Double post

AlBaqir:
^Sino try again later bro. That copy-pasted manipulation won't work.

As usual, when face with superior argument and evidence, you shout copy and paste , a classic case of being closed minded, and hell bent on proving your skewed opinion and understanding (because having sexual relation with ones wives by the Prophet (SAW) is a big taboo according to you right?)…


Now let us look at your points in the light of my earlier post:

AlBaqir:

# Point one:

Surah al-Baqarah: 187

"It is made lawful for you to approach your wives during the nights of the fasts..."

What does approach mean in the ayah? It simply means s.exual in.tercourse. This kind of language is used to avoid vulgar talk.

This is actually irrelevant, the word used in the Qur’an and the one used in the narration are not the same, stop comparing apples and oranges. As even mentioned earlier, even if it was copulation the word was referring to, so what is the issue?! Is it haram for the Prophet (SAW) to do that with his wives in one night?!

AlBaqir:

# Point two:
The ahadith under examination is in Kitab ghusl (book of ritual bath). And one of the reason of having ghusl is after s.exual intercoursee. Furthermore, the particular hadith is under this chapter:

{[(12) Chapter: Having sexual intercourse and repeating it. And engaging with one's own wives and taking a single bath (after doing so)]}

Yeah it is under ghusl quite alright, and since you know that it is not only sexual intercourse that requires the spiritual bath, I wonder why your mind fails to think outside this, even the narration you quote can be used to prove this, and I would point that out subsequently…

Be that as it may, I had only brought a contrary view about the narration with evidences which shows that the visit of the Prophet (SAW) to all his wives was not about having conjugal relations with them but rather being a just man, and a caring husband to all his wives. Again I raised questions in my previous post on why should it even cause an issue if it was really a conjugal visit to them all, what’s the big deal?!

I believe this is a private issue, and the only reason why we are discussing this is based on the fact that we are meant to learn the religion from the Prophet (SAW), of which ghusl is part of. The Prophet (SAW) is a man, and a perfect man indeed, the frequency of having conjugal relations or his conjugal visits is none of our business. Even at that, a narration from his wife who should have the firsthand and most accurate information regarding this issue had clarified this matter, so what are you still trying to prove?!

AlBaqir:

# Point three:
The word (طاف، يطوف .... ) you tried to manipulate should be treated within its context and not in isolation.

The following ahadith in the same Kitab ghusl also used same word which leave no room for manipulation.

Hadith 1: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

on the authority of his father that he had asked `Aisha (about the Hadith of Ibn `Umar). She said, "May Allah be Merciful to Abu `Abdur-Rahman. I used to put scent on Allah's Messenger (s) and he used to go round his wives (فَيَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ ), and in the morning he assumed the Ihram, and the fragrance of scent was still coming out from his body."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 267
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 20
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 267
(deprecated numbering scheme)


Hadith 2: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

on the authority of his father that he had asked `Aisha about the saying of Ibn `Umar (i.e. he did not like to be a Muhrim while the smell of scent was still coming from his body). `Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Messenger (s) and he went round (had sexual intercourse with) all his wives (طَافَ فِي نِسَائِهِ ) and in the morning he was Muhrim (مُحْرِمًا ) (after taking a bath)."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 270
In-book reference : Book 5, Hadith 23
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 270
(deprecated numbering scheme)
www.sunnah.com/bukhari/5

As I said earlier, the above narration (the 2 are same) is basically about Ihram, the same mistake pointed out by the author of the article I posted is also repeated here, I hope you know it is recommended to take ghusl before ihram?! Again it is Aisha (RA) that narrated this, and also it is the same Aisha (RA) that made the clarification, let me quote the narration again for you to read properly:
Urwa reported on the authority of his father:

‘Aisha said: "O my nephew, the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bdid not prefer one of us to other in respect of his division of time of his staying with us. It was very rare that he did not visit any of us any day. He would come near each of his wives without having any intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day (i.e. her turn) and passed his night with her...."

(Sunan Abū Dawūd Hadīth 2135. Albāni classified it as Hasan Sahih)

Besides Sunan Abu Dawud the narration is found in ,
Musnad Ahmad (No. 23621)
Baihaqi's Sunan Al-Kubra (No. 13434, 14754)
Mustadrak Al-Hakim (No. 2710)

It is found in Sunan Darqutni (No.3781) too with more explicit wording.

Funny enough, you base your opinion on additions made by interpreters and translators, while I quoted someone who based his opinion on clear words from the wife of the Prophet (SAW), Aisha (RA), whose opinion should be taken I ask?!

AlBaqir:

# Point four:

Imam al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his prestigious fath al-Barr documents 'Ismail that the potential meaning of (فيطوف ) is s.exual inter.course.
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=33&TOCID=187

Personally, I do not have any issue if the word is to be translated to mean sexual intercourse; it doesn’t take away anything from the Prophet (SAW). The enemies of Islam had also questioned the Prophet (SAW) having eleven wives, while four is prescribed in the Qur’an…Enemies of the Prophet (SAW) would always find faults and would want to cause doubts regarding his status in the hearts of the Muslims, it did not start today, e don tey….

sino:



Personally, I do not have any issue if the word is to be translated to mean sexual intercourse; it doesn’t take away anything from the Prophet (SAW). The enemies of Islam had also questioned the Prophet (SAW) having eleven wives, while four is prescribed in the Qur’an…Enemies of the Prophet (SAW) would always find faults and would want to cause doubts regarding his status in the hearts of the Muslims, it did not start today, e don tey….

@bold, thank God that's your opinion now contrary to what you copied and pasted where you intend to manipulate the meaning. The same word is yet used in another hadith:

Mahmud – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – Ibn Tawus – his father – Abu Hurayrah:

Sulayman b. Dawud, peace be upon them both, said: “Tonight, I will go around (لأطوفن ) to ONE HUNDRED WOMEN. Each woman will give birth to a boy who will fight in the Cause of Allah.” The angel said to him: “Say ‘insha Allah.’” But, he did not say it, and he was caused to forget. Then, he went round to them, and none of them gave birth to a child except one woman, who gave birth to a malformed child.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “If he had said ‘insha Allah,’ he would not have broken his oath, and that would have been a means of attaining what he hoped for.”
http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/76/2810.html

Now that you have stylishly agreed that the word means "having sexual intercourse", then we can proceed unless you want to continue arguing blindly. These enemies you talk about are only judging and hitting hard based on what the likes of infallible Sahih Bukhari document. Imagine, Prophet going round his 9 - 11 wives within an hour. Another hadith says during the night and day. That's a big lie upon the noble Prophet, salallahu alayhi wa ahli. Kindly explain how such feat is Islamically, physically, morally possible?!

AlBaqir:


@bold, thank God that's your opinion now contrary to what you copied and pasted where you intend to manipulate the meaning. The same word is yet used in another hadith:

Mahmud – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – Ibn Tawus – his father – Abu Hurayrah:

Sulayman b. Dawud, peace be upon them both, said: “Tonight, I will go around (لأطوفن ) to ONE HUNDRED WOMEN. Each woman will give birth to a boy who will fight in the Cause of Allah.” The angel said to him: “Say ‘insha Allah.’” But, he did not say it, and he was caused to forget. Then, he went round to them, and none of them gave birth to a child except one woman, who gave birth to a malformed child.

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “If he had said ‘insha Allah,’ he would not have broken his oath, and that would have been a means of attaining what he hoped for.”
http://islamport.com/d/1/mtn/1/76/2810.html

Now that you have stylishly agreed that the word means "having sexual intercourse", then we can proceed unless you want to continue arguing blindly. These enemies you talk about are only judging and hitting hard based on what the likes of infallible Sahih Bukhari document. Imagine, Prophet going round his 9 - 11 wives within an hour. Another hadith says during the night and day. That's a big lie upon the noble Prophet, salallahu alayhi wa ahli. Kindly explain how such feat is Islamically, physically, morally possible?!

LOL! which one is stylishly agreed again?! I had come across this same narration before, and I never had any problems with it. Unfortunately for you, the narration you quoted from Abu Hurayrah does not help you in any way, unless you can fault the narration from Aisha (RA) which gave clarification to the hadith in question. Secondly, the narration (from Abu Hurayrah) clearly explains itself, there was no need to translate or interpret the word used in that context, anyway, I know you just wouldn’t give up, well, I understand your plight though, keep up the efforts, maybe you would find something that would stick…eventually…

To your questions, it’s absolutely irresponsible, although I had given my stand point, you may read my previous posts again. Your question is akin to me asking you to explain how you have conjugal relations with your wife, does such question comes from someone with a right thinking mind?! Is it even Islamic to ask such question in the first place?!

That the enemies of Islam do not have the proper approach, patience and the intellectual capacity to listen/read and comprehend proper Islamic knowledge from Scholars of repute in order to reason objectively about narrations in authentic collections does not require you who claims to be a Muslim, to follow their ignorance hook line and sinker. Does it mean that when they question why the Prophet (SAW) married 11 wives instead of 4, you would also claim it is a lie on the Prophet (SAW), or when they ask you how was it possible for the Prophet (SAW) to travel to Jerusalem and then to the heavens and back in one night, you would also believe it is a lie?! SMH

For your information, Allah (SWT) gave the Prophet (SAW) the special permission to marry more than four, and He (SWT) had given His Prophet (SAW) the wherewithal to handle such number, didn’t Allah (SWT) states in the Qur’an: “

“Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope…” (Q 2:286)

If you have a problem with the translation to mean conjugal relations, then make use of the clarification that had been brought forth, it is quite simple, but I know you are not interested in the truth, and you are hell-bent on attacking Sahih Bukhari, and all other authentic collections of the Sunnis, the reason being that you Shi’as have almost zero standard when it comes to hadith. I pity you actually, when almost all the narrations found in your books are contradictory and contains outrageous fabrications…

AlBaqir:


Imam al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his prestigious fath al-Barr

Shia and their evil manipulations! Agents of shaytan!

I laugh in Swahili @bolded!

Fath al-Barr suddenly becomes PRESTIGIOUS now! When the contents of the same Fath al-Barr that show that shia are on the part of "dolal" are shown to Albaqir and his cohorts, the book becomes the devil's book, according to them!

Silly implacable adversaries of humanity!

Don't bother quoting me ooo! I don't have your time! Otherwise, the thunder that will fire you will do press up 1000 times!

^Sino, you talk too much brother. Answer my question please. How is it practicable for the Prophet to go round his 9 - 11 wives within an hour, a night or day (as per anyone you prefer)?

# There are sexual ethics taught by Nabi Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa ahli least of them is pre-intimacy before sex. How will he manage that - pre-intimacy, sex, satisfaction of the wife etc - with 9 to 11 wives within an hour? Besides, there are enough ahadith which proved that each wife of the Prophet has their own day. Why does this bogus hadith sound as if that's usual practice of our beloved Prophet, salallahu alayhi wa ahli

# Physically, how is it possible?

# Islamic hygiene: Personally I find it difficult to swallow or comprehend how a man will meet the first wife, with that sexual emissions (sweat etc), go into the second wife, and like that till the 9th or 11th. Kindly explain please.

MrOlai:


Fath al-Barr suddenly becomes PRESTIGIOUS now! When the contents of the same Fath al-Barr that show that shia are on the part of "dolal" are shown to Albaqir and his cohorts, the book becomes the devil's book, according to them!

Fath al-Barr fi sharh Sahih Bukhari is your Sunni's property (provided you even count the author as a Sunni). Courtesy demand that I play by Sunni rules hence I used, for example "Imam" for Sunni scholars of Hadith or Tafsir, so the word "prestigious" shouldn't be problem at all.

# MrOlai, when exactly are you going to become a mu'min for you continuously rejecting the order of the Quran. Allah command you to engage with wisdom, good manners and beautiful exhortation. Unfortunately, your brain and tongue are usually controlled by shaitan. And you've once wish death for Shi'a, meaning you can kill. I seek Allah's refuge from Shaitan and his followers among men and jinns.

AlBaqir:

And you've once wish death for Shi'a, meaning you can kill.

I have NEVER wished death for shia and I will NEVER wish death for them. My sincere prayer for them is for Allah(SWT) in His mercy to show them the guidance and light of Islam. They are also human beings!

AlBaqir:
^Sino, you talk too much brother. Answer my question please. How is it practicable for the Prophet to go round his 9 - 11 wives within an hour, a night or day (as per anyone you prefer)?

# There are sexual ethics taught by Nabi Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa ahli least of them is pre-intimacy before sex. How will he manage that - pre-intimacy, sex, satisfaction of the wife etc - with 9 to 11 wives within an hour? Besides, there are enough ahadith which proved that each wife of the Prophet has their own day. Why does this bogus hadith sound as if that's usual practice of our beloved Prophet, salallahu alayhi wa ahli

# Physically, how is it possible?

# Islamic hygiene: Personally I find it difficult to swallow or comprehend how a man will meet the first wife, with that sexual emissions (sweat etc), go into the second wife, and like that till the 9th or 11th. Kindly explain please.

See your problem is how your mind has been indoctrinated to work, you are being redundant, and I can't really help you. If you still hold on to your prejudices, there is nothing that I would write that would convince you. The Prophet (SAW) thought us what was permissible and what was not. You only bring one narration, and with limited information, and voila, you say it is a lie, Sahih Bukhari is this and that...I brought another contrary view based on another authentic narration which clearly explains another possibility, you ignored it, why?!

Anyways, let me give you another narration to show you that when some orientalists, or some enemies of Islam brings up an issue, if you do not have the time to do proper research and willing to be open minded, then, you should just keep quiet, and face your responsibilities to your Lord, instead of causing problems for yourself and other innocent Muslims...

Ahmad (22742) and Abu Dawood (219) narrated from Abu Raafi‘ that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) went around to all his wives one day and he did ghusl with this one and with that one. I said to him: O Messenger of Allah, why don’t you make it one ghusl? He said: “This is cleaner and better and purer.” Classed as hasan by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) in Mishkaat al-Masaabeeh (no. 470).

I have said before that narrations are not taken in isolation to form conclusions, that is why Allah (SWT) states in the Qur'an that you ask those who are in the Know, you don't just come on air, or on the internet, and pick one hadith at random and start creating problems, it shows you are lacking in proper Islamic knowledge, these isuues had already been clarified by scholars, once the narration has been proven to be authentic, then if you have problem with it, seek proper knowledge, not coming on the internet with half baked reasoning amplified by prejudice and bias of the sect in which you belong to Mr. AlBaqir!

^The hadith of Anas is said to be more reliable than the one you quoted: http://sunnah.com/abudawud/1
Besides, quoting such hadith is compounding your problem. Who is AbuRaafî to know and understudy the private life of the Prophet to the extent of monitoring his sex life with his 9 - 11 wives? Allah has ordered these Sahabah altogether (in the Quran, surah Ahzab:53) never to enter into Prophet's chamber unless permission is given, and to disperse and avoid loitering around the Prophet's dwelling place after (once they've finished the meal he offer them or met their need).

Now for the sake of argument: How is it possible for the Prophet to go round his 9 - 11 wives performing ghusl intermittently within an hour?! pre-intimacy? Satisfaction (esp of the wife)? Ghusl is how many minute itself X 9 - 10times? All in an hour!

# If it is a whole night or day (as other bogus hadith says), there might be a little mathematical justification yet we ask the question what about his Qiyam Layl which is obligatory upon him, and salawat (5 daily prayers) with other amal and prophetic life activities? Well, same bogus ahadith were attributed to Nabi Sulayman who is alleged to have slept with 60, 80, 100 women in a night without saying in sha Allah. Sometimes you guys loose your senses in a bid to protect sahih Bukhari et al.

My last word with you in sha Allah: The only sensible hadith in this regard is the one that allude to the fact that each wife of the blessed Prophet has her own day.

AlBaqir:
^The hadith of Anas is said to be more reliable than the one you quoted: http://sunnah.com/abudawud/1
Besides, quoting such hadith is compounding your problem. Who is AbuRaafî to know and understudy the private life of the Prophet to the extent of monitoring his sex life with his 9 - 11 wives? Allah has ordered these Sahabah altogether (in the Quran, surah Ahzab:53) never to enter into Prophet's chamber unless permission is given, and to disperse and avoid loitering around the Prophet's dwelling place after (once they've finished the meal he offer them or met their need).

Now for the sake of argument: How is it possible for the Prophet to go round his 9 - 11 wives performing ghusl intermittently within an hour?! pre-intimacy? Satisfaction (esp of the wife)? Ghusl is how many minute itself X 9 - 10times? All in an hour!

# If it is a whole night or day (as other bogus hadith says), there might be a little mathematical justification yet we ask the question what about his Qiyam Layl which is obligatory upon him, and salawat (5 daily prayers) with other amal and prophetic life activities? Well, same bogus ahadith were attributed to Nabi Sulayman who is alleged to have slept with 60, 80, 100 women in a night without saying in sha Allah. Sometimes you guys loose your senses in a bid to protect sahih Bukhari et al.

My last word with you in sha Allah: The only sensible hadith in this regard is the one that allude to the fact that each wife of the blessed Prophet has her own day.

You see, when I advised you to go rather busy yourself with activities that would please Allah (SWT) or go and seek proper knowledge and jettison this closed mindedness of yours, it would seem like I talk too much…

You asked me who is Abu Raaf’(RA) to know about the sex life of the Prophet (SAW)?! I should ask you also who is Anas (RA) to know about the strength of the Prophet (SAW) regarding his conjugal relation with his wives. A simple google search would have helped your ignorance, both are slaves of the Prophet (SAW), and were subsequently freed, in fact according to your Shi’ah, he is reliable see: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Rafi'

Anyways, both Anas, and Abu Raafi’ cannot know more than the wife/wives of the Prophet (SAW), they would only see him enter his wives rooms and see him when he goes for ghusl, the only person that can give an accurate account of what usually transpires when the Prophet (SAW) visits his wives, is Aisha (RA) or any other of his wives (RA). I had presented an authentic narration from her, clarifying the whole issue, but since accepting that narration would make your conjectures, assumptions and suppositions fall flat, you kept ignoring it, holding on to the narration which apparently is not detailed enough to pass judgment on its authenticity, but I am not surprised, after all you are a Shi’ah …

Scholars had gone through these narrations to come about rulings that are essential for the Muslim Ummah through the process of ijtihad, those who are fixated on the frequency and the time which is required for the Prophet (SAW) to have conjugal relations with his lawful wives are majorly the ignorant, and the enemies of the deen.

And I truly hope the above is your last word

sino:


You asked me who is Abu Raaf’(RA) to know about the sex life of the Prophet (SAW)?! I should ask you also who is Anas (RA) to know about the strength of the Prophet (SAW) regarding his conjugal relation with his wives. A simple google search would have helped your ignorance, both are slaves of the Prophet (SAW), and were subsequently freed, in fact according to your Shi’ah, he is reliable see: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Rafi'

Subhan'Allah! Since when did the Prophet freed Abu Raafi and got him married where he lived his independent life with his family? Since when brother? That was after the battle of Badr (2nd year Hijrah) when Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib embraced Islam, and our Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli, married his 9th - 11th wives few months to his death in the 10th year Hijrah. How was it possible for a freed, independent man of Abu Raafi to know the core sex life of the Prophet with his 11 wives? Provide a single narration in a sirah that Abu Raafi was living in Prophet's close quarter from time of his marriage till Prophet's death. Just one.

http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=123&idto=123&bk_no=60&ID=103

It is very important that people be very careful believing and accepting any form of criticism/opinion/information from a Shi’ah, hypocrisy seems to be their second nature…Perhaps AlBaqir may explain these below SAHIH narrations from the infallible Imams, and please quote your scholars or other narrations that supports your opinion…

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Hisham ibn Salim who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah(as) said:.. At dawn Jibril descended with a dish of mashed meat and wheat from paradise and said, ‘O Muhammad, this is made for you by al-Hur al-‘In. You can eat it with Ali and his children; it is not proper that people other than you eat it.’ The Messenger of Allah, Ali, Fatimah, al-Hassan and al-Husayn ate it (the food that Jibril had brought from paradise) and[b] it gave the Messenger of Allah the ability in matters of going to bed with his wives which was equal to that of forty men, thus he (the Messenger of Allah) could go to bed with all of his wives in one night if he so wanted.’”[/b]( Al-Kafi: H 10221, Ch. 190, h 41 ; Majlisi said: Sahih in Miraat ul Uqool 20/422)

We read in Al-Kafi

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Khalid from his father or others from Sa‘d ibn s; from al-Hassan ibn Jahm who has said the following: “I once saw Abu al-Hassan(as) had used dye. I said, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I can see you have used dyes.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Yes, readiness is of the matters that increases chastity of women and women neglect chastity because of their husband’s neglect of readiness.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘Will you be happy to see her without readiness?’ I replied, ‘No, it does not make me happy.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘In the same way it will not make her happy to see you without readiness.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘It is of the moral behavior of the prophets to maintain cleanliness, use perfumes, shave the hairs and going to bed with one’s wife very often.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘Sulayman ibn Dawud(as) had one thousand women in one palace of whom three hundred were publicly known and seven hundred of them were secretly married. The Messenger of Allah(saw), had the ability equal to forty men of going to bed with his wives, he(the Messenger of Allah) had nine wives and moved among them every night and day.’”[Al Kafi: H 10230, Ch. 190, h 50]


We read in a tradition with a SAHIH chain from Imam Baqir(as) in Shia book Hayat-ul-Qaloob:

Imam Baqir(as) said: Prophet Sulayman(as) had a fort, having 1000 rooms made by Jinns for him, and in every room one of his wife used to live. From these 300 were his wives and 700 were concubines. Allah gave him the sexual strength of 40 men. He used to daily visit all of his women and used fulfill their desires.(Majlisi declared chain as Sahih, Hayat-ul-Qaloob vol 1, p. 644) .

Source: twelvershia forum

I await your denials AlBaqir, tell us how the above narrations are fabricated, and how a scholar of hadith like Majilisi couldn't decipher these kinds of fabrications (was he that ignorant and you so knowledgeable?), I hope he wasn't influenced by the Ahl Sunnah or worse, the Salafis/Wahabis!

^^ That guy is really a munafiq

sino:
It is very important that people be very careful believing and accepting any form of criticism/opinion/information from a Shi’ah, hypocrisy seems to be their second nature…Perhaps AlBaqir may explain these below SAHIH narrations from the infallible Imams, and please quote your scholars or other narrations that supports your opinion…

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Hisham ibn Salim who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah(as) said:.. At dawn Jibril descended with a dish of mashed meat and wheat from paradise and said, ‘O Muhammad, this is made for you by al-Hur al-‘In. You can eat it with Ali and his children; it is not proper that people other than you eat it.’ The Messenger of Allah, Ali, Fatimah, al-Hassan and al-Husayn ate it (the food that Jibril had brought from paradise) and[b] it gave the Messenger of Allah the ability in matters of going to bed with his wives which was equal to that of forty men, thus he (the Messenger of Allah) could go to bed with all of his wives in one night if he so wanted.’”[/b]( Al-Kafi: H 10221, Ch. 190, h 41 ; Majlisi said: Sahih in Miraat ul Uqool 20/422)

We read in Al-Kafi

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Khalid from his father or others from Sa‘d ibn s; from al-Hassan ibn Jahm who has said the following: “I once saw Abu al-Hassan(as) had used dye. I said, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I can see you have used dyes.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Yes, readiness is of the matters that increases chastity of women and women neglect chastity because of their husband’s neglect of readiness.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘Will you be happy to see her without readiness?’ I replied, ‘No, it does not make me happy.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘In the same way it will not make her happy to see you without readiness.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘It is of the moral behavior of the prophets to maintain cleanliness, use perfumes, shave the hairs and going to bed with one’s wife very often.’ He (the Imam) then said, ‘Sulayman ibn Dawud(as) had one thousand women in one palace of whom three hundred were publicly known and seven hundred of them were secretly married. The Messenger of Allah(saw), had the ability equal to forty men of going to bed with his wives, he(the Messenger of Allah) had nine wives and moved among them every night and day.’”[Al Kafi: H 10230, Ch. 190, h 50]

We read in a tradition with a SAHIH chain from Imam Baqir(as) in Shia book Hayat-ul-Qaloob:

Imam Baqir(as) said: Prophet Sulayman(as) had a fort, having 1000 rooms made by Jinns for him, and in every room one of his wife used to live. From these 300 were his wives and 700 were concubines. Allah gave him the sexual strength of 40 men. He used to daily visit all of his women and used fulfill their desires.(Majlisi declared chain as Sahih, Hayat-ul-Qaloob vol 1, p. 644) .

Source: twelvershia forum

First, thanks for bringing those ahadith. In sha Allah they will help a lot in setting my records straight once again on Nairaland though you always pretend not to know it.

Second, the hadith is plentiful in al-Kaafi. Unfortunately ONLY ONE has a sahih chain unlike others with Da'if chains. This narrow the hadith to a "solitary hadith".

Third, the hadith as recorded in Hayatul Qulub of Allamah al-Majlisi does not have any chain so I wonder where "sahih chain" is found in the website you copy pasted from. Obviously you never had opportunity to check yourself. That's desperation and a ploy to mislead.
Hayatul Qulub is a very fine book about the life of the Prophet. However most of the ahadith in it are not graded. That's why Mir'atul Uqul of Allamah Majlisi (same author) is the best in grading ahadith in al-Kaafi. More so, the matn of that hadith (about Nabi Sulaiman) is worse than that of our Nabi.

NOW TO THE SOLITARY HADITH
Even though the hadith has a sahih chain, its matn (content) is da'if. As such, the hadith is da'if. One of the ahadith says that the Prophet used to have sex with his wives every day and every night. That's clearly falsehood.

There are mutawatir ahadith about the worship of the Prophet, in the day and in the night especially. In sha Allah, soon I will post some of those ahadith.

Secondly, the only hadith with a sahih chain in the list (the one from al-Kafi) uses the word غسي others which have Da'if chains use the word يطوف . Both may mean "sex" or "visit" depending on the context it is used. However it means sex in the ahadith.

The fact that Imam 'Ali, Sayyidah Fatimah, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn also ate what the Prophet ate (according to that hadith), and did not become sex machines, also reveals another inconsistency in the text of the hadith.

It is a solitary report. The other reports have da'if chains. It contradicts the Qur'an and mutawatir Shi'a hadiths. In the Shi'a manhaj, any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an, or contradicts any mutawatir hadith, is a fabrication (no matter its sanad).

Note: This is also my stand to your Sahih Bukhari's ahadith, and I clearly stated this on another thread: In line with Sunni Rijali rules, all the ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari are authentic ONLY in their chain but not in matn. Many have worse matn.

sino:

I await your denials AlBaqir, tell us how the above narrations are fabricated, and how a scholar of hadith like Majilisi couldn't decipher these kinds of fabrications (was he that ignorant and you so knowledgeable?), I hope he wasn't influenced by the Ahl Sunnah or worse, the Salafis/Wahabis!

Allamah al-Albani following the footstep of al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani criticized some ahadith in sahih al-Bukhari (based on their bogus matn). Some Ahlu Sunnah scholars asked for his (Albani's) head. The fact that Allamah Majlisi graded the hadith Sahih doesn't mean both its Sanad and Matn are automatically Sahih. There are some ahadith with weak chain but authentic content, and vice versa. Both schools have lots in common in this sense.



Note: Allamah Majlisi (rahimahullah alayhi) was not infallible sheik, his prestigious works are not either. Other scholars in the field of hadith sciences like Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Khoei (just like Allamah Albani) have re-graded some previously graded ahadith by previous scholars with explanations where necessary. [b]I brought this in order to clear your fantasy @underline.

Lastly, though I am far from being a scholar but I believe so much in individual research.

Wa Salam alaykum sir

.

^ #In addition, Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala commanded His servant Muhammad salallahu alayhi wa ahli, in an earliest Makkan surah to always stand up for Tahajjud: 1/2 or 2/3 of the night.

# Umm al-mu'mini Aisha described her husband's mode of Qiyam Layl to be the hardest whereby one day he stood so much and so long that his feet swelled.

# Umm al-mu'minin Aisha also uncovered the secrecy of her husband's devotion that one night during her night turn, she was expecting the Prophet and when he finally entered, Prophet carefully slept at one corner and thinking that Aisha had slept, he gently got up, wear his shoes and got out. Aisha revealed she followed the Prophet thinking he had gone to meet another woman. But to her surprise, Prophet headed to the burial ground where he stood so very long praying for the deads.

# Abdullah ibn Abbas, who had the opportunity to be in the vicinity of his uncle the Prophet also witnessed and described Nabi's Qiyam layl: Abdullah ibn Abbas reported he slept beside the Prophet one night whereby the Prophet stood up prayed, went back to sleep, after sometimes, he stood to pray again and went back to bed, after sometimes again, stood to pray and later went back to sleep etc.

# During the day, his extraordinary activities increases being the head of state. These are mutawattir ahadith.

Sino, in these situations how is it possible for Nabi having sex every nights and days with nine to eleven wives? This is unfair to Nabi, wallahi. Like I argued with you before, the only reasonable hadith in this situation are the ahadith from the wives themselves revealing each wife has her own night/turn where Nabi used to spend with her, and even this does not affect his usual worship at night.

AlBaqir:


First, thanks for bringing those ahadith. In sha Allah they will help a lot in setting my records straight once again on Nairaland though you always pretend not to know it.

Second, the hadith is plentiful in al-Kaafi. Unfortunately ONLY ONE has a sahih chain unlike others with Da'if chains. This narrow the hadith to a "solitary hadith".

Third, the hadith as recorded in Hayatul Qulub of Allamah al-Majlisi does not have any chain so I wonder where "sahih chain" is found in the website you copy pasted from. Obviously you never had opportunity to check yourself. That's desperation and a ploy to mislead.
Hayatul Qulub is a very fine book about the life of the Prophet. However most of the ahadith in it are not graded. That's why Mir'atul Uqul of Allamah Majlisi (same author) is the best in grading ahadith in al-Kaafi. More so, the matn of that hadith (about Nabi Sulaiman) is worse than that of our Nabi.

NOW TO THE SOLITARY HADITH
Even though the hadith has a sahih chain, its matn (content) is da'if. As such, the hadith is da'if. One of the ahadith says that the Prophet used to have sex with his wives every day and every night. That's clearly falsehood.

There are mutawatir ahadith about the worship of the Prophet, in the day and in the night especially. In sha Allah, soon I will post some of those ahadith.

Secondly, the only hadith with a sahih chain in the list (the one from al-Kafi) uses the word غسي others which have Da'if chains use the word يطوف . Both may mean "sex" or "visit" depending on the context it is used. However it means sex in the ahadith.

The fact that Imam 'Ali, Sayyidah Fatimah, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn also ate what the Prophet ate (according to that hadith), and did not become sex machines, also reveals another inconsistency in the text of the hadith.

It is a solitary report. The other reports have da'if chains. It contradicts the Qur'an and mutawatir Shi'a hadiths. In the Shi'a manhaj, any hadith that contradicts the Qur'an, or contradicts any mutawatir hadith, is a fabrication (no matter its sanad).

Note: This is also my stand to your Sahih Bukhari's ahadith, and I clearly stated this on another thread: In line with Sunni Rijali rules, all the ahadith in Sahih al-Bukhari are authentic ONLY in their chain but not in matn. Many have worse matn.





Allamah al-Albani following the footstep of al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani criticized some ahadith in sahih al-Bukhari (based on their bogus matn). Some Ahlu Sunnah scholars asked for his (Albani's) head. The fact that Allamah Majlisi graded the hadith Sahih doesn't mean both its Sanad and Matn are automatically Sahih. There are some ahadith with weak chain but authentic content, and vice versa. Both schools have lots in common in this sense.



Note: Allamah Majlisi (rahimahullah alayhi) was not infallible sheik, his prestigious works are not either. Other scholars in the field of hadith sciences like Ayatullah Abul Qassim al-Khoei (just like Allamah Albani) have re-graded some previously graded ahadith by previous scholars with explanations where necessary. [b]I brought this in order to clear your fantasy @underline.

Lastly, though I am far from being a scholar but I believe so much in individual research.

Wa Salam alaykum sir

Mr AlBaqir, indeed the narrations I presented above are fabricated (from the chain to the content), so also many more found in one of you people’s most reliable work called Al-Kafi…I had advised you previously to engage in proper research on your sect’s books to enable you help the ignorant among your sect, including yourself…Anyways, my question is, since you are deficient yourself with regards to knowledge, please quote your scholars who had addressed these narrations before, stating that they are weak or fabricated based on the matn, or none of your scholars talked about these narrations? And after that, please who are the culprits, since you easily accuse a sahabah, Abu Hurairah (RA) for fabricating narrations found in sahih Bukhari, so who is/are responsible for the fabrications of this kind of PLENTIFUL narrations in Al-Kafi?! And by the way, this methodology of yours is quite new I believe, because your earlier scholars believed that the narrations in Al-Kafi are all sahih and should be relied upon regardless of the chain and whoever and whatever it contains. Were these scholars misguided? How could they not have known this very important methodology in which you are presently using to fault the narrations in which they believed were authentic from the mouths of the infallible Imams?! What form of Islam were these scholars and the people of that time practicing prior to this epiphany of some sort among you guys of recent? I need evidences from an authority not your opinions…

Mind you, we have an excellent science of hadith, a procedure in authenticating narrations which had always been consistent since its introduction during the time of the companions of the Prophet themselves. The narration in sahih Bukhari in question is authentic, and proper explanation has been brought forth already no need going back and forth on it.

hajlat:
Bismillah Rahman Raheem. Allahumma soli ala Seyyidina Muhammad wa ala alihi wa as haabihi waselim tesliiman.
Brothers and sisters in Islam, why are we insulting each other over an issue that can be solved brotherly using the examples laid down by the prophet SAW.
If any of you Islamic scholars believed that Mudeerul Markaz Agege, has erred in his teachings, nothing stops you in putting it into writing and send it to him and wait for his defense.
I was present at the venue and what I picked from his teachings was that whatever that is detrimental to the personality of the Prophet SAW is not acceptable no matter who wrote such and since such things were found in sahih Bukhari, the authenticity should be queried.
Mudeerul Markaz SHEIKH Habeebullah ADAM Abdullah al Ilory did not abuse IMAM BUKHARI, what he said was that the SAHIH BUKHARI we have with us has been adulterated and he proved it. If any scbolar has a different opinion let him compile his and let the Islamic world look into it.
Another point he raised was that the manuscript of Imam BUKHARI is missing. Where is the manuscript used in printing the present day SAHIH BUKHARI In circulation? Some people came into Islam during that time with the intention of adulterating the Islamic religion by inserting alien things Into the Qur'an, and when they failed they came in through the Hadith.
Those of you commenting without being there or don't have the opportunity of viewing the whole videos ( not one or two ) should please desist from hearsay.
I am a Muslim, not an Islamic scholar but I have an open mind to anything.
Readers let me tell you, all these so called Islamic scholars knew what Mudeer is driving at but they are covering it from you and me because they think the enemies of Islam can catch in there forgetting that there are some non Muslims that speaks Arabic fluently and they knew all these facts because it's the input of their stooge and they are using it among themselves to preach against Islam. Imagine a Hadith saying the Prophet SAW enters the rooms of all his 11 wives every night and that He has the power of 30 men.
Markaz has promised to upload the videos on YouTube.
Rabbi zidni ilman wal amal bihi. Am in

Well Said JazakaAllahu Khayran. This is what I was trying to tell lexiconkabir. The problem is, DOGMATISM. Some of us Muslims think that if past scholars, as learned as they were did not criticize Sahih Hadith or simply hadith, who is us muslims in 21st century to point out problems?. That's what some of our brothers think. This is very wrong.

I also notice that some muslims who criticize Mudir dont even know how to listen to him properly. I spot that actually. Sheik Ilory does raised valid points. I have said it here several times that no book on earth is 100% apart from Quran but some brothers keep elevating Sahih Bukhari as if Rasulullah(SAW) signed it off. Sheik Ilory played Sheik Albani's tape in his Ramadan lecture where Sheik Albani said that,



anytime we read any book other than Quran, we must know hat the book is bound to have error



He played it live for audience to hear. I am personally still investigating some stuff. The reason i became suspicious of Sahih Bukhari collections is bcus, for instance, some forms of dhikr practiced by Sufi recorded in other Kitab like Sunan Abu Dawood, Muwatta Malik etc are expunged from Sahih Bukhari. This is not to mean we condemn Imam Bukhari(RTA). That's not the point. I grew suspicion late 2014 in a thread opened by tbaba. I see clearly some texts are missing from it.


However, I definitely dont agree with everything Sheik ilory is saying. I disagree with his stands on The Return Of Isa(AS), hadith about Safiyyah, hadith on killing people who dont say Shahada etc. I believe the Sheik decontextualized those ahadith. I also believe that both sides are playing emotional gymnastic on their listening audience.

Whether these brothers like it or not, there are silly stuff in Sahih Bukhari collection that go against Quran and dent the image of Rasulullah(SAW). Like you rightly said, there are bunch of non muslims trained to speak arabic and they used it against muslims. This is why some muslim renounced islam bcus they never heard of it. Then, again, they left islam out of their own stupidity bcus those nonsense simply have nothing to do with FAITH. They missed that.


This is why when there is debate btw sections of muslims, those who cry "National Anthem" i:e Kitab and Sunnah, used Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari. Other parties use Qur'an, and other Kitab Sittah etc. I found out about this when i was listening to Sheik Akindele's lecture sometimes last year. He said,



"We called them to debate and they must present verified and authentic sources Quran and Sahih Bukhari and Muslim but they came with strange books not recognized"



He mentioned those books which are infact recognized by muslims. Point is, they have elevated Sahih Bukhari to the point where, if you debate then and quote from other sources, it would be easy for them to say "Daif, fabricated etc.

Let me repeat myself, I do not agree with what Mudir Murkaz is doing 100%. I believe there are some ahadith he simply doesn't understand. And i think he needs to open Q&A section for his audience to test their thinking faculty. They should not just hail him for whatever he says that makes sense to them.


That's how you test good students.

lexiconkabir:
He has already been replied on the alleged rape issue, if you are a yoruba speaker, download the refutation HERE

I listened to this lectures. He tried to refute Mudir on Saffiya and I commend that. However, this Sheik Jabata is also potential literalist. Was just shaking my head as he speaks on duas even though he makes few points. It is funny when he claims Jinn gives Sheik Akindele dua and he compared that to Jinn of the time of Nabi Sulaiman. Unfortunately, that was a different case.

^^^ See Empiree, it is not about elevating Sahih Bukhari to the Qur'an, but rather it is the wrong approach in criticism especially with regards to Islamic scholarship. Islamic knowledge has rules and regulations as all other forms of knowledge, you wouldn't accept the criticism of a book written by a Professor of Medicine by a secondary school science student, that is not proper, on what basis would the student stand such criticism?!

You also do not make baseless accusations in which you cannot back up with facts, that is not acceptable anywhere. The Prophet (SAW) had given us proper guidance on issues we have doubts on, leave it, you need not start spreading information that at the long run may become harmful to the religion. Leave the academic research to those who have been trained to do so. For example, How can one who says he believes in individual research on Islamic issue, and he only base is research on English translations, would such research be comprehensive?! Or he who neglects other narrations, and scholars of repute from the old to the new, what sort of research is that when you fail to comprehend works of previous scholars on the same issue...

If you want to critic a narration, here are the questions you should answer: Are you an hadith scholar?! If not, then who are the scholars you are referencing who had also critic the said narration? Do you have facts?! On what basis was the criticism on? Have you read the explanations of the said narration?! Have you read other narrations with similar information?! Is your criticism sincere and are you really open-minded?!

If care is not taken, and we just let everyone just jump on a narration and start criticizing without recourse to the proper methodology, it wouldn't be long when some Qur'anic verses would be criticized, under the pretext of "individual research" not to mention that some so called Muslims believe that the Qur'an had been tampered with, and their scholars affirm this and they believe the original Qur'an is in the hands of a strange person in occultation.

This Is The Interview He Played

https://salafiaudio./2013/03/22/was-shaykh-al-albani-the-first-to-classify-some-hadith-in-al-bukhari-as-weak-videoar-en/


Questioner:

O our Shaykh the question is; was the Shaykh preceded by anyone in declaring some Hadith in Sahih Bukhari to be weak and collecting them in a book. And if this has occurred were you preceded by some of the scholars in that? We would appreciate references may Allah reward you with good.

Shaykh Al Albani:

Define the demonstrative, “in that”; in what? Because your question contains two things. Have you been preceded in classifying some Hadith in Bukhari as weak and did you collect this in a book? So in your question, “have I been preceded in that”, what do you mean? Have I been preceded in classifying some Hadith in Bukhari as weak or have I been preceded in authoring a book containing these weak Hadith?

Questioner: Both

Shaykh Albani:

(Laughs) Both? As for if I was preceded in classifying some Hadith found in Bukhari as weak then this is a reality which is obligatory to acknowledge and it is not permissible to deny it; and there are numerous reasons for this.

First of all; all the Muslims whether they are from the scholars, the students of knowledge or the ignorant Muslims; they are all in agreement that there is no one who is infallible in this religion except the Messenger of Allah peace and blessings are upon him.

And from this we also understand another undeniable conclusion and that is, any book that crosses the mind of a Muslim, or any book title that he hears of, even before he reads the manuscript, it is incumbent that he must have firmly established in his mind that this book will surely contain some errors in it. Because the aforementioned belief states that no one will obtain infallibility except for the Messenger of Allah peace and blessing are upon him.


https://primaquran./2016/02/11/salafi-shaykh-al-abani-admits-of-course-bukhari-has-weak-hadith-and-mistakes/

sino:
^^^ See Empiree, it is not about elevating Sahih Bukhari to the Qur'an, but rather it is the wrong approach in criticism especially with regards to Islamic scholarship. Islamic knowledge has rules and regulations as all other forms of knowledge, you wouldn't accept the criticism of a book written by a Professor of Medicine by a secondary school science student, that is not proper, on what basis would the student stand such criticism?!

I perfectly understood this. This is why it is also wrong to simply conclude as Newnas did that Sahih Bukhari is 100% and even trying to stick to that. This brings question if there is difference btw this and Shi'a's creed on their "infallible 12 Imam". I know there is procedure and standard on Islamic Knowledge

If you want to critic a narration, here are the questions you should answer: Are you an hadith scholar?! If not, then who are the scholars you are referencing who had also critic the said narration? Do you have facts?! On what basis was the criticism on? Have you read the explanations of the said narration?! Have you read other narrations with similar information?! Is your criticism sincere and are you really open-minded?!

Exactly my point. Everyone seems to be partisan these days. You can spot that here on NL. I have said repeatedly here that some muslims would not accept opinion of other scholars who are not known to have studied in Saudi universities. I have also said repeatedly here that knowledge of Islam is NOT restricted to the Kingdom of Arabia. They only famous by virtues of Makkah and Medinah. Yes, i appreciate their struggles for Islam but it is very wrong to shun other scholars outside of Arabia. This was the Khutba two days ago. The locals do not appreciate their scholars at all. They dont want to fund research projects by their scholars. But when a scholar or simply alim is invited from Saudi or it environs, they feel good like "here comes knowledge". This is trending attitude online and offline now.

Far as me, I don't just post criticism of any hadith. Matter of fact, i believe i defend ahadith here than those who claim hadith is 100% accurate. I usually dont see them defend any except to say "he is Shia, misguided shaytan". "He is sufi deviant innovator". Bla bla bla. I don't learn anything like that. My point is, it is not enough to say scholars don't have problem with certain hadith. They have gone and we must continue where they stopped. Challenges and new challenges will evolve and we MUST confront them. Confronting these challenges require researching old scholars (not doubt). Edit their works and input our research rather than just copying and pasting and recycling everything over. Sick of that!


When i said i reseach too, say for instance non-muslims quote controversial ahadith, if i dont understand them, i simply run a quick research bcus i know there is possibility it was already refuted. I sometimes edit their works and insert mine. In that case it is not appropriate for me to post the link since i edited their works. Sometimes, i simply search wide scholarly opinion and conclude. There is no way those scholars could be perfect. That's why i believe a hadith Allah will rectify religion every 100 years


إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily Allah sends to this Ummah at the head of every one hundred years someone who will renew the Deen for her”.

Related by Abu Daawood (4291) and was verified as Saheeh by As-Sakhaawiy in ‘Al-Maqqsid Al-Hasanah’ (149) and Al-Albaaniy in ‘As-Silsilah As-Saheehah’ (599).


I understand what you saying generally. This is why i do not agree with Sheik Ilory all the time as well in some of his criticisms. There is NO WAY we could erase unflinching efforts of these men who have gone by bcus without them, we are nothing. Criticisms of any hadith should be done by scholars not by every Tom, Dick and Harry. It is also wrong to say everything they did was perfect.

If care is not taken, and we just let everyone just jump on a narration and start criticizing without recourse to the proper methodology, it wouldn't be long when some Qur'anic verses would be criticized, under the pretext of "individual research" not to mention that some so called Muslims believe that the Qur'an had been tampered with, and their scholars affirm this and they believe the original Qur'an is in the hands of a strange person in occultation.

I know. I have raised this issue with Baqir about Sheik Habib and he understands. I am not gonna just criticize hadith without recourse. Pay attention @underlined, i think this is part of mistake of the past Ulama if you take the issue of Rajm as a case study. Some scholars have argued that it is like stabbing Qur'an in the back by saying verse of Rajm USED to be in the Qur'an. And these scholars are not even based in the West, otherwise some would have said they are trying to please kufar is the reason they said that. That issue needs review. By saying verse of Rajm USED to be in the Qur'an is tantamount to what Sunni criticized Shia of - that "Qur'an in incomplete". Correct me if I am wrong.



I said before that Sheik Ilori and his supporters vs 'salafis' who criticized him should have national televised debates and sort these issues out. Otherwise, if we keep quiet on these issues, in the name of Sahih hadith is perfect, or because we don't want to criticize Hadith collections, we will continue to have these munafiqs who embraced islam for this reason, studied arabic and islamic sirat and then deliberately apostatize to create confusion. This is the case of nincompoop who called himself "converted2islam". He is now using those ahadith and silly narrations to confuse people.

Let me repeat this. It is unwise for many brothers here to simply marginalize Albaqir etc solely bcus he is a Shia. I have notice that. Do you brothers think he doesn't make any point?. I swear he does. I just don't want to involve sometimes. His approach to argument is scholarly - little it may be compared to others who simply cancel him out in one sentence based on faction. I don't learn like that. This Is why i don't support any sects. Allah does not recognise these sects at all. I can only be dogmatic on obligatory Rituals and UNIVERSALLY accepted SUNNAH. Anything else is debateable with wisdom.


As always, Rasulullah (Sallalahu Alaiy wasalam) says to follow his Sunnah and Sunnah of his Rashidun. He didnt say to follow Bukhari. Sunnah is spread in all Kitab Sittah and also committed to memory. I dont have problems with Bukhari collections. I only have problems when some say it is 100% and are not ready for different opinion. They say if you want to debate islam, ONLY Quran and Sahih Bukhari and perhaps, Muslim are the only welcomed sources. Anything else is Daif and fabricated. This is trending ideology now.



Finally, believe it or not, there is nothing they can do with Qur'an. Even a Quraniyoon we have here is not drunk to the point of criticizing Qur'an. So dont fear that at all. I guarantee you they cant criticize Qur'an even the worst deviant people have not done that. It would have been obvious by now if that was to be the case.

Empiree:
I perfectly understood this. This is why it is also wrong to simply conclude as Newnas did that Sahih Bukhari is 100% and even trying to stick to that. This brings question the difference btw that and Shi'a's creed on their "infallible 12 Imam". I know there is procedure and standard on Islamic Knowledge






Exactly my point. Everyone seems to be partisan these days. You can spot that here on NL. I have said repeatedly here that some muslims would not accept opinion of other scholars who are not known to have studied in Saudi universities. I have also said repeatedly here that knowledge of Islam is NOT restricted to the Kingdom of Arabia. They only famous by virtues of Makkah and Medinah. Yes, i appreciate their struggles for Islam but it is very wrong to shun other scholars outside of Arabia. This was the Khutba two days ago. The locals do not appreciate their scholars at all. They dont want to fund research projects with their scholars. But when a scholar or simply alim is invited from Saudi or it environs, they feel good like "here comes knowledge". This is trending attitude online and offline now.

We all have the tendencies to be partisan, that is where sincerity is very important. But you can't blame the people, Allah (SWT) has blessed the two cities, and definitely, such blessings would be upon the inhabitants and the products of these two holy cities be he a scholar or not. These two holy cities are beloved to the Prophet (SAW), as Muslims, you love what the Prophet (SAW) loves, and you cannot help but love those who uphold the teachings of Islam from these two holy cities, it is the way it is bro, you cannot change this.

Empiree:

Far as me, I don't just post criticism of any hadith. Matter of of, i believe i defend ahadith here than those who claim hadith is 100% accurate. I usually dont see them defend any except to say "he is Shia, misguided shaytan". "He is sufi deviant innovator". Bla bla bla. I don't learn anything like that. My point is, it is not enough to say scholars don't have problem with certain hadith. They have gone and we must continue where they stopped. Challenges and new challenges will evolve and we MUST confront them. Confronting these challenges require researching old scholars (not doubt). Edit their works and input our research rather than just copying and pasting and recycling everything over. Sick of that!

I do understand your point here, but I am more interested in the qualifications of those who intend to research and edit works of scholars of the past. It shouldn't be just anybody, we need those who have dedicated their life for such endeavor, not a person who has chosen another career path. I must say here that, especially for the shi'a, and some suffi, it is a waste of time and effort responding to them, but I also hold the opinion that responding to such criticism by these people is not to convince them, rather it is to defend the truth and protect the innocent readers.

Empiree:

When i said i reseach too, say for instance non-muslims quote controversial ahadith, if i dont understand them, i simply run a quick research bcus i know there is possibility it was already refuted. I sometimes edit their works and insert mine. In that case it is not appropriate for me to post the link since i edited their works. Sometimes, i simply search wide scholarly opinion and conclude. There is no way those scholars could be perfect. That's why i believe a hadith Allah will rectify religion every 100 years


إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily Allah sends to this Ummah at the head of every one hundred years someone who will renew the Deen for her”.

Related by Abu Daawood (4291) and was verified as Saheeh by As-Sakhaawiy in ‘Al-Maqqsid Al-Hasanah’ (149) and Al-Albaaniy in ‘As-Silsilah As-Saheehah’ (599).

Of course I do not criticize this form of research, it is what I also do sometimes, but to base your research solely on your own understanding of the text, interpreting narrations based on your desires and opinions, then that is ignorance at its peak, there is nothing scholarly about that.

Empiree:

I understand what you saying generally. This is why i do not agree with Sheik Ilory all the time as well in some of his criticisms. There is NO WAY we could erase unflinching efforts of these men who have gone by bcus without them, we are nothing. Criticisms of any hadith should be done by scholars nothing every Tom, Dick and Harry. It is also wrong to say everything they did was perfect.

I agree bro, you know I have defended Sheikh Habib on this same Nairaland, but from what I read, his criticism on some narrations were shallow. He can make mistake so also any other human being.

Empiree:

I know. I have raised this issue with Baqir about Sheik Habib and he understands. I am not gonna just criticize hadith without recourse. Pay attention @underlined, i think this is part of mistake of the past Ulama if you take the issue of Rajm as a case study. Some scholars have argued that it is like stabbing Qur'an in the back by saying verse of Rajm USED tobe in the Qur'an. And these scholars are not even based in the West bcus some would say they trying to please kufar is the reason they say that. That issue need review. By saying verse of Rajm USED to be in the Qur'an is tantamount to what Sunn criticized Shia of that "Qur'an in incomplete". Correct me if I am wrong.

The case of rajm is a case of abrogation, it is never a case of the Qur'an being incomplete as some of the shi'ah scholars believe. The ruling is clear in among the ahlu sunnah, anyone who believes the Qur'an with us is incomplete is a kafir, no excuses are given.

Empiree:

I said before that Sheik Ilori and his supporters vs 'salafis' who criticized him should have national televised debates and sort these issues out. Otherwise, if we keep quiet on these issues, in the name of Sahih hadith is perfect, or because we don't want to criticize Hadith collections, we will continue to have these munafiqs who embraced islam for this reason, studied arabic and islamic sirat and then deliberately apostatize to create confusion. This is the case of nincompoop who called himself "converted2islam". He is now using those ahadith and silly narrations to confuse people.

There shouldn't even be a need for a debate, just clarify issues and no need of attacking his personality. To my knowledge, scholars didn't keep quiet, although some attacked Sheikh Habib personally, but some also clarified issues. Even on facebook, there were rebuttals and refutations flying around.

Empiree:

Let me repeat this. It is unwise for many brothers here to simply marginalize Albaqir etc solely bcus he is Shia. I have notice that. Do you brothers think he doesn't make any point?. I swear he does. I just don't want to involve sometimes. His approach to argument is scholarly - little it may be compared to others who simply cancel him out in one sentence based on faction. I don't learn like that. This Is why i don't support any sects. Allah does not recognise these sects at all. I can only be dogmatic on obligatory Rituals and UNIVERSALLY accepted SUNNAH. Anything else is debateable with wisdom.

It is each and everyone's prerogative to do and respond as they wish, and truly, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. AlBaqir and his cohorts are just trying their best to spread their sect, and their major MO is to find ways to discredit and undermine the Sunnis, so if he comes with his epistles (which are also copy and paste by the way), indeed he may have some few points, but at the end of the day, what he calls to which is shi'ism is no way outstanding, their books of hadith are filled with lies and fairy tales not to mention some strange beliefs that are alien to Islam. But you wouldn't know these facts, because they keep on bombarding you with narrations from the Sunni claiming it supports their beliefs...so if anyone ignores their arguments, you should know they have had enough of their deceits...

Empiree:

As always, Rasulullah says to follow his Sunnah and Sunnah of his Rashidun. He didnt say to follow Bukhari. Sunnah is spread in all Kitab Sittah and also committed to memory. I dont have problems with Bukhari collections. I only have problems when some say it is 100% and are not ready for different opinion. They say if you want to debate islam, ONLY Quran and Sahih Bukhari and perhaps, Muslim are the only welcomed sources. Anything else is Daif and fabricated. This is trending ideology now.

Bukhari is just a collection of hadith, it is a secondary source of Islamic teachings, let the scholars do the grading and the explanation of the sunnah therein, although I have not come across those who hold that opinion of only sahih Bukhari and Muslim.

Empiree:

Finally, believe it or not, there is nothing they can do with Qur'an. Even a Quraniyoon we have here is not drunk to the point of criticizing Qur'an. So dont fear that at all. I guarantee you they cant criticize Qur'an even the worst deviant people have not done that. It would have been obvious by now if that was to be the case.

Brother, indeed Allah (SWT) had promised to safeguard the Qur'an from corruption, but not criticism, even from the time of the Prophet (SAW), the Qur'an was criticized, and people disbelieved in it. Some shi'ah believed it to be incomplete and that the companions tampered with it, some believe the complete Qur'an is with the last Imam who is somewhere in a cave for over 1200 years and still counting.. see : https://www.nairaland.com/3071287/discussing-reality-crisis-between-shia

I can say we are really on the same page base on your reply. I don't have problems with them.

sino:

The case of rajm is a case of abrogation, it is never a case of the Qur'an being incomplete as some of the shi'ah scholars believe. The ruling is clear in among the ahlu sunnah, anyone who believes the Qur'an with us is incomplete is a kafir, no excuses....

But this issue of Rajm, you will really have to write a CONVINCING EPISTLE to get me to believe this again. Yes, I grew up believing in it. I only changed my view in 2010 after some studies. I understand overwhelming scholars of Islam from the time gone by held this view so I can be wrong but i am yet to see anyone to convince me.

Again, I think you wrong about Shia here. They believe in hadd of Rajm as well. I remember demmzy15 opened a thread about it last year and AlBaqir criticized me but he later went off for a month and came back agreeing with me.

He was however sectarian by blaming it on Umar (ra)

I just had similar 2days debate with a brother on YouTube late last week. Rajm issue becomes problematic bcus its so called abrogation and chain doesn't reach the prophet (saw)
It stopped with Umar (ra). That's where I raised eyebrows.

Bcus I disagree, some think I'm pleasing non- Muslims but that's not the case unfortunately. It's just studies.

Forget about criticism of Qur'an. That's never gonna end. Even Qur'aniyun we have here doesn't criticize Qur'an, he only has mind of his own.

Empiree:


Again, I think you wrong about Shia here. They believe in hadd of Rajm as well. I remember demmzy15 opened a thread about it last year and AlBaqir criticized me but he later went off for a month and came back agreeing with me.

He was however sectarian by blaming it on Umar (ra)

Agreed with you that what? I told you my research is inconclusive though my heart doesnt agree with it. Let me be clear please:

# There is nothing like verse of rajm in the Quran

# Whoever says it has been abrogated or erased will show us authentic hadith of what verse replaces it. No verse is erased, abrogated or cause to be forgotten except there is a better or equivalent verse to replace it {Q.2:106}

# Ahadith from both Sunni and Shia sources that talks about ayat rajm being in the Quran are nothing but falsehood.

# With overwhelming mutawattir hadith about the legislation of rajam from both schools, it is safe to conclude that rajam is perhaps Prophetic legislation for unrepentant sinners (adulterer(res)). The difficult conditions attached before punishment can be passed for adultery give room for repentance rather than that no mercy punishment.

# Today many Muslims countries have removed beheading and stoning to death from their sharii law and replaced them with life imprisonment. Quran too is very clear that if those who committed indecent acts repent sincerely and work righteously, they should be left alone.

Allah knows best

Empiree, if AlBaqir is being sidelined it's normal in fact doing otherwise is the abnormal!

He knows -just as I know- that we practice different religions. All his taqiyyah camouflage is crap in my sight.

As for your claim that he makes some points, that doesn't negate his disbelief because the Messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam said about Shaitan the chief of evil: صدق الخبيث

Meaning: The filth said the truth

Empiree:
I perfectly understood this. This is why it is also wrong to simply conclude as Newnas did that Sahih Bukhari is 100% and even trying to stick to that. This brings question if there is difference btw this and Shi'a's creed on their "infallible 12 Imam". I know there is procedure and standard on Islamic Knowledge

Brother, our claim of infallible 12 Imams from the progeny and Ahlul-Bayt of Prophet Muhammad (s) cannot be on par with Sunnis believing in the infallibility of books of hadiths conveyed, compiled and composed by fallible men.

It was the Prophet (s) himself who equated the Quran and his Ahlul-Bayt in Hadith al-Thaqalayn. We did not make that equation. Thus if you believe in the perfection of the Quran, then we must believe also that Allah (swt) perfected the selected/chosen ones of the Ahlul-Bayt to guide us by the Quran. It is common knowledge, even to Sunnis who would superficially deny the superiority of the Ahlul-Bayt, that without contributions of the Imams, particularly Imam Sadeq and Imam Hussein (as), Islamic knowledge would have been lost. Imam Sadeq (as) tutored the imams of the four Sunni schools of thought and Imam Hussein (as) sacrificed himself, his blood, his baby, his family and companions to say NO to Yazeed who was a faajir, kaafir, munafiq, etc. and who wanted to destroy Islam from inside.

Second, in the verse of purification in the Quran (33:33), Allah states that He has purified the Ahlul-Bayt and kept sin away from them. If that isn't infallibility then what is infallibility? Forget about those who insist this verse includes the wives. It doesn't because the actions of Aisha alone in the Battle of Jamal and disregarding the Prophet's advice and the Quran's instruction that she shouldn't leave her house is more than enough to make the point she wasn't sinless or infallible and the verse cannot include her as part of those Allah has kept sim away from; that is even if we are to turn a blind eye on Surat Tahreem which states that her heart swayed from faith.

For the fact that the Prophet (s) in Hadith al-Thaqalain states that the Quran and the Ahlul bayt will never separate till the Day of Judgment is a further indication in our belief that the Imamate of the Ahlul bayt will never end in this world. In another Sahih Hadith we are told by the Prophet that the earth will never be left with a hujjah (proof/prophet/messenger/holy imam chosen by Allah to guide mankind). Also for the fact there is another Hadith in Sahih Muslim among others that the successors of the Prophet Muhammad (s) are 12 in number, we have no doubt that the 12th Imam is still alive. Anyone who doubts this is doubting the truthfulness of the holy Prophet himself and Islam in its entirety.

So please do not equate the 12 holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) with fallible Hadith books of and by fallible men when the Prophet (s) had equated them with the book of Allah (the Quran) which is perfect and free from errors.

In fact, this little explanation is enough to clarify the truth of Islam entirely in the heart of any seeker of truth.

Newnas:
Empir.ee, if AlBaqir is being sidelined it's normal in fact doing otherwise is the abnormal!

He knows -just as I know- that we practice different religions. All his taqiyyah camouflage is crap in my sight.

As for your claim that he makes some points, that doesn't negate his disbelief because the Messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam said about Shaitan the chief of evil: صدق الخبيث

Meaning: The filth said the truth

Even scholars dont believe ALL Shia are mushrik. You better slow down bro. This is not the way to go about differences. But like someone said earlier, it is your prerogative.

AlBaqir:


Agreed with you that what? I told you my research is inconclusive though my heart doesnt agree with it. Let me be clear please:

# There is nothing like verse of rajm in the Quran

# Whoever says it has been abrogated or erased will show us authentic hadith of what verse replaces it. No verse is erased, abrogated or cause to be forgotten except there is a better or equivalent verse to replace it {Q.2:106}

# Ahadith from both Sunni and Shia sources that talks about ayat rajm being in the Quran are nothing but falsehood.

# With overwhelming mutawattir hadith about the legislation of rajam from both schools, it is safe to conclude that rajam is perhaps Prophetic legislation for unrepentant sinners (adulterer(res)). The difficult conditions attached before punishment can be passed for adultery give room for repentance rather than that no mercy punishment.

# Today many Muslims countries have removed beheading and stoning to death from their sharii law and replaced them with life imprisonment. Quran too is very clear that if those who committed indecent acts repent sincerely and work righteously, they should be left alone.

Allah knows best

That you later agreed with me that there is nothing like Rajm as punishment for adultery. Remember the thread?. So we are on the same page here bro.

Newnas:
Empiree, if AlBaqir is being sidelined it's normal in fact doing otherwise is the abnormal!

You see me, you run away like your master, Shaitan. My presence is al-Istiadha wal Basmala.

Newnas:

He knows -just as I know- that we practice different religions. All his taqiyyah camouflage is crap in my sight.

# Ma sha Allah. I am Shia of Ali whom Nabi salallahu alayhi wa ahli has guarantee Jannah. You are who? The lover and follower of Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and Yazeed ibn Mu'awiyah, Allah's curse upon them both.

# Your Taqiyah excuse is laughable It is only when Ahlu fitnah wal Jama'ah is losing it that they tender Taqiyah excuses. Only fool can accept that antics.

Newnas:

As for your claim that he makes some points, that doesn't negate his disbelief because the Messenger alyhissolaat wassalaam said about Shaitan the chief of evil: صدق الخبيث

Meaning: The filth said the truth

And which belief is that? @underline. Sometimes I wonder if Ahlu Fitnah think. According to your cursed manhaj, Rafidhi is filth yet:

# Majority of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim's narrators were staunch Rawafid

# Many Sahabah were Rawafid

Empiree:
Even scholars dont believe ALL Shia are mushrik.

What the hell?! Who are those scholars o? You mean Ahlu Sunnah scholars? And who are those "Mushrikun Shi'a?" Oh! Ahlu Sunnahs, Wahabiyyah-Salafiyyah are mu'minun Sufiyyah nko o?

Empiree:

This brings question if there is difference btw this and Shi'a's creed on their "infallible 12 Imam". I know there is procedure and standard on Islamic Knowledge

How on earth can you make an analogy between the two?! The basis of the infallibility of Aimmat Ahl al-Bayt is exclusively revealed in two divine messages:

# Surah Ahzab, the verse of purification. Here Allah purify them with absolute purification.

# Hadith Thaqalain especially the bolded part:

Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H):

In the ṣaḥīḥ report, it is recorded that the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said in his sermon at Ghadīr Khumm: “I am leaving behind over you the Two Weighty Things (al-thaqalayn): THE BOOK OF ALLAH AND MY OFFSPRING, AHL AL-BAYT. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.

Ref: {Abū al-Fidā Ismā’īl b. ‘Umar b. Kathīr al-Qurashī al-Dimashqī, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm (Dār al-Ṭaybah li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzī’; 2nd edition, 1420 H) [annotator: Sāmī b. Muḥammad Salāmah], vol. 7, p. 201}

These are part of several undeniable evidences which Ahlu Sunnah shy away from and Wahabiyyah deliberately misinterpret.

* So, what's the basis for the "infallibility" of Sahih Bukhari?