The Quran should be our guide, our first call for information and guidiance. hadiths elaborate on the Quran but it is still secondary to the Quran. Most division in islam today is as a result of different Hadiths- isnt it appalling - its like we feel we have had enough of the Quran and it is time to shift to the Hadiths. We take hadiths and we interprete the Quran to suit the Hadith-this is wrong...... one thing is clear, Hadiths have chances of being wrong so it must always be referenced to the Quran.

The history of what divided the Ummah is history, it does not earn anyone salvation. The Prophet(SAW) thaught all that we need to know to earn Gods favour and that should be our business. If Abubakar and Alli had issues after the Prophet died, how does that concern me today and how does it affect the Message and life of the Prophet? or did Alli preach anything new and different from the prophets sunnah? THE QURAN IS THERE IN ITS PURE FORM, SIMPLY RECONNECT TO THE SOURCE AND USE THE HADITH AS A SUPPORT.

I believe if we return to the Quran holistically, and live by its teachings. Hadiths are referenced to but not to give it preference over the Quran, then we can all be muslims - The ideal Muslims.


...........thats my opinion

ghazzal: The Quran should be our guide, our first call for information and guidiance. hadiths elaborate on the Quran but it is still secondary to the Quran. Most division in islam today is as a result of different Hadiths- isnt it appalling - its like we feel we have had enough of the Quran and it is time to shift to the Hadiths. We take hadiths and we interprete the Quran to suit the Hadith-this is wrong...... one thing is clear, Hadiths have chances of being wrong so it must always be referenced to the Quran.

The history of what divided the Ummah is history, it does not earn anyone salvation. The Prophet(SAW) thaught all that we need to know to earn Gods favour and that should be our business. If Abubakar and Alli had issues after the Prophet died, how does that concern me today and how does it affect the Message and life of the Prophet? or did Alli preach anything new and different from the prophets sunnah? THE QURAN IS THERE IN ITS PURE FORM, SIMPLY RECONNECT TO THE SOURCE AND USE THE HADITH AS A SUPPORT.

I believe if we return to the Quran holistically, and live by its teachings. Hadiths are referenced to but not to give it preference over the Quran, then we can all be muslims - The ideal Muslims.


...........thats my opinion

The truth is that to understand the Quran, you definitely need the seerah to understand the context of revelation, otherwise you can end up misinterpreting things. The Quran is the speech of Allah but we cannot do without the sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him). The hadiths are also very important. That is not the problem.

The shia have big problems letting go of the past, the whole faith is based on passing judgement on people, over-praising others to an unreasonable point, building mountains out of mole-hills. That nation has passed away.

What is the use of talking about the Caliphate and arguing about it?
What is the use of returning again to a discussion of an issue that is long dead?
Can there be any good reason for us to continue to live in the shadow of these events today, to root around in the past in search of something that could not benefit us now?
Is it reasonable for us to spend our time arguing about who was the most worthy of the caliphate, while all of them are long dead?
Is it possible for us to turn back the pages of history and give the reins of power to those the Shias wish would have ruled?
Is their harping on these things not really a provocation of the devil. Satan only hopes to smash the unity of the Muslims, to rip the Islamic community apart, and to incite even more dissension and discord.

They resurrect old hatreds and animosities, and vainly return to settle old accounts! They pick and choose hadiths that praise one person and ignore the one that praise another person because they hate him. They hate/curse great companions who the messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) loved and even the wives of the messenger, yet they claim to love his family. Very selective kind of love. Everything is centred around hating people and passing judgement on their personality.

Can we leave the judgement to Allah? What do you gain from cursing the companions? They forget the Ali married his eldest daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar. Abdullah bin la'hr bin Abi Taalib ,('Ali's nephew) named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali himself named his sons after Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, Kitab al-Irshad, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of ‘Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively.) and gave his daughters in marriage to `Umar and `Uthman. Husayn bin Ali also had a son called Abu bakr.

Where is this hatred coming from? Certainly, it is not coming fron ahlul bayt. Enough of the rant...

Op can delete post if irrelevant.

deols: 2. I used to know of the name ahli sunnah wal jama'a but these days, I see many people calling themselves salafis.

Did the need to further differentiate the sunnis just arise or my nija peeps are just getting into salafism ? I used to think d definition of ahlisunnah included following d footsteps of d salafs

The word salafism is used to denigrate those who follow the path of the Salafs.

Its Salafiyyah not Salafism

Salafee not Salafist

BarakaLLaahu feek !

our Kibla is one, Shahada is one, Quran is one, the pillars are same and Allah is one
and Quran says
23:51
Sahih International
[ Allah said], "O messengers, eat from the good foods and work righteousness. Indeed, I, of what you do, am Knowing.
23:52
Sahih International
And indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me."
23:53
Sahih International
But the people divided their religion among them into sects - each faction, in what it has, rejoicing.
23:54
Sahih International
So leave them in their confusion for a time.

Thanks to everyone who has made contributions. May Allah reward your intentions.

@ soulja boi, you didnt answer d questions in the post. You should understand the message matters more than the name.
You sound like a salafiyyah. I'd appreciate that you answer my questions.

3. What do salafiyyas think of sufis

3b. What do shias think of sufis.

I learnt that the sufis of the past are different from the present ones. I'd like to know how d others see them-the present ones.

POC: The Hadith should never be relegated to secondary status when giving an Islamic ruling.
It's just like saying hot water is secondary to garri in the process of making a standard quantity of eba. Let's duly note that.
The Prophet (PBUH) reportedly said in an authentic narration that, 'Allah has given me the Qur'an and something like it.' Allah also informs us severally in the Qur'an that the Prophet (PBUH) will never speak of his own volition, except of what is revealed to him. Hence, the proof.
May Allah guide us all... Amiin.

tbaba1234:
The truth is that to understand the Quran, you definitely need the seerah to understand the context of revelation, otherwise you can end up misinterpreting things. The Quran is the speech of Allah but we cannot do without the sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him). The hadiths are also very important. That is not the problem.

In this your post,I can see you have taken steps back from your initially approach to emphasize that the "saved/guided" sect is the Sunni sect.

Definitely,the Quran is the yardstick.but it becomes very dangerous when anyone becomes a Quranic "scholar".the Prophet (sa) said we should hold on to the Quran and the Ahlul-Bayt (as),not because the Quran is not enough to guide us,but because with time differences arise as a result of people's deficiencies and evils to deviate from the truth which the Quran represents.therefore the pure members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) that Allah (swt) have chosen and made special in Quran 33:33 are the true manifestation of the Quran and of truth.the Prophet (sa) said : "Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with Ali.Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali.it revolves around him anywhere he goes".

If for instance we would have stuck to the Thaqalain (the Two Weighty Things) which is the Quran and the Ahlul-Bayt (as),we won't have differences on interpreting verse 5:55.you can see that Sunnis following the path of the companions (of course I'm referring to the particular ones the Shia disagree with,and not the companions who abide by the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt,and we honor them),have made to seek unimaginable explanations to the most basic and simple matters in the Quran and in Islam,to protect the image of those they revere and the Shia vilify.

If we would have stuck to the Thaqalain,Islam today won't be synonymous with terrorism.the Ahlul-Bayt (as) teach us the sanctity of human life and how collective punishment is forbidden.we find in the Quran that killing an innocent soul amounts to exterminating humanity.but that verse have little or no meaning to Sunni extremists who kill others with different beliefs. today in Iraq we see madness in the name of religion.Sunni extremists (aka wahhabis/salafists) of alqaeda blow themselves up in Shia civilian areas.is this Islam of the Quran? This is the Islam of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahab,and their predecessors, the tyranical caliphs who institutionalized tyranny and terror and justified them in the name of religion.I challenge you to disagree with me.I will bring you evidence of this terror and tyranny in the name of religion,starting with abu bakr and those after him.I'm insulting no one here,lest you counter my post and rush to the moderators to claim I'm "insulting" a companion.no,I'm not.I'm simply putting it forward that the mistake of the ummah to deny the position,merits and virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt (as),and to prefer others whom Allah (swt) and the Prophet (sa) didn't choose for us to abide by,have made the ummah and the religion of Islam to be in a sorrowful state.when last did you hear a Shia suicide bomber enter a Sunni or Christian marketplace/place of worship to target civilians? Today alone over 100 Shia civilians are killed in Iraq by Sunni extremists.in Nigeria,those who follow the salafi ideology and the manhaj (approach) of the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and others (boko haram),do the same to innocent Christian civilians.Islam is not just about growing your beard long and praying.it is also about a path or a way of life we must follow.and if you abandon the Ahlul-Bayt (as) according to the Prophet (sa),you're on the path of destruction.you can do all the ibadah,and you will still find yourself on the wrong path.

The shia have big problems letting go of the past, the whole faith is based on passing judgement on people, over-praising others to an unreasonable point, building mountains out of mole-hills. That nation has passed away.

I am happy you're coming out to comment.perhaps you've not read what I've read or known.so your words are not offensive to me at all.

I'd answer your words,by just reminding you in case you've forgotten,that just few posts ago,you brought us a forged hadith which issues a blank cheque to the title of "companions",and asks us to follow the Prophet (sa) and the "companions",without specifying which of the companions;was it one of the companions who converted to Christianity?!

if we don't look back into the past to know who we are following,then how can we just blindly follow them? It doesn't make sense.

Go to the book of Allah (swt),and you will find the stories of Musa (as) and the Pharoah,Nimrod,Zhul-Qarnain,Dawud (as) and Jalut,and many.why is Allah (swt) taking us to all these past stories and condemning Fir'awn and praising the prophets (as),calling them His "righteous servants" and "pious" ?just story telling? I don't think so.ponder about it,and see why we must know our past,and who the trustworthy and praiseworthy were and who the blameworthy and villains we must shun were,as per the standard of the Quran and the Ahlul-Bayt (as).only going back to the Thaqalain,which Prophet Muhammad (sa) left for us can guide this ummah and unite us.any other is waste of time and straying from Islam into either misguidance or disbelief.

What is the use of talking about the Caliphate and arguing about it?
What is the use of returning again to a discussion of an issue that is long dead?
Can there be any good reason for us to continue to live in the shadow of these events today, to root around in the past in search of something that could not benefit us now?
Is it reasonable for us to spend our time arguing about who was the most worthy of the caliphate, while all of them are long dead?
Is it possible for us to turn back the pages of history and give the reins of power to those the Shias wish would have ruled?
Is their harping on these things not really a provocation of the devil. Satan only hopes to smash the unity of the Muslims, to rip the Islamic community apart, and to incite even more dissension and discord.

I can see you're now talking about Muslim unity.an improvement!that is amazing and I appreciate that.but how can there be unity when my Shia brothers in Iraq and Pakistan,are targeted by your salafist suicide bombing brethren? You want to unite with those you kill and consider as "kuffar",even though they testify to the Oneness of Allah (swt) and the prophethood of Muhammad (sa)?

We turn to old issues particularly the caliphate because those issues have contributed to the reality that the majority of Muslims today are ignorant and on false beliefs,and many are ready to blow themselves up to kill those who disagree with them.is this the Islam of Muhammad (sa) and his Ahlul-Bayt (as)? I doubt.in fact if you go to Bukhari and Muslim,you find fabricated Sunni hadiths demonizing the Prophet (sa) and portraying him as a tyrant who oppressed people,just in order to justify the oppression the caliphs perpetrated and the torture men like al-hajjaj ibn yusuf al-thaqafi used to punish muslims with.you can take the hadith which accuse the Prophet (sa) of nailing the eyes of people (this is in sahih muslim) as example.false hadith that the Prophet (sa) committed mass murder against the jews (in sahih bukhari) also.this is the sunnah of jahiliyyah which quraysh and the arabians practiced.once Muhammad (sa),the mercy unto mankind passed away,they wanted to revive this sunnah of criminality and terror,which the Prophet (sa) fought against in self-defense.his family members (the Ahlul-Bayt) were first to suffer once the Prophet (sa) died.as an example,you have the tragedy of Karbala,where the grandson of the Prophet (sa)-Imam Hussain (as)- was beheaded,his women (including the grand-daughters of the Prophet) were taken as captives to the sunni caliph yazeed.how does that affect us today? We both follow two different paths.you follow the path of those sahaba who usurped power and imposed themselves on the ummah,and caused bloodshed,and we follow the legacy of the prophet of mercy and his Ahlul-Bayt (as).this is a fundamental difference that many don't see,but have made Islam synonymous with terrorism since the majority of muslims are on the former (path).our paths and the legacies we follow are not the same.

Take for instance what was done to Muhammad (ra) son of abu bakr.he ironically was a Shia of Imam Ali (as).on the authority of Muawiya,the sunni caliph and a successor of abu bakr,Muhammad (ra) was killed by Amr Ibn Aas and his corpse was loaded on a donkey and both were burnt! Where is the grave of Muhammad ibn Abu bakr? Do you know?well that is not the issue.the issue and catastrophe for this ummah is when the names of muawiya or amr ibn aas are mentioned,sunnis exclaim: "may Allah be pleased with him".in that way,its not bad too if you say "may Allah be pleased with fir'awn".it sounds funny,no doubt,but we are in deep trouble.the ummah of Muhammad (sa) fails to see that the legacy of jahiliyyah and bloodshed of pre-islamic times crept back with the death of the Prophet (sa),and even the Ahlul-Bayt (as) were victims.when the head of Imam Hussain (as) was taken to damascus,as a sign of triumph to the court of yazeed (whom by the way salafists do not condemn but even praise),yazeed made it clear that the grandson of Muhammad (sa) was beheaded as part of vengeance for his pagan ancestors whom the Prophet (sa) had killed in the battle of badr.you expect me to unite with someone who hold a favorable view of yazeed?

And furthermore,in both sunni and shia hadiths,the Prophet (sa) said: "he who dies without knowing the imam of his time,has died the death of jahiliyyah".who is the imam of the time for sunnis? If you as a sunni die today,who is the "imam of your time"? You don't know wallah!then in both Shia and Sunni hadiths,the Prophet (sa) said : "the successors after me are twelve".obviously,they can't be 13! To the Shia the awaited 12th Imam (aj) is our imam of the time.do sunnis know their 12 successors? Wallah you deny the most authentic of your hadith.the hadith of 12 imams is found in Sahih Muslim.again you fabricate or twist interpretations to suit your beliefs.the sunni caliphs were more than 30!

They resurrect old hatreds and animosities, and vainly return to settle old accounts!

Wallah Shias have never hurt you for being Sunnis.to our day,it is the Shia who are oppressed.your co-religionists kill us and you tell us we resurrect hatred.you can't be more unjust towards us,than like this.in Pakistan,there's a Shia genocide committed by pro-saudi wahhabi groups.if the past really means nothing to you,then why does it bother you if the Shia have problem with past figures,they believe were unjust? You should find no problem if I criticise a particular number of companions,you respect,if these are dead and buried? Do you see the double standards?

They pick and choose hadiths that praise one person and ignore the one that praise another person because they hate him. They hate/curse great companions who the messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) loved and even the wives of the messenger, yet they claim to love his family. Very selective kind of love. Everything is centred around hating people and passing judgement on their personality.

We love those beloved to Allah (swt) and His messenger.you even fail to realize that we do not appraise the Ahlul-Bayt (as),whom were chosen as per verse 33:33,simply because they share blood with the Prophet (sa).otherwise the son of Noah (as),described in the Quran,where Allah (swt) told Noah about his son : "he's not from you",didn't deserve to drown because he was the son of a prophet,one of the ulil-azm prophets.

We love the 12 Imams/Ahlul-Bayt (as) because Allah told us in the Quran:

"Say O Muhammad : I ask you muslims of no wage,except the love of my near kindred".

Then we read the verse of imamate (2:124),where Allah spoke to Ibrahim (as):

"And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

Then we read about how God chose certain families,and as per verse 2:124 just quoted,even among those families "the evil doers" do not share of Allah's covenant in spite of blood ties to a prophet:

"Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (3:33-34)

And we have the 12 holy Imams (as) from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) of Muhammad (sa),who are descendants of Ibrahim (as),whom Allah (swt) made a covenant with by giving him imamate as per verse 2:124,which is also given to the righteout among Prophet Ibrahim's (as) descendants.in verse 33:33,we read:

"Allah have kept away from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet Muhammad's] household (Ahlul-Bayt), and to purify you with [extensive] purification".

Now if you can convince me Aisha was a believer (as per her condemnation in Surat Tahreem),and she was sinless as per verse 33:33,and she did nothing wrong in the battle of jamal against Imam Ali (as),who then was the "imam of the time" of all muslims,then I'm ready to follow her and even obey her.

It is clear when the Prophet (sa) said he is leaving for us the Thaqalain,which he said is the Quran and his "progeny" (itrah),his Ahlul-Bayt (as),he never meant whoever belonged to his Household and shared is blood is worthy of leadership and emulation,just as Allah (swt) told Ibrahim (as) the wrong-doers will not share the covenant of imamate.

Let no one think the Shia stance is based on bias or favoritism.nay! Its based on Allah's command on who to follow,and to disassociate from wrong-doers even if they be relations of a prophet.

And the problem is,when the Shia object to Aisha and Hafsa on clear evidence (even based on the Quran),the Sunnis accuse us of collectively disliking the "wives" of the Prophet (sa).Aisha and Hafsah were only 2 out of over 10 wives.we love Umm Salamah (ra),and she was a wife of the Prophet (sa) and a mother of the believers too.why the generalization to incite undue emotions against the Shia? The same goes about the companions.the Shia love Salman,Abu Dhar,Miqdad,Ammar,and even Muhammad (ra) son of abu bakr.these were companions.but for disliking a particular group of companions,sunnis again generalize that the Shia "hate" the companions to stir emotions.wallah this is misleading the muslims.

As for selectivity in hadiths,you cannot expect us to accept Sunni hadiths which were concoted even to extol umar and abu bakr above the Prophet (sa).for instance in sahih bukhari you find a hadith where the Prophet (sa) was celebrating Buath,a pagan arabian festival,and dancers and singers were performing in his house.according to such shameful narration,it was abu bakr who told them to stop and it was wrong because of shaitan's presence.and the Prophet (sa) insisted they continue because it was a "day of fun".this hadith is meant to show how "pious" abu bakr was at the expense of the Prophet (sa).the same goes about the fake hadith where the Prophet (sa) purportedly named Umar with the title of "al-farook" (discriminator of good and evil).the hadith informs us of how shaitan was scared of Umar,but not of the Prophet (sa)! And you have the courage to point finger at the Shia?

Can we leave the judgement to Allah? What do you gain from cursing the companions?

You have to define what "judgement" means in this regard.if is is to send people to hell fire/grave,that is not the specialty of the Shia.we all know whose perfect job that is.if it is to select or choose guidance over misguidance,then we must judge and discriminate between truth and falsehood to know who and what to follow.that is in perfect agreement with Islam.

They forget the Ali married his eldest daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar.

Historical/sectarian propaganda!

Umar had more than one wife who bore Umm Kulthum.Imam Ali (as) too had his daughter and his adopted daughter who bore Umm Kulthum.Umm Kulthum Bint Ali (as) was present during the tragedy of Karbala,in Karbala.where were the offspring wahhabis claimed she bore Umar?

The evidence available do not substantiate the claim it was Imam Ali's (as) daughter that Umar married.and based on the available records,the Umm Kulthum Umar married was not willingly given to him by Imam Ali (as).it was after threats Umar (who was caliph) made.it was a forced marriage.and the description of how an old Umar married a tender Umm Kulthum is nothing to be proud of.it presents a story of oppression.if I were you,it wouldn't be something I'd raise up as praise for Umar.even the inconclusive evidence,do not give him a good image.you can present them,if you wish and let's see.

Abdullah bin la'hr bin Abi Taalib ,('Ali's nephew) named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali himself named his sons after Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (See al-Shaykh al-Mufid, Kitab al-Irshad, pp. 268-269, where these three sons of ‘Ali are listed as numbers 12, 6 and 10 respectively.) and gave his daughters in marriage to `Umar and `Uthman. Husayn bin Ali also had a son called Abu bakr.

This is also propaganda.but I'm very happy you're coming out to state your points.I congratulate you.

The names of abu bakr,umar and usthman back then were not only synonymous to the first 3 sunni caliphs who also bore the names.many arabs bore these names because of their meanings.it was a later development that the Shia stopped giving their children these names because Sunnis only held these names in memory and honor of their first 3 caliphs.

Also the fact that Imam Ali (as) gave his sons these names,his most loyal and staunch Shia and companions (who were contemporary to that era) also bore the names.it was in honor of those men associated with him,he named his sons after.

Where is this hatred coming from? Certainly, it is not coming fron ahlul bayt. Enough of the rant...

Op can delete post if irrelevant.

There's no rant and no hatred.the ummah is in the deep ignorance through the distortion of facts and history.we need these relevant discussions to know where we are heading to.

I have still not made my posts on salafism and why the Shia is the "saved/guided" sect.I've been busy.but I found it necessary to reply tbaba,because he made many important points I should contribute on to highlight the different views we hold.insha'Allah I will reply to sister "deols" post on her question about salafism soon.

SALAM!

deols: 3. What do salafiyyas think of sufis

3b. What do shias think of sufis.

I learnt that the sufis of the past are different from the present ones. I'd like to know how d others see them-the present ones.

We believe that among the Sufis,you find the good and not so good/bad.just like there are Sunni Sufis,you find Shia Sufis especially in Iran.the suprising part is even Sunni Sufis believe in the 12 holy Imams of the Prophet's Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Our position on sufism is cautious.we do say they practice bid'ah.but their devotion should not be condemned.we are also of the view that Irfan on which Sufism is based is part of Islam.but we do not think because of Irfan or whatever commendable devotion or optional worship of Allah (swt), a separate movement with distinct features should be established as a separate body.we don't believe Sufis should be killed or be called Kuffar,as salafists do even to the Shia.

i. Ahlu sunnah wal jammah is the chosen group, I don't have to keep repeating myself or emphasizing it. I am not here to debate with you.

ii. May Allah mercy be upon ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahab for their great contributions towards Islam.

iii. Is it because sunni don't make threads on the kinds of injustice that is meted out to sunnis in Iran? May Allah help all the oppressed.

iv. Allah himself makes judgement not humans...

Look at the things you say about your 'imams'... This is certainly not the path of the messenger. I can't make takfir but this is CERTAINLY misguidance. You have almost elevated them to gods.

Shia beliefs

"All the Imams are infallible just like the prophets. The Shi'ites derive their religion from their immaculate Imams"

"By listening to the voice of a person, the Imams can tell if the person was destined to go to hell or to heaven; they would thus answer his questions accordingly" (Usool al Kafi, p. 185)

"The Imams possess all the knowledge granted to angels, prophets and messengers" (Al-Kulaini, Al-kaafi, p.255.)

"The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice" (Ibid, p: 258.)

"The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future, and nothing is concealed from them" (Ibid, p. 260.)

"The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which they were revealed" (Ibid, p. 227.)

"Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams" (Ibid, p. 231.)

It goes on and on... These are your beliefs and this is just the tip of the ice-berg. There are statements worse than this. I am sorry, you guys are certainly on the wrong path and I pray for your guidance. These statements are closer to kufr than belief. May Allah protect us from such misguidance.

Ali named his children after Abu bakr, Umar and Utnman. No one, not even the most magnanimous of people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for the death of his wife. That is why one simply cannot find a Shi‘i today named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar or ‘Uthman. In fact, reports from Iran have it that Shi‘i officials will not allow Iranian Sunnis to give their children these names.All of these show a very different picture to what you guys paint.

If Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? Ali was no coward. Are you saying that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, for all his nobility and courage, could not protect his young daughter, and was compelled, on threat of physical violence to his person, to give her to the khalifah.

Which father would sit by idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an abominable enemy? This is the extent to which your twisting and corruption of history has led you—that you are prepared to place upon your Imams the kind of shame that even the simplest ones amongst themselves would never bear.

This issue has presented a problem to the shia hence the creative excuses.

Enough of the derailing... I do not like talking about the shia stuff because it leads no where. There are bigger priorities.

I will not derail this thread anymore.

tbaba1234: i. Ahlu sunnah wal jammah is the chosen group, I don't have to keep repeating myself or emphasizing it. I am not here to debate with you.

Based on what? Two authentic hadiths they inserted forgery into?

ii. May Allah mercy be upon ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahab for their great contributions towards Islam.

I'm not suprised for a salafist to bless them.but review their history and the crimes against humanity these two men caused,aside from what they taught.

iii. Is it because sunni don't make threads on the kinds of injustice that is meted out to sunnis in Iran? May Allah help all the oppressed.

Please do make threads.the most ridiculous claim utterly built on deception and to incite sectarian emotions of Sunnis is that Sunnis don't have a mosque in the capital,Tehran.but in areas of Sistan and Balouchistan where the Sunnis form a majority,even the Shia do not have mosque led by a Shia prayer leader.a mosque is for all muslims.

iv. Allah himself makes judgement not humans...

Look at the things you say about your 'imams'... This is certainly not the path of the messenger. I can't make takfir but this is CERTAINLY misguidance. You have almost elevated them to gods.

Shia beliefs

"All the Imams are infallible just like the prophets. The Shi'ites derive their religion from their immaculate Imams"

"By listening to the voice of a person, the Imams can tell if the person was destined to go to hell or to heaven; they would thus answer his questions accordingly" (Usool al Kafi, p. 185)

"The Imams possess all the knowledge granted to angels, prophets and messengers" (Al-Kulaini, Al-kaafi, p.255.)

"The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice" (Ibid, p: 258.)

"The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future, and nothing is concealed from them" (Ibid, p. 260.)

"The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which they were revealed" (Ibid, p. 227.)

"Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams" (Ibid, p. 231.)

It goes on and on... These are your beliefs and this is just the tip of the ice-berg. There are statements worse than this. I am sorry, you guys are certainly on the wrong path and I pray for your guidance. These statements are closer to kufr than belief. May Allah protect us from such misguidance.

If you wouldn't have read in the Quran that Isa (as) gave life to the dead,and a Shia claims the holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) can give life to the dead as Allah,the Creator,does,you would've accused us too of "kufr" or "shirk".I can see you changed mode from defending the indefensible Sunnism and your abandonment of the Thaqalain,to criticize why you cannot follow the Thaqalain (Quran and Ahlul-Bayt).you can bring all the merits of the 12 holy Imams (as),and feel shock because you left their path.even their enemies testify to their merits,especially the knowledge Allah (swt) granted them.take Imam Ja'far al-Sadeq (as) as a case study,and how the four sunni imams of the four sunni schools of thought benefitted from him.even though you're not thankful and you didn't follow them,you benefitted from their knowledge and spiritual guiance;that is part of what they were entrusted to do too.whatever power or quality they possessed it is granted by Allah (swt) just like Isa (as) gave life to the dead by Allah's permission,Musa (as) knew when he would die,and you find in Sunni hadith Prophet Muhammad (sa) had a choice about when to die! Is that "kufr" too?

If you would've followed the divinely approved and chosen successors of the Prophet (sa),you have to understand why Allah (swt) and the Prophet (sa) preferred these individuals over others.just as you read in verse 3:33-34 about Allah (swt) choosing certain families above the rest of humanity,and certain persons from those families excluding the evil-doers,Allah (swt) have preferred the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and the chosen members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).you're talking about a household that produced the Mahdi (who is the 12th Imam for Shia and Sunnis believe he hasn't yet been born),even according to Sunni hadith Isa (as) would pray behind Imam Mahdi (aj).Isa (as) would be offered to lead the prayer but would refuse because he is not the Imam.the descendant of Muhammad (sa),is the Imam even of Isa (as),who is a prophet.the superiority in knowledge of the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) is divine gift.

You read in Sunni hadith where the Prophet (sa) :

"I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

We also read Umar exposing his inferiority to Imam Ali (as) :

"If not for Ali,Umar would have perished (of ignorance) ".

Isn't the caliph of the Muslims and the successor of the Prophet (sa) meant to be the representative of the Prophet (sa) and his legacy,and therefore the most knowledgeable and just in the ummah? On what basis were your caliphs "successors of the Prophet"?

We also read in Sunni hadith what is referred to as "Hadith al-Manzilah".the Prophet Muhammad (sa) said:

"The status of Ali to me,is the status of Haroon to Musa,only that there is no prophet after me".

Go to Sura Taha in the Quran,and find out the position of Haroon to Musa (as),and apply that position on Imam Ali (as) to Prophet Muhammad (sa).there you have the holy Quran right in front of you and a hadith you accept and repeat.but you reject its meaning!and you blame us for giving the Imams what Allah (swt) and the Prophet (sa) taught us about them.

You're belittling the 12 holy Imams from the Ahlul-Bayt (hosehold) of Prophet Muhammad (sa),whom are described like this in the Quran:

"Allah have kept away from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet Muhammad's] household (Ahlul-Bayt), and have purify you with [extensive] purification".(33:33).

Sometimes I wonder if the Quran is read by Sunnis just like a story book.does what you read in the Quran have no implication as to what you believe?

Another point,you don't go to Shia hadith books and pick out hadiths randomly.the Shia do not have a hadith book they tag wholesomely as "sahih" (authentic).the sunni have six "sahih" books.that is to say everything found in those books is authentic and acceptable (even though in reality it is far from the case).to the Shia,only the Quran is sahih wholesomely.any hadith book stands the test for each letter and word in it to be verified.

Ali named his children after Abu bakr, Umar and Utnman. No one, not even the most magnanimous of people, names his son after his enemies who were responsible for the death of his wife. That is why one simply cannot find a Shi‘i today named Abu Bakr, ‘Umar or ‘Uthman. In fact, reports from Iran have it that Shi‘i officials will not allow Iranian Sunnis to give their children these names.All of these show a very different picture to what you guys paint.

I have explained Imam Ali (as) named his children after his own close Shia companions who also bore those names.I fail to understand how those names belong to your first three caliphs,especially in their era when many others bore the names.your first three caliphs didn't hold a patent to those names.and if you claim it was in honor of your first caliphs Imam Ali (as) named his children,did he name his children in sequence of the first 3 caliphs? Or were the names not bearing the sequence of the first 3 caliphs? Hope you see the issue isn't related to your caliphs,nor did Imam Ali (as) named his children because of them.Imam Ali (as) by the way had 12 sons.so if randomly three appear bearing umar,usthman and abu bakr,its no issue. later on,Sunnis name their children in honor of the 3 caliphs,and the Shia stopped giving their children those names because Sunnis are the ones who made the names exclusively in honor of their caliphs.

If Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? Ali was no coward. Are you saying that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, for all his nobility and courage, could not protect his young daughter, and was compelled, on threat of physical violence to his person, to give her to the khalifah.

Which father would sit by idly while his daughter is being forcibly taken by an abominable enemy? This is the extent to which your twisting and corruption of history has led you—that you are prepared to place upon your Imams the kind of shame that even the simplest ones amongst themselves would never bear.

This issue has presented a problem to the shia hence the creative excuses.

It is unusual for tbaba to freak out.this is a good sign of improvement.

We don't believe it was Imam Ali's (as) tender daughter who also bore Umm Kulthum that Umar married.

I'm not twisting anything.based on the evidence available in your book of hadith/history,the marriage in the Sunni hadith is presented as a forced marriage based on the threat Umar made.the Shia didn't make that up.it is found in what you have available in your book.it is what you present to glorify Umar,which is actually a story of oppression.

Based on the evidence,we can't know if it was Umm Kulthum,the adopted daughter of Imam Ali (as),or his own biological daughter from Sayyida Fatima (as).to us and from the evidence available and other sources,Umm Kulthum or Zainab as-Sughra (as),the biological daughter of Imam Ali (as),she was not married to Umar.your hadith claim that Umm Kulthum "married to Umar" died before him and bore him children.historical and reliable evidence shows Umm Kulthum,the daughter of Imam Ali (as) was present in Karbala,alongside her brother Imam Hussein (as),decades after the purported marriage and her death;the tragedy of Karbala took place decades after Umar himself died.we are certainly talking about two Umm Kulthums here.

I'm basing my statements on what is present in your books to glorify Umar and absolve him of what the Shia hold against him,and which is also found in your books.

Imam Ali (as) was brave and courageous,and a skillful and strong fighter.but like any able and mature military commander he was wise too and not foolish or irrational to make hasty or reactionary decisions to his detriment.you can't have a one man army.and it is not in the teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) to impose themselves with force,just as the Prophet (sa) didn't impose himself or his religion on anyone.the Prophet (sa) suffered humiliation and oppression from Quraysh for years.he only raised the sword when Allah (swt) gave him permission to and he was able to build a small army of 313 to fight in Badr against 1000 from Quraysh.

Enough of the derailing... I do not like talking about the shia stuff because it leads no where. There are bigger priorities.

I will not derail this thread anymore.

We are not derailing the thread.I believe if you can only be a little more open,relax and apply honesty in examining the facts,you will be a good follower of the Thaqalain.

And insha'Allah the points and views we make would be of benefit to sister "deols" and others too.

@LagosShia, tbaba, vedaxcool, zhul fiqar, deols, I appreciate you all. Please I want a clarification on this issue from LagosShia. From one of your response on the Sahabas, you mentioned that during last days of the Holy Prophet, S.A.W. The prophet asked for a pen and paper, probably to write down somethings, may be the name of next Khalifah after him, and Umar, R.A. prevented the Prophet from writing anything. My question is this, can the Prophet write? Because I learnt the Holy Prophet S.A.W. Can neither read nor write. I,ll appreciate comprehensive and clear explanation on this issue. Also @LagosShia, Please send your mail add to me at Bolajisark@yahoo.co.uk, for other issues, I Want to learn from. Thanks all.

Let me ask: what exactly is the purpose of this thread?

maclatunji: Let me ask: what exactly is the purpose of this thread?

To learn and interact.

But if my presence or my posts are unwelcome or causing any discomfort to anyone,I will gently take my exit from the thread.

@LagosShia I,m still waiting for your response. Or others who can help to provide an answer

LAZAREY: @LagosShia, tbaba, vedaxcool, zhul fiqar, deols, I appreciate you all. Please I want a clarification on this issue from LagosShia. From one of your response on the Sahabas, you mentioned that during last days of the Holy Prophet, S.A.W. The prophet asked for a pen and paper, probably to write down somethings, may be the name of next Khalifah after him, and Umar, R.A. prevented the Prophet from writing anything. My question is this, can the Prophet write?

Yes,the Prophet (sa) could write and read.the Prophet (sa) was not learned/educated or he didn't acquire knowledge from humans,and this testified to by his contemporaries.when his ba'tha (mission) started at age 40,it was clear afterwards the Prophet (sa) was knowledgeble.it is very ironic that the greatest prophet of Allah (swt) is depicted by some muslims as an "illitrate" who knew nothing and could neither read or write.that wasn't the case.he was simply knowledgeable without being taught.and if he chose to write he will.

His case is certainly different from the king of saudi arabia,who wahhabis see as the "head of muslims" or "al-khadem al-haramain" (custodian of the two holy mosques),who didn't finish primary school.the Prophet (sa) was taught by the All-Knowing Creator.

Because I learnt the Holy Prophet S.A.W. Can neither read nor write. I,ll appreciate comprehensive and clear explanation on this issue. Also @LagosShia, Please send your mail add to me at Bolajisark@yahoo.co.uk, for other issues, I Want to learn from. Thanks all.

The Event of the Pen and Paper happened on what is referred to as "black thursday" in Sunni records.the Prophet (sa) was on his deathbed and requested pen and paper to write a document after which no Muslim will go astray.Umar said : "the Quran is enough for us",as if the Prophet (sa),who brought the Quran didn't know what he brought.then people in the room disagreed and there was chaos between those who wanted to provide the Prophet (sa) and mainly Umar who refused.Umar then said : "the Prophet is delirious" (astaghfirullah).this is the Prophet (sa) who is described in Surat an-Najm: "he speaks not of his desires,but only revelations revealed". in the earliest Sunni records,the word Umar used to insult the Prophet (sa) is found there.it is an insulting word.Umar said : "innaho la yajhar".but in later versions of the hadith,Sunnis have rendered the word into other phrases to soften its expression.one of the phrases is : "pain has overcome him".ridiculous! If pain has overcome him,isn't that more reason to follow the wish of the Prophet (sa) and not disobey him to cause him more pain? But ofcourse had the Prophet (sa) written the name of Imam Ali (as) as his successor,after the verbal declarations,it would've been difficult for Umar or anyone to tell Muslims that they can't follow what the Prophet (sa) wrote because "pain has overcome him"!upon the chaos that ensued in the room,the holy Prophet (sa)-may my soul be ransom for his sake-asked everyone to leave his room.

And this wasn't the first time Umar have challenged the authority of the Prophet (sa).and on each time,Sunnis have been taught to (mis)understand his actions the opposite of what they stood for,and they provide "explanations" for Umar.in the pledge of al-Ridwan,Umar asked the Prophet (sa) : "are you truly a prophet of God"? Once when the Prophet (sa) wanted to lead prayer janaza upon Abdullah Ibn Ubayy,Umar dragged the Prophet (sa) by his clothes and told him he can't pray for Abdullah Ibn Ubay because he was an open hypocrite,and if the Prophet (sa) asked to forgive him 70 times or not,Allah will not forgive Abdullah Ibn Ubayy.the Prophet (sa) then replied: "what if I choose to ask more than 70 times for Allah to forgive him"? You also have the expedition of Tabuk,led by Usama Ibn Zaid (ra),and abu bakr and umar were enlisted by the Prophet (sa) to be in that mission under Usama (ra).the Prophet (sa) then was sick,around the time the event of pen and paper took place-few days before or after the event of pen and paper.sensing the Prophet (sa) was in critical health condition,Abu Bakr and Umar refused to go.Sunnis justify their refusal as "out of concern for the Prophet's condition",the same Prophet (sa) who drafted them under Usama (ra),who then was a young lad.history has these incidents in agreement with the Shia stance in abundance.but each time,the Sunni deny what's found in their records,and when they can't deny,they twist the words and give their interpretation,however ridiculous it would sound.you have two men who imposed themselves on the ummah and above the orders of the Prophet (sa),and some people who say they are followers of the Prophet (sa) find all sorts of justifications for those men's actions.the question is,can you drag your father by his clothes if he's about to pray? How much more dragging the Prophet (sa) by his clothes!!! And you have the verse in the Quran which says we should not address the Prophet (sa) as we address ourselves nor raise our voices as when talking to ourselves.

Here's my email below.kindly notify me on NL,if you send me a message,just in case I don't reply for a period.

ansarul_imam_al_mehdi@yahoo.com

SALAM

Is lagosShia saying the shia's 12 imams are actually equal to the prophets?

seguun: Is lagosShia saying the shia's 12 imams are actually equal to the prophets?

You saw it too, abi and That is just the tip of the ice berg, if people actually knew the beliefs of the shia, you will not come near them with a long pole.

seguun: Is lagosShia saying the shia's 12 imams are actually equal to the prophets?

tbaba1234:

You saw it too, abi and That is just the tip of the ice berg, if people actually knew the beliefs of the shia, you will not come near them with a long pole.

all we are saying is this:

"Allah have kept away from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet Muhammad's] household (Ahlul-Bayt), and have purify you with [extensive] purification".(33:33).

and this:


"the status of Ali to me (Prophet Muhammad) is the status of Haroon to Musa;only that there will be no prophet after me".(find out in Sura Taha,what was Haroon (as) to Musa (as),and apply it to Imam Ali (as) and the Prophet (sa) )

and this:

"I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

and this:

"I am leaving behind the Two Weighty Things (Thaqalain).they are the Quran and my progeny,my Ahlul-bayt.if you hold on to both of them,you will never go astray".


the family of Ibrahim (as) is not superior to the family of Muhammad (sa),who is the chief of the prophets.those Imams from the purified and select progeny of Muhammad (sa) were given knowledge by Allah (swt) and they are inheritors of the knowledge of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).they are chosen to lead and guide,but they are not prophets.

whatever pole you want to use,try and shorten it so you can understand (not what I or the Shia say) but what you read in the Quran and the hadiths of the Prophet (sa) you accept.reading the Quran from Fatiha to Nass without understanding what you're reading is of no use.you read what you don't understand,or you understand what you don't implement,would render you "Summon,Bukmon,Umyon,Fa Hoom La Yubsiroon",as it is put in the holy Quran.

tbaba1234:

You saw it too, abi and That is just the tip of the ice berg, if people actually knew the beliefs of the shia, you will not come near them with a long pole.

don't you read in Sunni hadith attributed to the Prophet (sa) the following exaggeration (ghuluw) concocted to extol Umar:

"had there being a prophet in my ummah after me,it would have being Umar".

you have Sunnis extolling Umar to a station he was the farthest from.and Mr.tbaba wants to use a pole against us,because of believing in what the Prophet (sa) and Allah (jj) commanded about the 12 holy Imams (as).don't you think people should run away from Sunnism,especially based on how Umar used to behave towards the Prophet (sa)? is this a man you elevate to the level of prophethood,and believe he possessed the qualities of prophethood,and was simply not a prophet because there is no prophet after Prophet Muhammad (sa)?

oh,Sunnis fear Allah and be just!!!

do not allow prejudice to overcome you,and develop a rejectionist attitude whenever the word "Shia" is mentioned.examine the message,not the messenger.you're the ones raising someone like Umar to the level of prophethood,while we only consider our 12 holy Imams (as) based on what Allah (jj) and the Prophet (sa) said about them.

1. "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

weak hadith by most scholars, highest rating is hasan. Even at that, the meaning is sound. Ali was among the knowledgeable Shahaba. If Ali was at the gates, Abubakr and Umar were probably in the city. Also,old cities had four gates. Nothing here raises Ali's praise to the insane level that you guys have raised it to.

2. Surah 33:32-33:

Wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other woman. If you are truly mindful of God, do not speak too softly in case the sick at heart should lust after you, but speak in an appropriate manner;stay at home, and do not flaunt your finery as they used to in the pagan past; keep up the prayer, give the prescribed alms, and obey God and His Messenger. God wishes to keep uncleanness away from you, people of the [Prophet’s] House, and to purify you thoroughly.

This address was to the wives of the messenger to observe limits and hereby purify themselves... The prophet warned his own beloved daugther fatima.

Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment."

How then can you think human beings are infallible.

No one is exempted from error,which is a quality of human nature. The Prophet pointed this out when he said, "Man is liable to mistake, and the best of those
who do are those who turn to Allah in repentance." (At-Tirmidhî, Ibn Mâjah and Ad-Dârimî, it is narrated with a good chain of transmission) While the Prophets infallibly convey the Revelation, their infallibility does not extend beyond this. How many Prophets have been admonished by Allah, and on occasions corrected? Allah mildly reproved the Prophet in a well-known Chapter of the Qur’ân, saying:

{"He [i.e. the Prophet] frowned and turned away - Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting]. But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that
perhaps he might be purified – Or be reminded and the remembrance would benefit him? As for he who thinks himself without need, - To him you give attention. And not upon you [is any blame] if he will not be purified. But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] - While he fears [Allah], - From him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [i.e. these verses] are a reminder…}(Qur’ân 80:1-11.)

On another occasion, Allah tells Prophet Muhammad: {May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]? [You should not have] until it was evident to you who were truthful and youknew [who were] the liars.} Qur’ân 9:43.

Allah also says addressing the Prophet, {"…while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him…"} (Qur’ân 33: 37.)

This is the messenger (peace and blessing be upon him) being queried in the Qur'an...

3.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 700:

Allah’s Apostle set out for (the Battle of) Tabuk, appointing Ali as his deputy (in Medina). Ali said, “Do you want to leave me with the children and women?” The Prophet said, “Will you not be pleased that you will be to me like Haroon to Musa? But there will be no prophet after me.”

This Hadith is not evidence for the Caliphate of Ali after the death of the Prophet because the comparison made was between Ali and Prophet Haroon. It is well-known that Prophet Haroon died before Prophet Musa, and thus was never his successor after him. The successor of Prophet Musa was Prophet Yusha (Joshua) and therefore if the Prophet had wanted to imply successorship, then surely he would have likened Ali to Prophet Yusha. Infact this is evidence against the shia.

whenever Prophet Muhammad would liken anyone to a Prophet, he would make sure to clarify that this is only a comparison and does not mean there will be any Prophet after him.

He also said of Umar:

Sayyiduna Uqbah bin Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Holy Prophet, may Allah send greetings and salutations on him, said:

If there were to be a prophet after me, indeed he would be Umar, son of Khattab. [Sunan Tirmidhi, Hadith 3686]

However you do not see anyone praising Umar the way you people over praise Ali. You do not see anyone arguing that Umar should be the successor.

4. I have left with you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray–The Book of Allah and my progeny.”

This version has been narrated in Sunan Tirmidhi and is classed as Dhaeef (weak). Even though Imam Tirmidhi included it in his book, he himself did not consider it Sahih (authentic) and referred to it as Ghareeb (i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized).

This version of the Hadith does not have any valid chains of transmission. Some of the narrators of this version of Hadith al-Thaqalayn were openly known to be Shia, such as Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl, and Atiyyah Al Awfi.

A narrator is rejected if the content of the narrative is peculiar to a particular deviant school of thought if it is narrated by a deviant who ascribes to such a school of thought (Al-Kifaayah fi `ilm al-Riwaayah).

QED.

@tbaba
first let me state that this trick of weakening your own Sunni hadiths when it suits you,and to conceal the truth which support the Shia,contradicts your concept of "sahih".al-tirmidhi's book is regarded by Sunnis as one of the six "sihah".it means the book is "sahih",and everything in it is reliable and authentic.had these hadiths which support the Shia being found in Shia books of hadith,i could give you some thought.but these are right there in your most reliable Sunni books.nevermind,i will go further and bring out the facts on these hadiths,each in a post on its own.

these Sunni hadiths which support the Shia in your Sunni books,would be examined.the above hadith is rejected by your beloved Ibn Taymiyyah,the follower of the legacy of Banu Umayyah,the enemies of the Prophet (sa) and the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

More outrageous shia beliefs:

"The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in the future, and nothing is concealed from them"

"The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which they were revealed"

"No one compiled the Qur'an completely except the Imams, and they encompass all of its knowledge

"Signs of the prophets are possessed by the Imams"

"When the Imams' time comes, they will rule in accordance with the ruling of the prophet David and his dynasty. These Imams will not need to ask for presentation of evidence before passing their judgments"

"There is not a single truth possessed by a people save that which originated with the Imams, and everything which did not proceed from them is false"

(Al-Kulaini, Al-kaafi)

tbaba1234: 1. "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

weak hadith by most scholars, highest rating is hasan. Even at that, the meaning is sound. Ali was among the knowledgeable Shahaba. If Ali was at the gates, Abubakr and Umar were probably in the city. Also,old cities had four gates. Nothing here raises Ali's praise to the insane level that you guys have raised it to.

A number of highranking Sunni Imams have graded the Hadith as authentic (sahih). Al-Hakim recorded it in his book al-Mustadrak, volume 3, page 126 and declared it as Sahih. Imam Yahya ibn Moin declared it as Sahih (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p72 Translation 3421). Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his book ‘Tahdib al-Athaar’ page 104 declared it as Sahih. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it as Hasan (al-Fawaed al-Majmoa, Volume 1, p348 by Shawkani). Suyuti said: ‘Hasan’ (Tarikh al-khulafa, v1 p69). Al-Shawkani in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1 page 348 declared it as ‘Hasan le Gharyu’. Al-Sakhawi in his book ‘al-Maqasid al-Hasana’ page 123 declared it as ‘Hasan’. Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Rad Etebar al-Jame al-Saghir’ page 15 declared it as Sahih. Ahmad bin al-Sidiq in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 10 declared it as Sahih. Allamah Hassan al-Saqaf in the footnote of his book ‘Tanaqudat Albaani’ volume 3 page 82 declared it as Sahih. Al-Zarkashi in his book ‘al-Leale al-Manthura’ page 163 declared it as Hasan. Muhammad ibn Tulun al-Hanafi (d. 953 H) in his book ‘al-Shazara’ page 130 declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Zarqani in his book ‘Mukhtasar al-Maqaed’ page 170 declared it as Hasan. While Mullah Muttaqi Hindi relied upon the words of Suyuti as follows:

‘I answered (that the hadith is Hasan) for years until I noticed that Ibn Jareer declared this hadith Sahih in his book Tahdib al-Athaar beside the declaration of being Sahih by al-Hakim of this tradition that is narrated by ibn Abbas. I then performed isthikhara and became convinced that the Hadeeth ‘I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its gate’ is Sahih not Hasan. Allah knows best.’
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 148 Tradition 36464

Allamah Muhammad bin Yusuf al-Salehi al-Shami (d. 942 H) declared it Hasan (Subul al-Huda wa al-Rashad, Volume 1, p501). Imam Samarqandi declared it Sahih (Fath al-Malik by Hafiz Ibn Sidiq, p60). Hanafi Imam Mullah Ali Qari in his famed work Mirqat Sharh Mishkat, Volume 5 page 571 records that according to Imam Darqutni this hadith is Thaabit (proven). Imam of Ahle Sunnah Salahuddin Khalil al-Alaai (d. 761 H) declared this Hadith as Hasan (Kashf al-Khafa by Ajloni, v1 p203) and for all those who have criticized this Hadith out of Nasibism, he stated:

‘Neither Abu al-Faraj nor others provided any tangible argument for the hadith except the claim of being fabricated and they reject it because of its content’
al-Laale al-Masnoa by Suyuti, Volume 1 page 306

The Mufti of Dar ul Uloom Qadiriyah Jilaniyah, London namely Mufti Ghulam Rasool al-Hanafi refutes the statement of Ibn Taimiyah in the following manner:

“Question: Ibn Taimiyah in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah has stated that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is extremely weak and it has been counted amongst the Modhouat. When it is weak and Maudhu then it cannot be used for inference.

Answer: The statement of Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728) that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weak and Maudhu is void (Batil) and evil (Mardood). Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih and has called its main narrator Abu Sult as Thiqa and Seduq. Since Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih therefore there should not be any doubt about this Hadith being Sahih and worthy of being inferred because Yahyah bin Moin is Imam of Jarah and Tadeel. While praising him, Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote….”
Subeh Sadiq, page 156 (Published in London)

Then Mufti Ghulam Rasool took two pages mentioning the authoritative place enjoyed by Yahyah bin Moin in Ahle Sunnah and then he stated:

This proves that Yahyah bin Moin was one of the greatest scholars in the knowledge of Hadith and fields related to it. He was the one who was very well aware of the authenticity or unreliability of Hadith; and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has also clarified it that Yahyah bin Moin knows more about Sahih or weak Hadith. If Yahyah bin Moin mention the authenticity of any Hadith then it will be deemed Sahih. Those who would state anything opposing that will not be believed. When the Imam of Jarah and Tadeel namely Yahyah bin Moin has declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih; moreover Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has recorded it; moreover it is recorded in Jami Tirmidhi, then the statement of Ibn Taimiyah calling it weak and Maudhu is wrong and void. Moreover while relying on Yahyah bin Moin, Ibn Taimiyah himself stated that he is among the greatest Muhaditheen from the aspect of veracity, loyalty and Jarah and Tadeel. Moreover he stated: ‘Yahyah bin Moin and others have more capability of knowing the Sahih Hadiths. They have more eligibility of distinguishing between truth and lie, Sahih and Maudhu Hadith. If someone wants to investigate whether a particular Hadith is Sahih or weak or Maudhu, one should refer to Yahyah bin Moin and his likes’ (Tasfiyah Ma bayn Sunni o Shia, page 65 citing Minhaj al-Sunnah).

When Yahyah bin Moin declares a Hadith as Sahih then it is Sahih. When this is the situation then what meaning does the Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728)’s denying the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ being Sahih have! Ibn Taimiyah on one hand stated that Yahyah bin Moin has more knowledge in knowing the Sahih or Maudhu Hadith and the statement of Yahyah bin Moin will be more authentic in this regard. But on the other hand Yahyah bin Moin declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih, Ibn Taimiyah then denied the same and stated that the Hadith is weak and Maudhu. This is stubbornness and extremism of Ibn Taimiyah. Therefore this statement of Ibn Taimiyah is void and evil, and the Hadith is Sahih.
Subeh Sadiq, pages 160-161 (Published in London)

The words of Ibn Taimiyah used by Mufti Ghulam Rasool can be read directly from the online Minhaj al-Sunnah:

فإن هؤلاء من أكمل الناس معرفة بذلك وأشدهم رغبة في التمييز بين الصدق والكذب

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 8 page 418

This tradition is mentioned in many books:
1.Al-Mu’ajam al-kabir, by Tabarani, v11, p55
2.Al-Istiab, by ibn Abdulbar, Volume 3, p1102
3.Shawahid al-Tanzil, by Hasakani, Volume 1, p105
4.Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 3, p181
5.Tarikh Dimashq, v42, p378

tbaba1234: 1. "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".

weak hadith by most scholars, highest rating is hasan. Even at that, the meaning is sound. Ali was among the knowledgeable Shahaba. If Ali was at the gates, Abubakr and Umar were probably in the city. Also,old cities had four gates. Nothing here raises Ali's praise to the insane level that you guys have raised it to.

you have made a false claim that the "highest rating is hasan" for this hadith.

this hadith is found in Sahih Tirmidhi.it was later expunged in newer publications in Saudi Arabia.

A number of highranking Sunni Imams have graded the Hadith as authentic (sahih).

-Al-Hakim recorded it in his book al-Mustadrak, volume 3, page 126 and declared it as Sahih.

-Imam Yahya ibn Moin declared it as Sahih (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p72 Translation 3421).

-Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his book ‘Tahdib al-Athaar’ page 104 declared it as Sahih

-Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani declared it as Hasan (al-Fawaed al-Majmoa, Volume 1, p348 by Shawkani)

-Suyuti said: ‘Hasan’ (Tarikh al-khulafa, v1 p69).

-Al-Shawkani in his book ‘al-Fawaed al-Majmoa’ volume 1 page 348 declared it as ‘Hasan le Gharyu’

-Abdullah al-Ghemari in his book ‘Rad Etebar al-Jame al-Saghir’ page 15 declared it as Sahih.

-Ahmad bin al-Sidiq in his book ‘Fath al-Malik’ page 10 declared it as Sahih.

- Allamah Hassan al-Saqaf in the footnote of his book ‘Tanaqudat Albaani’ volume 3 page 82 declared it as Sahih


Ibn Taymiyyah,the follower of Ummayad legacy,and an enemy of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) Declared it "weak" and "fabrication";i.e. not even 'hasan' (good)!!!

Minhaj al-Sunnah, Volume 7 page 378:
“The tradition of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weaker (than other traditions). Therefore it is counted among the fabrications”.

The Sunni Mufti of Dar ul Uloom Qadiriyah Jilaniyah, London namely Mufti Ghulam Rasool al-Hanafi refutes the statement of Ibn Taimiyah in the following manner:

“Question: Ibn Taimiyah in his book Minhaj al-Sunnah has stated that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is extremely weak and it has been counted amongst the Modhouat. When it is weak and Maudhu then it cannot be used for inference.

Answer: The statement of Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728 AH) that the Hadith of ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ is weak and Maudhu is void (Batil) and evil (Mardood). Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih and has called its main narrator Abu Sult as Thiqa and Seduq. Since Yahyah bin Moin has declared this Hadith as Sahih therefore there should not be any doubt about this Hadith being Sahih and worthy of being inferred because Yahyah bin Moin is Imam of Jarah and Tadeel. While praising him, Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote….”
Subeh Sadiq, page 156 (Published in London)

Sunni Mufti Ghulam Rasool took two pages mentioning the authoritative place enjoyed by Yahyah bin Moin in Ahlus- Sunnah and then he stated:

This proves that Yahyah bin Moin was one of the greatest scholars in the knowledge of Hadith and fields related to it. He was the one who was very well aware of the authenticity or unreliability of Hadith; and Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has also clarified it that Yahyah bin Moin knows more about Sahih or weak Hadith. If Yahyah bin Moin mention the authenticity of any Hadith then it will be deemed Sahih. Those who would state anything opposing that will not be believed. When the Imam of Jarah and Tadeel namely Yahyah bin Moin has declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih; moreover Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal has recorded it; moreover it is recorded in Jami Tirmidhi, then the statement of Ibn Taimiyah calling it weak and Maudhu is wrong and void. Moreover while relying on Yahyah bin Moin, Ibn Taimiyah himself stated that he is among the greatest Muhaditheen from the aspect of veracity, loyalty and Jarah and Tadeel. Moreover he stated: ‘Yahyah bin Moin and others have more capability of knowing the Sahih Hadiths. They have more eligibility of distinguishing between truth and lie, Sahih and Maudhu Hadith. If someone wants to investigate whether a particular Hadith is Sahih or weak or Maudhu, one should refer to Yahyah bin Moin and his likes’ (Tasfiyah Ma bayn Sunni o Shia, page 65 citing Minhaj al-Sunnah).

When Yahyah bin Moin declares a Hadith as Sahih then it is Sahih. When this is the situation then what meaning does the Ibn Taimiyah (d. 728)’s denying the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ being Sahih have! Ibn Taimiyah on one hand stated that Yahyah bin Moin has more knowledge in knowing the Sahih or Maudhu Hadith and the statement of Yahyah bin Moin will be more authentic in this regard. But on the other hand Yahyah bin Moin declared the Hadith ‘I am the city of knowledge and Ali is the gate’ as Sahih, Ibn Taimiyah then denied the same and stated that the Hadith is weak and Maudhu. This is stubbornness and extremism of Ibn Taimiyah. Therefore this statement of Ibn Taimiyah is void and evil, and the Hadith is Sahih.
Subeh Sadiq, pages 160-161 (Published in London)

^ I can provide a far longer list that consider it daeef (weak)... Like i said, even if you take the middle ground and say it is hasan, the meaning is sound, you guys need to put the brakes on because you overthink everything that has to do with Ali. This is the kind of extremism that unfortunately has infected you guys.

As usual, You have made no point.

tbaba1234: 1. "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate".
2. Surah 33:32-33:

Wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other woman. If you are truly mindful of God, do not speak too softly in case the sick at heart should lust after you, but speak in an appropriate manner;stay at home, and do not flaunt your finery as they used to in the pagan past; keep up the prayer, give the prescribed alms, and obey God and His Messenger. God wishes to keep uncleanness away from you, people of the [Prophet’s] House, and to purify you thoroughly.

This address was to the wives of the messenger to observe limits and hereby purify themselves...

the verse of purification is so distinct in its tense and speech from the address to the wives earlier.and to the admission of Aisha (who was one of the wives) herself in Sahih Muslim,you Sunnis are lying!!!

the verse of purification uses masculine tenses,while the address to the wives uses feminine tenses.
the wives of the Prophet (sa) are told to stay in "their houses".while the verse of purification refers to the "people of the house",i.e. one house! let us see who the "people of the house" are.

A'isha reports:
“ that God'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 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: God only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)" (Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 5955)

if to the admission of Aisha (who fought Imam Ali in the battle of jamal),Imam Ali (as) is one of the five in whose respect the verse of purification was revealed,then my challenge stands.

MY EARLIER CHALLENGE

"Allah have kept away from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet Muhammad's] household (Ahlul-Bayt), and to purify you with [extensive] purification". (33:33)

Now if you can convince me Aisha was a believer (as per her condemnation in Surat Tahreem),and she was sinless as per verse 33:33,and she did nothing wrong in the battle of jamal against Imam Ali (as),who then was the "imam of the time" of all muslims,then I'm ready to follow her and even obey her.

The prophet warned his own beloved daugther fatima.

Volume 4, Book 51, Number 16:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Allah revealed the Verse: "Warn your nearest kinsmen," Allah's Apostle got up and said, "O people of Quraish (or said similar words)! Buy (i.e. save) yourselves (from the Hellfire) as I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Bani Abd Manaf! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment, O Safiya, the Aunt of Allah's Apostle! I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment; O Fatima bint Muhammad! Ask me anything from my wealth, but I cannot save you from Allah's Punishment."

How then can you think human beings are infallible.

the words of the Prophet (sa) warning his daughter,is to set an example and ceiling for the people.it is to portray his justice.it doesn't mean his daughter whom Allah (swt) has protected from "RIJS" (uncleaningness/sin/blemish) in verse 33:33,would steal.

No one is exempted from error,which is a quality of human nature. The Prophet pointed this out when he said, "Man is liable to mistake, and the best of those
who do are those who turn to Allah in repentance." (At-Tirmidhî, Ibn Mâjah and Ad-Dârimî, it is narrated with a good chain of transmission) While the Prophets infallibly convey the Revelation, their infallibility does not extend beyond this. How many Prophets have been admonished by Allah, and on occasions corrected? Allah mildly reproved the Prophet in a well-known Chapter of the Qur’ân, saying:

those admonitions by Allah (swt) do not stand or amount as evidence of the "sinful" nature of the prophets concerned.

Prophet Muhammad (sa) is described in the Quran as:

"he speaks not of his desires,but revelations revealed"

"you are surely of the most sublime character".

and many more!!!

{"He [i.e. the Prophet] frowned and turned away - Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting]. But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that
perhaps he might be purified – Or be reminded and the remembrance would benefit him? As for he who thinks himself without need, - To him you give attention. And not upon you [is any blame] if he will not be purified. But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] - While he fears [Allah], - From him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [i.e. these verses] are a reminder…}(Qur’ân 80:1-11.)

On another occasion, Allah tells Prophet Muhammad: {May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]? [You should not have] until it was evident to you who were truthful and youknew [who were] the liars.} Qur’ân 9:43.

Allah also says addressing the Prophet, {"…while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him…"} (Qur’ân 33: 37.)

This is the messenger (peace and blessing be upon him) being queried in the Qur'an...

we do not believe those verses were revealed against the Prophet (sa).the instances for which those verses were revealed and to condemn certain individuals are known.

your hadith narrators,the likes of Anas Ibn Malik,have fabricated hadiths even to demote the Prophet (sa) himself and give him a bad image.

it is known that Anas Ibn Malik for instance narrated a hadith in "Sahih Bukhari" that the Prophet (sa) tortured some people by cutting their hands,feet and inserting hot nails into their eyes,and then he made them lick the ground with their tongues,and finally left them in the scorching sun to die!!! this is the "prophet of mercy" according to Sunni hadith.it surfaces that this hadith by Anas Ibn Malik was fabricated to please the Ummayyad tyrant,al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi,who requested from Anas Ibn Malik a hadith narrating the most wicked punishment the Prophet (sa) inflicted on people.

the hadiths aimed to distort the image of the holy Prophet (sa) were falsely narrated to sort of give cover for the tyranny,wickedness and shortcomings of the tyrants who you recognize as "caliphs" and "leaders".the Prophet (sa) is above these wicked fabrications which have even made the non-muslims to insult him.the same goes about the hadith that he married a 6 year old Aisha.while this hadith aims to give that as a merit to Aisha,it is a demerit for the Prophet (sa).by historical records of Sunnis,Aisha was above 15 year old when the Prophet (sa) married her.

regarding the verse of "he frowned and turn his face away",it was the third Sunni caliph Usthman Ibn Affan who frowned at the blind man,Abdullah Ibn Umm Maktoom.

how shameful for a muslim to use parenthesis to insert the name of the Prophet (sa) where pronouns appear,in verses of condemnation for others.this is the legacy of the Ummayad fabrication and forgery machine.and you ask us how does the past affect us.obvious,we don't even regard the Prophet (sa) in similar ways.

tbaba1234: ^ I can provide a far longer list that consider it daeef (weak)... Like i said, even if you take the middle ground and say it is hasan, the meaning is sound, you guys need to put the brakes on because you overthink everything that has to do with Ali. This is the kind of extremism that unfortunately has infected you guys.

As usual, You have made no point.

please present the "longer list" and let us examine your "longer list".

"bring forth your proof if you are truthful".

you call us "extremists" for clinging to a hadith of the Prophet (sa) rated by your Sunni scholars of hadith as "hasan" and "sahih",while you forget that Ibn Taymiyyah who condemned the hadith is in fact the one described by a Sunni Hanafi mufti as "extremist" and "stubborn".

"Say truth has come and falsehood has vanished,for falsehood by its nature is a vanishing thing".

Yahya Bin Ma'een
Source: al Jarh wat-Ta'deel 6/99
Su'alat ibn Junayd #185
Tareekh Baghdad 11/205
Ahmad Bin Hanbal
Source: Tareekh Baghdad 11/49
Ibn Hibban
Source: al Majruheen 2/136
Ibn 'Adi
Source: al Kamel fi ad-Du'afa 1/311 & 316
Al-Darqutni
Source: Ta'liqat 'ala al Majruheen 179
Ibn Al-Qaisarani
Source: Dhakhirat al Huffadh 5/2578 - Tadhkirat al Huffadh #136
Ibn Al-Arabi al Maliki
Source: Ahkam al Quran 3/86
Ibn A'sakir
Source: Tareekh Dimashq 45\321
Ibn Al-Jawzi
Source: Al Mawdu'at 2/112-116
Al-Nawawi
Source: Tahdheeb al Asma' wal-Lughat 1/348
Al-Mizzi
Source: Tahdheeb al Kamal 11/462
Al Dhahabi
Source: Mizan al-I'tidal 1/415 - 1/110

Shaykh Albani judged the Hadith in “Jamiu sagir” (#3247) as “fabricated.”

Shaykh Dhahabi judged the Hadith as “fabricated” in “Talkhees al-maudua” (1/115/#256).


There are more: