that Ahlulbait (ra) were oppressed and they were forced to give bayah to the tyrants of their time (shia hadith). So how can you use that of 12 Caliphs Hadith to prove your beliefs.

    @Brother Syed, according to shia believing in Imamate of 12 Imams is the pillar of Islam. This is the foundation of shia sect. This is the biggest difference between Sunnis & Shias.

    @Brother Syed, Do you know that according to shia hadiths After the 12 Imams, there will come another 12 Mahdis? Why your scholars don't tell you about this? Can you explain me this?

    Why is this contradiction in your sect?, and this is about the most important part of your faith.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Muhammad Awais Tahir

    Brother, is it possible to write an article about the status of Sahaba (ra) according to Quran. The dozens of verses which praise them.

    I know about the verses which are in praise of the Sahaba (ra) of Muhammad (SAW) but the way you write articles is briliant just like this article 'Who are Ahle-Bait...'.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Dear Brother Salman !

    JazakAllah for the encouragement. Ofcourse It is required. I quoted at the end of my article two most evident Ayaat in the praise of Sahaba, and they say much more in praise then 33:33:.

    But, yet Sh'iaas use 33:33 to prove infallibility, and they ignore these Ayaat totally and either abuse/curse the Sahaba themselves or don't disassociate themselves with those who so.

    Qur'an is the 'common thing' between us, and yes it is required to gather all ayaat from Qur'an in the praise of Sahaba hoping that will inculcate in Sh'iaas the love of those Trained by Rasulullah himself.

    We can write it together brother. Give me your skype or gmail id. Or add me on skype or gmail.

    Gmail : Muhammad.Awais.Tahir@gmail.com
    Skype : awais148

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ the atheist above...

    We are united on the existence of God ! And most of the world is , even those from other religions ! And the most common belief held regarding God throughout the world is 'there is one GOD'. Even in Christianity we have Unitarians who believe in one God. Sikhism tends to have to Unitarian sort of belief too. We invite you to this social club which has representatives around the globe who believe in the oneness of God ! Atheism is either an escape or an excuse !

    Anonymous said...

    Most of the world use to believe that the world was flat. Very good.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    I never said majority signifies the truth ! But, that might be the matter of the 'past' ! But even most of the guys out there even after the advent of science believe in God and oneness of God, and it wouldn't have made any difference if they didn't !

    miraculousquran.blogspot.com

    Anonymous said...

    Your friend earlier said its sad if you believe in things that you can't prove.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Prove from the texts ! And the authenticity of the text can be proved, in case you doubt them !

    Anonymous said...

    No you cannot prove the authenticity of texts (that they are written by God). At best, you can allude to it. There are things in Quran which suggest divine knowledge. But it can't be proven. If you are so sure you can give a strict and unchallengeable proof that Quran is word of a single God, let me know and I will convert all the people of the world to monotheism.

    I believe in God, but I wanted to point out the absurdity of the argument. Faith by definition has no strict proof. Dictionary.com says proof is belief that is not based on proof. That's why these things are called articles of faith.

    Syed said...

    @ Salman

    at your first comment, the Imams never accepted the Bayah of the tyrants of their time, as the battle of Karbala proved it !!! Every Imam in his age voiced His opposition to the tyrants of their time. And at the time of Imam Mehdi (AF), Islam will insha'Allah gain the power that is predicted.

    at your second comment, you are terribly terribly misinformed. The belief of Imamate is a part of the basic five pillars of Islam, not the belief around which my Islam revloves.

    at your third comment, you know more than me myself LOL. Your claim is nothing but rubbish. Imam Mehdi (AF) is the last Imam from the line of Imam Ali (as) and Bibi Fatima (as), and there is no more 12 mehdi's as you claim.

    Please get your facts right, and then come for discussion !!!

    As to the topic, can you elaborate why the Battle of Jamal took place, despite all the efforts of Imam Ali (as) that Muslims do not fight their brothers ? Can you imagine the Ahle-Bait you claim (in this case Ayesha (ra)) fighting Ahle-Bait (as), in your wildest of imaginations, and the fact that Imam Ali (as) was the Rightful Caliph of the time, as you believe it yourself ?

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Syed

    I don't claim. Your shia beliefs claim. Ask your shia scholar, who are these 12 Mahdis?

    It seems that you are not aware of your own mazhab.

    Ali (ra) not only gave Bayah but also worked with the first 3 of Khulafa Al-Rashideen.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ Mr Believer in God !

    No one can claim to be a messenger of God, until he has some proof with him, Allah sends miracles with his messenger. Similarly those who claim to be infallible like Prophets should bring a certificate for that from God. If the texts don't speak about such a thing, then its a false claim.

    If I knew what your beliefs are to be exact, I could have given you a better explanation. Alhamdulillah, Islam is not like Christianity where you can add and subtract things on your own. The texts are there to verify any claim, Alhamdulillah.

    @ Mesam !

    One thing I can assure you regarding your questions, what's there regarding the events mentioned in your books of history (not all) is not an established history in the books of history on this side. We believe both of the parties had correct intentions, and the battle occurred due to the conspiracy of some Jews (who were camouflaged as Muslims). They attacked one camp at night, when the matter had been resolved the in the evening. And, this can be found in Sh'ia books of history too.

    Anonymous said...

    Okay, please post the irrefutable and unquestionable evidence of the existence of God for someone who is not a Muslim and does not believe in God. In specific, it should be of a single and active God. Or even Muhammad being a Messenger of God (though for that, you first have to prove an existence of God). Again, irrefutable and unquestionable.

    By the way, did you look at the meaning of faith? While you are at it, I suggest you look at the meanings of allude and prove.

    The point is simply that no, you do not need hard evidence for everything. Faith by default entails believing in someone without strict proof. Its somewhere between blind faith and proven fact.

    Syed said...

    @ Salman

    Please mention any credible reference which says Ali (as) took Bayah of first three Caliphs. I never deny he helped them in their decision making, but that is a different topic altogether.

    Your first claim is, i repeat again, nothing but rubbish claim. Please claim anything with reference. Don't come forward with what tom, dick and harry says !!!

    Do some research yourself, and tell me the person who named your sect as "Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaat" ? and kindly tell me when it was formed!!!

    @ Awais
    I want the facts which caused the both parties out in the battlefield at Basrah. Why did Ayesha (ra) even think of taking revenge of the blood of Usman (ra) from Imam Ali (as). Did she have any credible evidence to that ? Couldn't she have had peaceful talks, which could have spared the blood of 10,000 Muslims ?
    Man, don't give me BS like Jews in the Battle of Jamal and things like Abdullah bin Sabah... They are all fictional characters, and i will give you references in near future as well...

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ Anonymous

    We need hard evidence for 'Aqaaid (beliefs), this is something on which no Sh'iaa or Sunni scholar will differ. I can give you references from both books if you want.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ Syed

    She had peaceful talks. Everything was going fine and settled down until the Jews conspiracy 'succeeded' and the battle broke up in the middle of the night because they were Jews in both camps. We never say, she was taking revenge from Ali RA for the Martyrdom of Uthman RA. The dispute was whether to take the revenge 'now', or to delay it for some reasons. This was not a matter of personal dispute as few people try to portray it.

    For you the Jewish characters might be fictional but they are written in your own books as well. I am not foolish to debate with Sh'iaas when we don't even have common sources for history. You can carry out this exercise with someone else.

    The naming becomes inevitable when sects like Qadyanis or Khwaarij emerge who label themselves as Muslims but are actually not.

    Yes, Ali RA took ba'iah from Abu Bakr and Umer and we can give you ample references for this from our books of history or hadith, but you will doubt their 'credibility' ! Who selected Ali RA as the next Khalifah by the way?

    Anonymous said...

    So please give me the "hard evidence" for the existence of a single God who is active in the affairs of the world. I await your answer.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Read Critique of Practical Reasons by Kantt.
    Hard evidences are miracles. The miraculous nature of Qur'an is an evidence. But, that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I assume you are a muslim too, so for you the saying of Qur'an that God is one, is a hard evidence in itself. How to deal with non-muslims on the issue depends on the current beliefs of the person.

    Syed said...

    @ Awais... It is now your own choice if it is worth the time to impose your set of history on mine !

    After the murder of Usman (ra), the people of Madina, prominent Sahaba alive at the time included, unanimously elected Imam Ali (as) as the fourth Caliph.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    And those prominent Sahaba. Didn't they give ba'iah to Umer, Abu Bakr and Uthman RA as well? Is it only now that they become prominent?

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    And Ali RA was amongst the six Shura members who had to select the next Khalifah after Umer RA.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    It is so sad that shias always reject the existance of Abdullah ibn Saba and call him a 'fictional' character.

    @ Brother Syed

    Please scroll up and see my comments, I have given reference from your books about Abdullah ibn Sabah.

    You asked for reference about 12 Mahdis. Here they are:

    Narrated abI baseer: I Said to al Sadiq: O Son of rasul allah PBUH, I heard from your father that he said: After al Qa'em there will be 12 other Mahdies, Imam replied: He said 12 Mahdies not 12 Imams but they are a folks from our shia and they will call upon the people to follow our path and know our rights.

    Bihar al Anwar 53/145, Kamal Al Deen 335.

    ANOTHER ONE:

    "From us there will be 12 Mahdies from the son of hussein after al Qa'em."

    Source: البحار: (53/148)، غيبة الطوسي: (285).

    Bihar al Anwar 53/148, Ghaybat al Tusi 285.

    and many MORE narrations...

    As brother Awais mentioned, those who elected Ali (ra) were the same people who elected the first 3 Caliphs (May Allah be pleased with them). It is even mentioned in Nahjul Balagha.

    Anwar ul Haq said...

    From the start of the comments, i noticed one person was adamant on using the word 'mazhab' for the sect of Shi'i Asna-e-Ashari.

    What a fantastic article by the followers of 'mazhab' "Ahle Sunnah wal Jama'at" put in place by Imam AbulHasan Alasha'ri around 300 AH. LOL

    I guess you knew that already, didn't you scholars???

    Hamza said...

    could you expand on your comment? i think you mean to say that the Ahle Sunnah wal Jama'at was also created much after the death of the Prophet, just like Shi'i Asna-e-Ashari. i'm guessing (and agreeing) that you mean to clarify that shiaism is as much of a deviation from islam as sunnism. please correct me if i'm wrong.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Mazhab is used by scholars to refer to school of thought. Mazhab e Hanafi, Mazhab e Shafi'ee, Mazhab e J'afari etc

    Syed Mesam said...

    Salam to all brothers.

    The status of Sahaba according to Shi'a Asna-e-Ashari.

    http://www.al-islam.org/real/39.htm

    The myth of Abdullah bin Saba as explained in the following link

    http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter10/

    Allama Sayyed Murtaza al Askari has compiled a book titled "Abdullah bin Saba and other Myths" in the 60's with the purpose of smashing this line of allegations, and i believe he has done an excellent job in doing so. In the preface, is attached a letter from prominent Sunni scholar Dr Hamif Hafni Dawood of Al-Azhar University and Cairo University. It can be viewed here.

    http://www.alhassanain.com/english/book/book/history_library/various_books/abdullah_ibn_saba_and_other_myths/001.html

    Please read these texts with an open mind, otherwise if you believe you are cent percent correct, dont bother to even open the links. If anyone is interested in the books, i can provide the links to those as well.

    I would say please read the given links before coming for more discussion on the mentioned topics, as initiated by your selves.

    Wasalam

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Syed Mesam

    Don't try to cover the shia beliefs about Sahaba (ra). In the link it says 'We neither go extreme towards the Sahaba and neither beleive them to be trusted authorties'.

    The majority of Sahaba (Ra) according to shia teachings, were hypocrites. Some shia beliefs say they apostated. Also, don't you know that anyone who disblieve in the wilayat of Ali (ra) is Kafir? Some shia use this excuse to declare the Sahaba as apostates because they never believed in wilayat of Ali (Ra). You should know hypocrite' is worse a Kafir. In the same link, they say many Sahaba were hypocrites. Now why don't they mention their name? Why is it Taqiya?

    and further, they claim that the Sahaba oppressed the progeny of Prophet (SAW). Can you tell us and name which Sahaba oppressed the Progeny of Muhammad (SAW)?

    In the end, they accuse AhleSunnah for exaggerating about the Sahaba(ra). This is a clear lie. We don't call them infallables. It is you shias who exagerrated about your 'infallable' Imams by giving them divin attributes.

    I call this article of Al-Islam.org a hypocrisy.

    Your second Point:

    Al-Islam.org trying to say that enemies of Islam, made this claim that shia is founded by Abdullah ibn Saba.

    Even the jewish historians know this guy 'Abdullah ibn Saba'. Abdullah ibn Saba was the first person who made this beleif of Wilayat and he was the first person who insulted the first 3 Caliphs (ra). Please check the references that I gave above. Scroll up.

    Note: Al-Islam.org has been caught many times lying and misquoting Sunni sources and even tampering with Shia sources.

    Syed Mesam said...

    @ Salman Neshapuri

    You believe in Abdullah bin Saba more than i do (which i never have done). Please give me a reference of his existence before Saif ibne Omer fabricated him in the 2nd century Hijrah. Any open reference that does not go back to reference of Saif ibne Umar !

    And for the record, Shiasm stretches decades before even the mention of Abdulah bin Saba and his group of mischief-makers !

    Your references are nothing of worth. Where do they quote from ?? What are their chain of narrators ?

    "In the end, they accuse AhleSunnah for exaggerating about the Sahaba(ra). This is a clear lie. We don't call them infallables."
    You dont call them but you believe them to be! Actions speak louder than words. Your assertion about that hadith in which Prophet (saww) said that if anyone would be prophet after me, it would be Abu bakar, where in fact the reference was made about Imam Ali (as) at the time of Battle of Hunain !

    You are either as close-eyed as yr predecessors unwilling to accept the truth, or are completely brain-washed on a particular line of direction. Every reference i mention, you reject it as if you are the most learned in this world. All i would say is GROW UP !

    You are even ready to discredit the scholars of your own sect too in this regard ! In fact, Jewish references are more dear to you than the words of yr own scholar from Al-Azhar University!

    Can you tell me the history of Sunnism ??? Any reference the name even existed in the time of Khulfa-e-Rashideen ??? or a century after them? Answer my queries first before starting again a useless and rubbish discussion

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Syed Messam

    Ask your shia scholars who mentioned Abdullah ibn Saba in their books and confirmed his existence.

    Ask them from where they got it? They are all top shia scholars. Scroll up and see my comments.

    [Qoute]
    "You dont call them but you believe them to be! Actions speak louder than words. Your assertion about that hadith in which Prophet (saww) said that if anyone would be prophet after me, it would be Abu bakar, where in fact the reference was made about Imam Ali (as) at the time of Battle of Hunain !" [/Quote]

    No, we don't. You better first learn the meaning of Sahaba.
    Those who saw the Prophet (SAW), believed in his message and died while in the state of Islam. Simple as that.

    We do believe that Sahaba (ra) did make mistakes and sinned. How is this exageration? It is you shias who went into extreme about your Imams by calling them 'infallables, and it is you shias who consider 'infallable' Imams higher than the Anbiya (as) of Allah. It is your shias who give divin attributes about your Imams. This a great misguidance.

    Now who exagerates? Be honest.

    I was surprised how Al-Islam.org accused the AhleSunnah of exageration about Sahaba (ra).

    No offence but what a silly example you gave me. How does that hadith prove we exegerate about Sahaba (ra)? We love all of them.

    And that hadith, it was about Umar (ra), not Abubakr (ra), and we have authentic narration about it.

    One scholar from Al-Azhar is not hujjah upon us. But how do you prefere a sheikh of Al-Azhar (who is not even well-known) over your own classical scholars and historians? Nawabakhti, Qummi etc ??

    The title Sunni was adopted by Muslims in order to differentiate themselves from the deviant sects (shias, khawarij). They deviated from the Main Stream Islam.

    This title Sunni means those Muslims who follow the Sunnah of Muhammad (SAW). 85-90% of Muslims are AhleSunnah. Alhamdulellah. Simple as that. It is just an identity nothing else.

    But shia means sect and group and Allah condemns sects and groups in the Quran.

    May Allah guide you and me.

    Syed Mesam said...

    The discussion is growing pointless and deviating of the the topic to extremes !

    If you examine the history well enough, you will get to know that after the murder of Usman (ra), there were created three groups. One was called Shia-e-Ali (as), the other called itself Shia-e-Usmania and the third one called itself Khwarij. Simply put, you don't know the meaning of Shia !

    After Shia-e-Usmania, there emerged many other groups who called themselves Marje'a , Qadria, Jabria (, Mo'tazala and finally settled on the name Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat. For reference, see (Fajar-al-Islam by Alama Ahmed Amin Misri) and (Sharah Fiqh Akbar by Mulla Ali Qari).

    I have no problem in stating that our Imams are infallible, and i am never ashamed of it ! It was also proved by the event of Cloth of Kisa, the event of Mobahila as well. If you try to find excuses and other way out of it like making generalities, then i am sorry, i cannot help you but pray for you only.

    And to the topic of Abdullah bin Saba and Sabayia, i am so sorry that you people deface and disrespect the respectful Sahaba of RasullAllah (saww) yrself by declaring Ammar bin Yasir (ra), Abu Zar Ghaffari (ra), Malik Ashtar Nakhai (ra), and other Sahaba who sided with the truth, as Sabaya. There are authentic ahadith about the complete-ness of their emaan and yet you tend to ignore them in favor of a myth penned down by a unknown guy named Saif bin Omer/Omair. Unfortunately, the scholars of all sects referenced him in their works later on and it became as close to truth as a truth itself, which it never was !

    Shia scholar Allama Sayyad Murtaza Askari has compiled a book titled "Abdulah bin Saba and other myths", exposing this great myth. If you want to, you can read it. But yet again, with an open mind and unbiased thinking.

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Syed Meesam

    "If you examine the history well enough, you will get to know that after the murder of Usman (ra), there were created three groups. One was called Shia-e-Ali (as), the other called itself Shia-e-Usmania and the third one called itself Khwarij. Simply put, you don't know the meaning of Shia "

    Correct, but they were only political groups nothing to do with religion. The so called 'shias' of Ali (ra), made this political issue a religious issue which lead to the creation of new sect 'Shia'. They changed all their beliefs and Practises and deviated from the Muslim Jama'ah.

    Let me show you something from Nahjul Balagha.

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

    Muslims at that time were divided in to three.

    3. The Shia: The ones who loved him extremly till they were deviated from the Straight Path.

    2. The Khawarij: Their extreme hate towards Ali (ra) made them deviate from the path of Muslims.

    3. Sunnis: Those who neither hate nor go extreme in their love to ALi (ra) and they are in the middle course as well as they are the Majority.

    Note: If you read the arabic text, it says be with the 'Jama'ah' If you know, we are also called 'AhluSunnah wal Jama'ah'.

    Now Be honest and be open minded about this. Ali (ra) warning people not to be with shia and khawarij but be with the Sunnis.

    [Quote]
    "I have no problem in stating that our Imams are infallible, and i am never ashamed of it ! It was also proved by the event of Cloth of Kisa, the event of Mobahila as well..."[/Qoute]

    I think you haven't read the above article. Lets for the sake of argument say they were infallable but how do you prove the infallabality of your other Imams?

    This is your misconception, we love all the Sahaba (ra) this includes Salman Al-Farsi (ra), Ammar Yasir (ra), Abu Dhar (ra) etc.

    It is your shias who call all the Sahaba (ra) Munafiqs and view only few as Mumins.

    'Shia Scholar Allama Sayyad'... Come on man, I know shias today must write books in order to prove the non-existance of Abdullah ibn Saba but they can't since their classical scholars, from who they take their belies, believed in the existance of Abdullah ibn Saba and there are also narration of shia Imams. Do you know deny these?

    May Allah guide you and me.

    Syed Mesam said...

    On the first point, the groups mentioned in the last comment have every thing to do with religion. Please refer to the reference provided for further read, because there is not much time to write here.

    As to yr point of Sunnis being the ones mentioned in reference to Imam Ali's (as) sermon, i can appreciate how much you love him. For the record, it were the Nusairi's that were pointed out as the one's who in their love of Imam thought him to be the creator of universe, and hence diverted of the right path.

    We Shia Asna Ashari, give and show our love that the Prophet (saww) gave and showed for. In the first open invitation of Islam "Dawat Zul Ashira", Holy Prophet (saww) clearly mentioned Imam Ali (as) as his brother and successor (Tarikh-e-tabari, tarikh ibn-e-aseer). There are other numerous occasions where succession of Imam Ali (as) is confirmed by the Messenger (saww) of Allah, the most prominent among whom is the Hadith at the ground of Khum Ghadeer.

    And you now consult Nahjul Balagha yrself for reference. Have yr own resources dried out ? If you bother to look at Nahjul Balagha sermon 128 "Sermnon to Abu Zar Ghaffari on his expulsion from Madina by third caliph" just as an example, some truth might dawn upon you !!! If i give you some more references from Nahjul Balagha, you would be baffled about your own 'mazhab'.

    Again i repeat, the name Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaat was laid by some clergyman in 300AH named Mulla Abul Hasan Ashari, and not by Prophet (saww) or any Sahabi (if we assume).

    "This is your misconception, we love all the Sahaba (ra) this includes Salman Al-Farsi (ra), Ammar Yasir (ra), Abu Dhar (ra) etc. "

    I am very sorry, but yr resources indicate these Sahaba as the Sabbaya in the myth of Abdulah bin Saba, and the misguided ones. I call them as true and most faithful Sahaba myself !

    I repeat again that the character bin Saba was devised by Saif bin Omer/Omair, as proven in the above mentioned book "Abdulah bin saba and other historical myths" by Allama Sayyad Murtaza Askari. If you believe it to be an attempt "to prove the non-existance of Abdullah ibn Saba", then i recommend you read it first since it is written after years of research, and it also has recommendations from Sunni scholars. If you blindly say that it is a cover bla bla bla, then im sorry for you coz it is you yrself who is deciding to remain in the dark!!! Unfortunately for the classical scholars, they all quote one reference or other that points to the fiction by Saif bin Omer in the end.

    If you have any constructive discussion in the future, it would be welcome, else consider this as my last comment.

    Wasalam

    Salman Neshapuri said...

    @ Brother Syed Meesam

    [Quote]
    As to yr point of Sunnis being the ones mentioned in reference to Imam Ali's (as) sermon, i can appreciate how much you love him. For the record, it were the Nusairi's that were pointed out as the one's who in their love of Imam thought him to be the creator of universe, and hence diverted of the right path.[Qoute]

    No my friend, even the 12ers Ithna ashari go to extreme about their '12 Infallable Imams.

    The 12vers believe tha ttheir Imams are higher than the Anbiya (as) of Allah. This is a great deviation. The 12vers gave divin attributes to their Imams and many other extreme beliefs. And khomaini said about 'Fatima' that before the creation of the world she was part of a divin being. And you have other extreme believes i.e. Allah(swt) told the Prophet (SAW) and Ali (ra) that if it wasn't for Fatima (ra) I would not have created both of you.
    If these are not extreme beliefs, then what are they?

    You can not say it is about Nusairis. If 12vers don't say that Ali is the creator but give divine attributes to him then what is the difference?

    This is what Ali (ra) warned Muslims about in that sermon of Nahjul balagha.

    You said why I didn't use Sunni sources, we do have similar narrations of Ali (Ra) about this issue but since you don't believe in our sources so I used your most authentic source.

    Sorry, we don't consider the Sahaba (ra) misguided or call them the Sabbaets.

    Don't you know that Salman al-farsi (ra) was appointed as the governer of Persia by Umar ibn Al-Khatab (ra)?
    Don't you know that Ammar bin Yasir (ra) was appointed as the govrner of Iraq by Umar ibn Al-Khatab (ra) ? What do these indicate?

    It is sad that you prefer the view of Sayyad Murtaza Askari over the narrations of your 'infallable' Imams and your classical scholars.

    Didn't your 'infallable' Imams know about the myth of Abdullah ibn Saba?

    [Quote]
    "Please refer to the reference provided for further read, because there is not much time to write here." [Quote]

    For detailed discussion, if possible, join this forum (www.islamic-forum.net) and I will be there. Inshallah

    Walaikum Salam

    Anonymous said...

    Haha.. the forum by default categorizes Shias as non-muslims. You expect to have a fair discussion on the forum?

    Also, I notice people like yourself listen to some "Shia" scholars more than Shias themselves. Now where did the "hold onto the rope of Allah" go?

    Anonymous said...

    brother Syed/anonymous,

    I would like to speak/chat with you and would like to learn more from you as I found your comments irrational and respectful :) - Could you please post your id/email here or email me at mj1857@gmail.com . hope you dont mind :)

    Thx

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Mazhab is used by scholars to refer to school of thought. Mazhab e Hanafi, Mazhab e Shafi'ee, Mazhab e J'afari etc

    Syed said...

    @ Awais... It is now your own choice if it is worth the time to impose your set of history on mine !

    After the murder of Usman (ra), the people of Madina, prominent Sahaba alive at the time included, unanimously elected Imam Ali (as) as the fourth Caliph.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Brother ! They are not included in those on whom Zakaat is haram, but they are certainly amongst Ahlul Bait. The hadith of Sahih Muslim quoted above is actually a saying of Sayyidiniah Zaid bin Arqam RA, and it comes to us with various chains. There is another chain in Sahih Muslim also from Zaid RA in which he elaborated so that no doubt remains :

    قال نساؤه من أهل بيته ولكن أهل بيته من حرم الصدقة

    "He (Zayd) said, 'His wives are from his house (ahl ul bait) but the members of his house (in this context) are those for whom charity is forbidden."

    If you had quoted both narrations then there is no doubt whatsoever.

    Syed said...

    Im just LMAO at "The Hadiths you have quoted are out of context and it easy to reply to each of them. Inshallah I will try to respond later."

    Second Hamza on the last comment.

    @Salman

    Just answer me this: Is there any permission what-so-ever to stand up against the Khulfa-e-Rashideen, especially when they are the "Rightfully Guided" ashaab of Prophet (saww) ?

    Hamza said...

    also, sahih muslim
    Book 031, Number 5923:
    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.

    some of ahadith (that i haven't seen myself before this)

    Thirmidhi 3205:
    The step-son of Prophet said, "What these Ayat were revealed to the Prophet (SAAW), 'God only wishes to remove the Rijs (evil deeds) from you, O Members of the family (Ahlul Bayt), and to purify you with a thorough purification (Verse 33:33)'. The Prophet (SAAW) called Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain"

    Thirmidhi 3206:
    For six months, The Messenger of God (SAAW) would pass by the door of Fatima when going to the Fajr prayer saying: "As-Salat, O people of the house! God only wishes to remove Rijs (evil deeds) from you, O Members of the family (Ahlul Bayt)", and to purify you with a thorough purification (verse 33:33)"

    Umm Salamah narrated: "The Prophet (SAAW) put a garment over Al-Hasan, Al-Husain, Ali and Fatima, then he said: "O God, these are the people of my house (family),"so remove Rijs (evil and sins) from them and purify them thoroughly (Quran 33:33)." So Umm Salamah said, And am I with them O Messenger of God (SAAW)?He said: "You are upon good" (Hasan)

    Hamza said...

    oh yea there is plenty of linguistic arguments. i don't know the roots of each word, and arabic is a rich language

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    I said I agree that there are some scholars who brand all Shi'aas as Kaafir in one go, but I never said I agree with them :)..

    I Understand Arabic Alhamdulillah, not just because I've lived in Saudi Arabia, but I've been striving to understand Qur'an and Hadith since long, and I assure you its not a copy-paste work. You can google to find out :)

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    And yes there are many authentic narrations proving that those who would be the immediate successors of Rasulullah would be pious, and according to Sunnis it includes at-least the first 4 , and by lingustics it would include atleast 3, because there is a separate word for 2 in Arabic.

    There are authentic narrations in which Prophet Muhammad SAW said

    عليكم بالسنتى و سنة الخلفاء الراشدين المهديين
    ' On you is following my Sunnah, and Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Khulafa (Caliphs) '

    Deedat never approved the 12 imaams infallibility belief ! I've read his article regarding Shi'aas !

    Anonymous said...

    Where in the Quran is mentioned the following of the Khulfa-e-Rashideen (and in any Hadith book the establishment of them as Rightful)?

    I just showed you the presence of a Sahih hadith in the video indicating the following of 12 Caliphs of Muhammad (saww). (or did you just avoid the video, or wished not to comment on it)

    And there is a Hadith stating Prophet (saww) the relationship of Ali (saww) to Him as that of Haroon (as) to that of Musa (as), so there remains no doubt who was more pious and rightful in the eyes of Muhammad (saww).

    I thought Ahmed Deedat was a respected and prominent scholar, either agree with him or disown him, no diplomatic way in between.

    In regards to the infallibility of the 12 Imams, the "true" words of Holy Prophet (saww) hold the same importance as that of the Holy Quran. It is the wisdom of Allah that he did not mention the number, neither the names, for history would have produced both the numbers and names as the people at helm of it wanted.

    Alhamdoliah, we truly understand the infallibility of whom we follow with the eyes of our minds and ma'arfat, not emotions. And the truth will appear before everyone one day. But it might be too late then.!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    @ the last post Mr Anonymous !

    So must for Khomeni's efforts for Unity with Sunnis. We believe that Abu Bakr RA is the best of the believers after all the Prophets, and according to Khomeni he's an infidel. And he has recommended reading Baqir Majlisi, who has abused our mothers in his Book, and who is so evidently proclaimed the benefits of taqiyyah with Sunnis which is in short fooling them. I wish you yourself read the books of Khomeni's books, especially his first one ' Kashf ul Israar' , which I don't think has been translated into Urdu or English, maybe there's something that you wish to hide from us, thats why !

    I can give you hundreds of Sunni Scholars not only speaking in favour of Palestine, but actually fighting themselves physically, and raising funds. So, please refrain from emotional statements and don't stray from the topic under discussion.

    Anonymous said...

    i agree with you. we have the right to have a peaceful disagreement with them, and have absolutely no right to curse them. we don't even have the right to abuse actual enemies of ali. we don't have the right to abuse false gods (things that don't actually exist).

    i believe in the infallibility of the 12 imams. i think the 12 imam is in 'hiding'. if you want me to explain his actual physical state, i'll first ask you to explain the exact physical state of hz. essa. Allah knows best.

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    We don't claim that Sahabis were 'innocent' but they were the best ! Having a peaceful-respectful disagreement with any of them is OK, but what is really common amongst Sh'ias is ridiculing them, as if they were enemies of Ali RA !

    I would also like to ask you, Do you believe in the infallibility of the 12 imaams? And where is the 12th imaam, if you believe so ?

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 4

    AlhamduliLLAH, that crosses out many 'scholars'!

    Discussion # 5

    The Sunni scholar who call Shi'aas as Kaafir, they call those shi'aas as Kaafir who ridicule the companions or abuse them , and that constitutes as an act that takes out of the bounds of Islam according to many Sunni Scholars !

    Also, there are few shi'aa sect who went to extreme and claimed Ali RA to be Messenger or a GOD, they were called as infidels and rightly so.

    You are most welcome to call Qadiyaanis as Kaafirs who deviated from main-stream sunnism and invented a new nabi!

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Brother Salman Nishapuri & Brother Anonymous (which I believe is Taha Hussnain)

    Can you kindly leave your email addresses here !

    Muhammad Awais Tahir said...

    Discussion # 3 - Sahih Hadith

    We have a methodology of testing hadith as you know it. And Sahih Bukhari is not classified as a book free from any weak or fabricated hadith because of any emotional reason. But, Alhamdulillah, it stands out because all the chains in it are authentic, and its open for criticism even today if someone can prove some weakness in some chain today.

    Anonymous said...

    @ Mr. Salman

    Then please point out where in Quran does Allah mention the timings, the dates and places where the wives of Prophet (saww) could leave and go to. I would be much obliged.

    "It is reported that when Ayesha (ra), after the Battle of Jamal used to recite the verse "And stay quietly in your houses... ", she used to weep so much that her clothings would become wet. It is without doubt that Ayesha (ra) after her travel to Basra and Battle of Jamal was very upset and regretful."
    سیرت اعلام النبلا ج ٢، ص ٧٧

    @ Abdullah ibne Saba
    ROFL. Please point out to any authentic and solid proof to even the possibility of the existence of this character. Yes, a character.
    But if by this guy you mean Marwan ibne Hakam, then i will have no objection, coz it was surely the family of Ummayah that was the true enemy of Islam from the day 1.

    After the Ahle-Bait (as) were taken to the court of Yazid (la), he said "Wish my forefathers, who were killed in Badr and Uhad were present to see i have avenged them."

    MHH said...

    Do you people know that we can conquer the world and bring world peace. There will be no misery. And the flag of Tauheed will be lofted high only

    If we had our ulema discussing matters like this. May Allah bless all of you commenting.

    Post a Comment