the sahaaba

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

seekshidayath View Drop Down

Senior Member

Female Islam
Joined: 26 March 2006
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 3357

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 12:57am

Hope mods will excuse me for pasting it. I just don't want to give the source am pasting from. But the refernces of the hadiths quoted from there own books are correct.

Any more questions - asda. I hope you balance yourselves properly. If you really wish to read the facts, read it in full.

Take care.

Regards

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: �All the descendants of Adam are sinners, and the best of sinners are those who repent."

Saladin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Sri Lanka
Status: Offline
Points: 575

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 4:45am

my ignorance or ures..does caliph means successor....well if it does then who's successor was h.Adam when Allah (s.w.t) has said:
When Allah said to the angels Indeed I will establish a Calipha on this earth�� [QURAN al-baqarah, 30>

wasnt the supposed calipha to be was H.Adam...and since hazrat Adam was the 1st man on earh....and if successor means caliph....then who's caliph was H.Adam???

Khalifa means successor or viceroy. Adam was the caliph of the earth not caliph of Allah.

they were not anti-zakat....as history clearly states that they stopped giving zakat to the new leader after the prophet (a.s)...they were giving zakah during the time of the Prophet (a.s)...and so where is ijma now....y werent their views taken...

That's a lame excuse, isnt it? Where does Allah or his messenger tell us to annul a principle of Islam if the caliph isnt acceptable. We dont have a caliph today. Is that a valid reason for us to avoid giving zakat?

"Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry." (sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 61.) and i want to again remind u:

[Quran 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.

[Quran 53:4] It is naught but revealation that is revealed, True. The Quran and everything concerning belief and worship is by wahi. But not all sayings and actions of the Prophet were by wahi. Some of his sayings and actions were reproved by Allah in the Quran. See 66:1, 9:43, 80:1-11 and 8:67-68.

those were events which had hiqma in them....and it was done so that the people around would learn something....and surly the tone in the aayah i have shown u,clearly states about the fact that he does not have error in his words..

It doesnt take divine inspiration to realise the Prophet's affection for his daughter. For the love of the Prophet, we love all that he loved. Fact is Abu Bakr could not obey uninspired saying by violating divine injunction:

"Prophets dont leave inheritance".

You wont accept hadith except when it suits your belief. Well then see the Quran.

59:7 "That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, that it become not a commodity between the rich among you. And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal."

Whatever is for Allah and his messenger is for the state and state property is only inherited by the state. Whatever the Prophet took from it for his household needs, was as an allowance.

Abu Bakr was right about Fadak and Fathima's ijtihad was wrong on this matter. Ijtihad if unintentionally wrong, does not degrade the status of a believer.

'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

Saladin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Sri Lanka
Status: Offline
Points: 575

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 4:49am

Verse 8:67-68 was a reproval for a decision the prophet took rejecting Umar al Faruq's opinion and this verse proved that the latter was right.

doesnt this clearly show that he was incapable of making decisions??

Read it again. The latter (Umar) was right.

Edited by Saladin - 17 September 2008 at 4:52am

'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

asda

Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 164

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 5:14am

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem
Salaams..
I will go post by post...and luckily i have some of the books mentioned....all these discussions are somehow related to fidak...and inshallah i will look into them...but u have to give me time....because c&p a whole article is ez....but going for a reply will take time....btw..i knw where did u copy and past that from...dont worry...i will reply that...and u just have to give me time...

it is odd that none of my questions are answered at all....and u ignore them to the full....and pose questions to me....well i will inshallah do my best to understand them...

wsalaam.

Saladin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Sri Lanka
Status: Offline
Points: 575

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 5:24am

Quran 48:18

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory.

To say that most of the people, who Allah attests as believers in this verse, later became unbelievers, is tantamount to disbelief. Allah would never have attested their belief if they had gone on to disbelieve and He surely would not have been pleased with the deeds of people who would become unbelievers.

well this has been debated upon and Allah (s.w.t) had kept a condition in it which the sahaab had to fullfill...even when he knew what was in their hearts...

this aayah surly does not mean the fact that they have been given a picnic holiday for thir actions...no matter wat they do...they will go to jannah..please read earlier posts...

Basically, the muslims during the Prophet's time make Bay'at to confirm their faith in Islam. 48:10 is in reference to that, generally. But 48:18 is specifically about the sahabas who pledged at Hudaibiya and when Allah labels them as 'believers' and was pleased by them, believe it, if you believe in Allah's words. Conditions dont apply in this verse as its very specific. Arguing otherwise is only implying that Allah is not the All Knowing. Not believing in the words of Allah is 'unbelief'.

'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

Saladin

Senior Member
Senior Member

Male
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Sri Lanka
Status: Offline
Points: 575

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 5:48am

infact one of the reasons for ayesha's disbelief is her role in the battle of Jamal...against Imam ALi (a.s)....

Anyone getting divine revealations to come to such conclusions??? Dont you believe the words of Allah when he attests Aisha's belief and declares her a 'mother of the believers'.

33:6 The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.

Are you implying once again that Allah got it wrong? Just because Aisha got involved in the Jamal battle, does it make her a disbeliever???

Anyone believing in such devil inspired accusations as opposed to Allah's words are reeking with unbelief!

'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'

asda

Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 164

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 5:57am

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem

my replies will be seen in green...

minuteman wrote:

�

�

You have agreed that Hussain and Ali were Shaheed. But hazrat Uthman was not a Shaheed. Very bad. You are not a momin. You have bad ideology, bad agenda of hatred etc. You can never have the truth and there is now no need to discuss anything with you because you have come out as an open enemy of the First and second and third Imam of the ummah whom Ali gave his allegiance and even served faithfully under them.

Imam Ali (a.s) dint give alligence to them...infact if u see how uthman was elected, and what happend during he was elected u will understand that he did go against the decisions of the Prophet (a.s)....he brought back the family of marwan bin hakam(l.a) whose family was exiled by the prophet(a.s)...if going against Uthman's faith is bad ideology, then what do u say about Aisha, when she said:
When the situation became extremely grave, Uthman ordered Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Abdurahman Ibn Attab Ibn Usayd to try to persuade Aisha to stop campaigning against him. They went to her while she was preparing to leave for pilgrimage, and they told her: "We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman ) through you." Aisha said: "I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honor your request... I wish he (Uthman ) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then throw him into the sea."
Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 6 pages 192-193

if therefore,someone like aysha can go against he second caliph, then what status has my words hav infront of u compared to the words of Aysha....i advice u to look bak deep into history...

I do not want to spoil your show but it is sure that the Shias have many illegal, illogical beliefs against the true principles of Islam. They think that the prophet was an ignorant person and he did not know that his close friends (his dear ones) were hypocrites. According to your theory, the prophet did not produce any good man except hazrat Ali. What a shameful idea.� (But that is beside the point here. It is not for you.)

Ya Allah(s.w.t)!!!! what do u know of shia beliefs...Prophet Muhammad (a.s) had done his job to the best...and i think best is a small word for his works....and if u think that we believe that Imam ALi (a.s) (and his family) was the only ppl with eemaan(after the prophet(a.s)), then u r WRONG!!!!
some of the tribes which were on eemaan were:
Banu Rabi'aa
Bani kamoona
Mazhaj
Shabaam

and many more...infact there were many...but were in minority...

well now if the people of H.z Musa (a.s) betrayed him, just when he left for 40 days, Will you accuse H.Musa (a.s) of not doing his work properly??or say that Allah(s.w.t) did not choose the right person??? (maazallah)...the answer is no....then if this is the case, what is the fault of Prophet Muhammad (a.s) that u accuse him just because that many people around him betrayed him...did u forget uhud???? when most of the people around him betrayed him.....now what will u say of the duties of the Prophet (a.s)???

That is not the only one bad idea but there is a very long list of such bad beliefs. It is such beliefs that ended the Khilafat. hazart Ali and his children were safe and living happily during the time of the Khalifas. But after the death of Hazrat Uthman, all the troubles for the family of Hazrat Ali started. When Hazrat Ali had no complaints against Hazrat Umar then what right have the shias to invent new complaints? Can you not see that you are playing in the hands of the enemies of Islam if you make difference between Abubakr, Umar Uthman and Ali?

Br. Dont u see their actions....even at the time of the Prophet (a.s)....i would seriosly advice u to read the history that surrounds the pact of Hudaybiyah in detail....Umar even had the guts to question the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (a.s).....How can one follow people who had such bad attitude with the Prophet??? If someone has such a weak eemaan, then will u follow his words???u have to decide ureself bro....

Now you have special meanings for the Shaheed too. You do not see that Hazrat Uthman was cruelly killed in the capital by some enemies. Were they the followers of Hazrat Ali who killed Hazrat Uthman? If not then they must be the enemies of Ali who killed Uthman. But you say that Uthman is not Shaheed. I could also say that Hazrat Ali was killed in a battle. He was fighting hazrat Mua'wiyah so he was killed in a battle and he was not a Shaheed. Also Hussian knew where he was going. He was committing suicide. he could not be a Shaheed too because of his politics.

Br. i would advice u to look DEEP into history....u have just divided the ummah into 2 groups, those who were with Maula Ali (a.s), and those who were not with Maula Ali (a.s)...and FYI there was a 3rd group...called the Khawaarij...who dint belive in any of the khilafat system....

Uthman's death is a mystery....while its another huge chapter in history...if u want to furthur discus this, then u r ready to open a new thread....

well some sunnis claim that shias killed Uthman.....and say someone called Abdullah ibn Saba had a hand in it.....which is totally wrong.....abdullah ibn saba dint exist.....and even if he did exist, he was surly not a shia of Ahlel Bayt (a.s), as he is not a respected person among the shias.....

�

Such foolish things do not lead any one to good relations.

Whatever I have written above may not be your beliefs. So please forgive me if I have attributed anything wrong to you. But saying that Hazrat Uthman was not a Shaheed was wrong. In that way nobody could be a Shaheed. I hope you will think over� few things and let us know your good ideas.

Alhamdulillah i hav clarified my beliefs in the above post....most of the shia beliefs u hav mentioned is wrong....and i hav done by best to correct them...and give sufficient proof if required....

if i have not replied/ignored any single question or line or anything is not answered properly, feel free to raise ure opinion....i am not a scholar...but i will do my best to answer u...inshallah...

Edited by asda - 17 September 2008 at 6:01am

asda

Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 164

Posted: 17 September 2008 at 6:19am

seekshidayath wrote:

To meet a death of martyr is the moment of happiness. Why do you all weep and cut yourselves. Don't even spare little kids.

You are people - so called - on a right path na !!! Becharay

where is the answer to my ONLY QUESTION...

....my only question is also unanswered..

while u have problems in our mourning style....well u knw that u have brought this up because u have no answer to my question...and thus now u r going off-topic....i will just give a simple reply of logic, and if u want to discuss this further, feel free to open a thread....

mourning is a protest against Yazeediyat as well..thus protesting has many forms...and one of the most common seen today is hunger strike.....u understand the logic between hunger strike, right??? surly u do....but isnt that harming oneself??? yes it is......

therefore our mourning, seeing it as a protest,we harm ourself (in limits)....
due to the success in it, the naasibis(anti-shia) do their best to bomb our holy sites on our mourning days.......as they do their best to stop it....but they shud know that they will surly fail...