vedaxcool:

I won't waste my time refuting this cadet tarqiyyist, whose masters did not explain the concept of tarqiyyah adequately enough for him to engage. when you argue with shia, that is reasonable and a moderate there is a possibility of getting out the truth, but when you argue with a fanatical shia who has been brain washed and has probably forgotten the last time he told the truth, you not only go in circles but in fact continue to witness illogical thinking at the highest level, just as we have witness in every stage of the discussion, where someone asked the silly question in which no sensible can authoritatively give answer to, 'what killed Fatima', again the ashura festival marking the death of Ali's son, shows how paganism has overtook Islamic belief because of the illogical following of people's opinion, again the issue of Ali's failure to rectify the perceived injustice only goes to show how illogical the shias go to delude themselves and only shows that Ali r.a accepted Abubakars ruling, but to undertsand the illogical nature of lagoshia read below their tarqiyyah stratagem;

# Taqiyyah

Taqiyyah translates to “the act of deceiving.” An explanation of Taqiyyah was given by the Infallible Imam of the Shia as recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith: The Imam said that Taqiyyah is to say one thing outwardly but to believe another inwardly. There is another term for this: lying. It is indeed strange that the Shia faith not only allows for lying but commands it!

Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah

The following fatwa is found on the Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Shahroudi. Please note how the Grand Ayatollah allows the cursing but it must be done in such a way as not to reveal the Taqiyyah that is being done in front of the Sunni masses. Perhaps this will wake up those Sunnis who are fooled by the Shia lies when they say that they do not curse the Prophet’s wives or Sahabah. This comes from the mouth of the Grand Ayatollah himself

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/cursing-wives-and-sahabah.html

the fallacies of shiasm centres around the fact that their positions on every matter keeps changing as long as it does not support their misguided reasoning is not only pathetic but again shows that it is the path for the misguided.

For God’s sake you do not even pronounce/write the word correctly.

TAQIYYAH IN HOLY QURAN:

First verse


"Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith but such as open their breast to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty"
Surah An-Nahal, verse 106 transliteration

Second verse


Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Surah Al-Imran, verse 28 transliteration of Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Bukhari records in his Sahih:
وقال ‏{‏إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة‏}‏ وهى تقية

“‘Except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them (3:28)’ and this is Taqqiyah”

Interestingly, late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman who has translated Sahih Bukhari into Urdu translated the above portion as follows:

"Yes, it is permissible that you, on your own implement precautionary measures in order to keep your self safe from infidels (while apparently become their friends) i.e. adopt Taqqiyah"
Sahih Bukhari, Arabic to Urdu by Maulana Waheed uz Zaman, vol 3 pages 767-768

Third Verse


In Holy Quran we read a about a believer who performed Taqiyyah during the reign of Firown:

[Holy Quran 40:28] A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!

Fourth Verse


In Surah Kahf, we read yet another example wherein the close servants of Allah (swt) performed Taqqiyah. Firstly it should be known that the people of Kahf (cave) have been referred to by Allah (swt) as one of His (swt) signs:

[Holy Quran 18:9] Or, do you think that the Fellows of the Cave and the Inscription were of Our wonderful signs?

Not only this, but the people of Kahf have been bestowed special grace by Allah (swt) as we read:

[Holy Quran 18:14] And We strengthened their hearts with patience

And then the Quran tells us the situation when they were resurrected:

[Holy Quran 18:19] And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see which of them has purest food, so let him bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and by no means make your case known to any one:
[Shakir 18:20] For surely if they prevail against you they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you will never succeed.

Fifth verse

And the heart of the mother of Moses became void, and she would have betrayed him if We had not fortified her heart, that she might be of the believers.
And she said unto his sister: Trace him. So she observed him from afar, and they perceived not.
And We had before forbidden foster-mothers for him, so she said: Shall I show you a household who will rear him for you and take care of him?
Surah Qasas verses 10-12

Sixth verse
[Holy Quran 12:4-5]When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! surely I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon-- I saw them making obeisance to me.
He said: O my son! do not relate your vision to your brothers, lest they devise a plan against you; surely the Shaitan is an open enemy to man.


For further reading on the concept of Taqiyyah in Islamic belief and its definition and its differences from lying and hypocrisy,please read from the below link from which the above was selected:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/chap1.php

extensive research with documented references on the Tragedy of Lady Fatima (as).

[size=18pt]Tragedy Of Fatima Zahra (as) : Proofs [/size]

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234990547-tragedy-of-fatima-zahra-as-proofs/

@Vedaxcool

For God’s sake you do not even pronounce/write the word correctly.

[size=18pt]TAQIYYAH IN HOLY QURAN:[/size]

First verse


"Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith but such as open their bosom to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty"
Surah An-Nahal, verse 106 transliteration

Second verse


Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Surah Al-Imran, verse 28 transliteration of Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Bukhari records in his Sahih:
وقال ‏{‏إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة‏}‏ وهى تقية

“‘Except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them (3:28)’ and this is Taqqiyah”

Interestingly, late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman who has translated Sahih Bukhari into Urdu translated the above portion as follows:

"Yes, it is permissible that you, on your own implement precautionary measures in order to keep your self safe from infidels (while apparently become their friends) i.e. adopt Taqqiyah"
Sahih Bukhari, Arabic to Urdu by Maulana Waheed uz Zaman, vol 3 pages 767-768

Third Verse


In Holy Quran we read a about a believer who performed Taqiyyah during the reign of Firown:

[Holy Quran 40:28] A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies!

Fourth Verse


In Surah Kahf, we read yet another example wherein the close servants of Allah (swt) performed Taqqiyah. Firstly it should be known that the people of Kahf (cave) have been referred to by Allah (swt) as one of His (swt) signs:

[Holy Quran 18:9] Or, do you think that the Fellows of the Cave and the Inscription were of Our wonderful signs?

Not only this, but the people of Kahf have been bestowed special grace by Allah (swt) as we read:

[Holy Quran 18:14] And We strengthened their hearts with patience

And then the Quran tells us the situation when they were resurrected:

[Holy Quran 18:19] And thus did We rouse them that they might question each other. A speaker among them said: How long have you tarried? They said: We have tarried for a day or a part of a day. (Others) said: Your Lord knows best how long you have tarried. Now send one of you with this silver (coin) of yours to the city, then let him see which of them has purest food, so let him bring you provision from it, and let him behave with gentleness, and by no means make your case known to any one:
[Shakir 18:20] For surely if they prevail against you they would stone you to death or force you back to their religion, and then you will never succeed.

Fifth verse

And the heart of the mother of Moses became void, and she would have betrayed him if We had not fortified her heart, that she might be of the believers.
And she said unto his sister: Trace him. So she observed him from afar, and they perceived not.
And We had before forbidden foster-mothers for him, so she said: Shall I show you a household who will rear him for you and take care of him?
Surah Qasas verses 10-12

Sixth verse
[Holy Quran 12:4-5]When Yusuf said to his father: O my father! surely I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon-- I saw them making obeisance to me.
He said: O my son! do not relate your vision to your brothers, lest they devise a plan against you; surely the Shaitan is an open enemy to man.


For further reading on the concept of Taqiyyah in Islamic belief and its definition and its differences from lying and hypocrisy,please read from the below link from which the above was selected:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/chap1.php

For  God’s sake you do not even pronounce/write the word correctly.

TAQIYYAH IN HOLY QURAN (SIX QURANIC VERSES AS EVIDENCE):

First verse
"Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith but such as open their bosom to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty"
Surah An-Nahal, verse 106 transliteration


Second verse
Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
Surah Al-Imran, verse 28 transliteration of Abdullah Yusuf Ali

Bukhari records in his Sahih:
وقال ‏{‏إلا أن تتقوا منهم تقاة‏}‏ وهى تقية

“‘Except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them (3:28)’ and this is Taqqiyah”

Interestingly, late Salafi scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman who has translated Sahih Bukhari into Urdu translated the above portion as follows:

"Yes, it is permissible that you, on your own implement precautionary measures in order to keep your self safe from infidels (while apparently become their friends) i.e. adopt Taqqiyah"
  Sahih Bukhari, Arabic to Urdu by Maulana Waheed uz Zaman, vol 3 pages 767-768

@Vedaxcool

TAQIYYAH IN THE HOLY QURAN (SIX QURANIC VERSES AS EVIDENCE):

the verses are:
-Surah 16 Verse 106
-Surah 3   Verse  28
-Surah 40 Verse  28
-Surah 18 Verse 19
-Surah  28 Verses 10-12
-Surah  12 Verses 4-5

"TAQIYYAH OR EXPEDIENT DISSIMULATION"

its defintion;evidence in the Holy Quran;Hadiths and Rebuttals:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/chap1.php

"ASHURA" (Azadari in Persian)-COMMEMORATING THE MATYRDOM OF IMAM HUSSAIN (as) AND THE TRAGEDY OF KARBALA IN THE HOLY MONTH OF MUHARRAM":

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/azadari/en/index.php

NB:the above two links on Ashura and Taqiyyah should serve as a rebuttal to the ignorant claims made by "vedaxcool" on the subjects.the subject of Imam Ali's (as) stance during his reign on the inheritance of Lady Fatima (as) known as Fadak has already being treated in previous posts but "vedaxcool" keeps repeating the allegation.

WHY IMAM ALI (as) DID NOT TAKE OVER FADAK DURING HIS REIGN?:

http://islamquest.net/QuestionArchive/5580.aspx

Imam Ali (as)'s position on Fadak:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap5.php

The wisdom behind not reclaiming Fadak

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:

Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.


Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka'aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say 'Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it'. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?

In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka'aba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:

"Ibn Bathil said that the following principle is established from the above Hadeeth, if 'Amr bil Maroof' (a good act is carried out), but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead to its opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned".

Comment

According to this "Sunni principle" Imam Ali (as) not taking back Fadak was Amr bil Maroof (enjoining good), and if a good act (taking back Fadak)creates a fear of inciting anger and Fitnah (upheaval;strife) amongst the people leading to chaos in the society then it is permissible to abandon its implementation. Based on the facts, Imam 'Ali  (as) was in a difficult situation when it came to getting back Fadak, he knew that doing so would lead to open hatred and opposition from the followers of the first three Khalifas. It was this fear that led Imam 'Ali (as )to prefer to adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and maintain silence.

Karbala:

WHY IMAM ALI (as) DID NOT TAKE OVER FADAK DURING HIS REIGN?:

http://islamquest.net/QuestionArchive/5580.aspx

Imam Ali (as)'s position on Fadak:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap5.php

The wisdom behind not reclaiming Fadak

We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Knowledge Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128:

Narrated Aswad:
Ibn Az-Zubair said to me, "Ayesha used to tell you secretly a number of things. What did she tell you about the Ka'ba?" I replied, "She told me that once the Prophet said, 'O 'Ayesha! Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit." Later on Ibn Az-Zubair did the same.



Was it incumbent on Rasulullah (s) to re-design the Ka'aba, Yes or No? If it was not then why did Rasulullah (s) say 'Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (infidelity)! I would have dismantled the Ka'ba and would have made two doors in it'. If it was compulsory then why did Rasulullah (s) fail to carry out this religious duty on account of his fear of the reaction by the newly converted Sahaba?

The illogical nature of shia extremist, , seriously lagoshia how many IDs do you have, is it part of your tarqiyism? where did the hadith indicate that it was incumbent?, it was not compulsory, to show that you do not know what you are talking about, nowhere in the entire hadith you stated, did the prophet indicate that he was afraid of their reaction, and you shamelessly now turned 'your people' to 'sahabas', the Prophet simply said that that the people are not too far, in terms of years, from the period of ignorance, a lot of teachings in Islam where gradual in nature,  to now compare the initial stages of islam to the issue of Fadak-a time when islam was well establish- only goes to show you typical desperation in defending the illogical. The prophet s.a.w not dis malting the Kaba only shows it was not compulsory. Get a more direct comparison next time.

Karbala:

In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka'aba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:

"Ibn Bathil said that the following principle is established from the above Hadeeth, if 'Amr bil Maroof' (a good act is carried out), but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead to its opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned".

Comment

According to this "Sunni principle" Imam Ali (as) not taking back Fadak was Amr bil Maroof (enjoining good), and if a good act (taking back Fadak)creates a fear of inciting anger and Fitnah (upheaval;strife) amongst the people leading to chaos in the society then it is permissible to abandon its implementation. Based on the facts, Imam 'Ali  (as) was in a difficult situation when it came to getting back Fadak, he knew that doing so would lead to open hatred and opposition from the followers of the first three Khalifas. It was this fear that led Imam 'Ali (as )to prefer to adhere to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) and maintain silence.

Clapp for yourself, you may as well claimed that ALI feared Umar reaction to the extent that he married his own daughter to Umar, a person you shias call all sorts of names. But you see, the funny thing is that all you wrote about his fears of the masses reaction is based on speculations as nohwere did you point that ALI at one time said so and so the had  it not being for the peoples reactions, we would have retrieve Fadak which we were wronged off. nowhere had ALI made such statement, all you are saying that he did not want to anger people is based on conjecture and an un reasonable pretense to having the ability to read the mind of ALI when he has long died we need concrete evidence that ALI actually said so, which brings us to the fact that ALI had agreed to the ruling of Abubakar and again ALI had adhered to the position of the caliphate. Again it brings us the fact that all matters involving fadak must have been settled during the the reign of Abubakar r.a. Abubakar r.a followed the path of Rasulillah S.a.w, as the Holy prophet S.A.W, when he was alive use to give the proceeds from Fadak to miskin and for the state treasury, so also did abubakar did when he was caliph.

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/abu-bakr.html

shia evil belief

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/shia-texts/shia-holy-books.html

Paganism
http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/shirk/grave-worship.html

vedaxcool:

The illogical nature of shia extremist, , seriously lagoshia how many IDs do you have, is it part of your tarqiyism? where did the hadith indicate that it was incumbent?, it was not compulsory, to show that you do not know what you are talking about, nowhere in the entire hadith you stated, did the prophet indicate that he was afraid of their reaction, and you shamelessly now turned 'your people' to 'sahabas', the Prophet simply said that that the people are not too far, in terms of years, from the period of ignorance, a lot of teachings in Islam where gradual in nature,  to now compare the initial stages of islam to the issue of Fadak-a time when islam was well establish- only goes to show you typical desperation in defending the illogical. The prophet s.a.w not dis malting the Kaba only shows it was not compulsory. Get a more direct comparison next time.

when you give your opinion and your scholar gives an opinion, it is definitely more correct to take the opinion of your scholar. And this is what one said about the hadith in question:

"In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka'aba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:

"Ibn Bathil said that the following principle is established from the above Hadeeth, if 'Amr bil Maroof' (a good act is carried out), but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead to its opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned".

Clapp for yourself, you may as well claimed that ALI feared Umar reaction to the extent that he married his own daughter to Umar, a person you shias call all sorts of names. But you see, the funny thing is that all you wrote about his fears of the masses reaction is based on speculations as nohwere did you point that ALI at one time said so and so the had  it not being for the peoples reactions, we would have retrieve Fadak which we were wronged off. nowhere had ALI made such statement, all you are saying that he did not want to anger people is based on conjecture and an un reasonable pretense to having the ability to read the mind of ALI when he has long died we need concrete evidence that ALI actually said so, which brings us to the fact that ALI had agreed to the ruling of Abubakar and again ALI had adhered to the position of the caliphate. Again it brings us the fact that all matters involving fadak must have been settled during the the reign of Abubakar r.a. Abubakar r.a followed the path of Rasulillah S.a.w, as the Holy prophet S.A.W, when he was alive use to give the proceeds from Fadak to miskin and for the state treasury, so also did abubakar did when he was caliph.

First for the millionth time, the Um Kulthum,Umar married was not the daughter of Imam Ali (as).

As for Fadak,there is really no reason to further argue with you because you have a hadith in bukhari where Imam Ali (as) himself and his uncle went to abu bakr to protest the taking of Fadak. your books account for the fact that the Prophet (sa) gave Lady Fatima (as) Fadak as a gift. There is no reason on earth why anyone should deny her that right after the passing away of her father (sa).your “sahih bukhari” even records the protest of Lady Fatima (as) against abu bakr and how she humiliated him with words. If you ignore all that, I cannot help you.

As for your demand to get you a hadith where Imam Ali (as) explained why he did not retake Fadak,it is not difficult for me to get you one. But please don’t waste my time. Help yourself out this time and prove you really want to learn and that you really have an open mind. When you find it,I urge you to publish it here and prove you’re not brainwashed or far from that, you’re not just too narrow-minded.

LagosShia:

when you give your opinion and your scholar gives an opinion, it is definitely more correct to take the opinion of your scholar. And this is what one said about the hadith in question:

Hypocrite just as it is more appropriate to follow Your scolars of old who regarded certain shia collection of Hadiths as Sahih. You keep exposing why shiasm is a failure,.

LagosShia:

"In his commentary of the above Hadeeth (destruction of the Ka'aba) Allamah Badr'adeen A'ini in his commentary of Sahih al Bukhari Umdah thul Qari Volume 1 page 615, Bab al Ilm makes an interesting comment:

"Ibn Bathil said that the following principle is established from the above Hadeeth, if 'Amr bil Maroof' (a good act is carried out), but the fear of Fitnah and anger from the people shall lead to its opposition, then the decision to order such a pious act should be abandoned".

First if you could not point where he indicated that a compulsory act can be negated for fear of uprising. Nowhere did he say that the Prophet S.a.w feared the reaction of the mases which you delibverately tried showing. If the prophet feared the reaction of people, Islam would have simply not go beyound the cave Hira, the scholar simply indicated that that based on this situation a muslim can live a good act, the question arises does the issue of fadak transcend good act-which appears voluntary, yes it does it involves justice. ALI maintainace of Injustice which he initially fought against only shiws the weak position the misguided shias take. But what surprises one is their hypocritical stance when you show them evidence that disproves their case from their own scholars:
The Shia propagandists will argue that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) went against the Quranic rules of inheritance, but these rules of inheritance do not apply to Prophets as clearly mentioned by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) in both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The very fact that such Hadith exist in the Shia canon makes impotent the Shia attack on the personality of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, we find the following Sahih narration:

“The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)

I cannot help you if you cannot read between the lines.

LagosShia:

First for the millionth time, the Um Kulthum,Umar married was not the daughter of Imam Ali (as).

well for the billionth time even shia scholars say so-Umar was married to um Kulthum, i quoted an eminent scholar amongst your shia betrhen and accoding to you:

LagosShia:

when you give your opinion and your scholar gives an opinion, it is definitely more correct to take the opinion of your scholar. And this is what one said about the hadith in question:

LagosShia:

As for Fadak,there is really no reason to further argue with you because you have a hadith in bukhari where Imam Ali (as) himself and his uncle went to abu bakr to protest the taking of Fadak. your books account for the fact that the Prophet (sa) gave Lady Fatima (as) Fadak as a gift. There is no reason on earth why anyone should deny her that right after the passing away of her father (sa).your “sahih bukhari” even records the protest of Lady Fatima (as) against abu bakr and how she humiliated him with words. If you ignore all that, I cannot help you.

I have showed what kafi said about the Prophet not leaving behind inheritance and like you said:

LagosShia:

when you give your opinion and your scholar gives an opinion, it is definitely more correct to take the opinion of your scholar. And this is what one said about the hadith in question:

LagosShia:

As for your demand to get you a hadith where Imam Ali (as) explained why he did not retake Fadak,it is not difficult for me to get you one. But please don’t waste my time. Help yourself out this time and prove you really want to learn and that you really have an open mind. When you find it,I urge you to publish it here and prove you’re not brainwashed or far from that, you’re not just too narrow-minded.

Yawns, you Tarqiyyah is lame, try upp your game a little.

ok   

to conclude:

Imam Ja'far Ibn Muhammad (the sixth imam) said any hadith which contradicts the Quran,that hadith must be thrown away.

if the Quran shows us prophets inheriting one another,then any hadith which says prophets do no leave inheritance is a lie.

al-kafi's author compiled a sea of hadiths from different people.among them are true and false ones.and even if we accept that all the hadiths he personally compiled were true,al-kafi is not an infallible book as we believe only the Holy Quran is.also,since we find different hadiths there in abundance to help us and give us knowledge,we have to examine each hadith on its own to ascertain its veracity.he did not personally authored them and he never heard a single hadith from the Prophet Muhammad (sa) because al-kafi's author lived after the demise of the Prophet (sa).all he compiled was not his authorship.

The Shia tactfully do not quote the entire verse, nor the preceding verse. Allah says:

“We gave (in the past) knowledge to Dawud and Sulaiman, and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above many of his servants who believe!’ And Sulaiman was Dawud’s heir. He said: ‘O you people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah).’” (Quran, 27:15-16)

In this verse, Allah is clearly talking about Sulaiman (عليه السلام) inheriting the knowledge of Dawud (عليه السلام). It has absolutely nothing to do with material possessions! Before and after the part about Prophet Sulaiman (عليه السلام) being Prophet Dawud’s heir (عليه السلام), we see that the Quran is talking about the special knowledge of the Prophets, especially the specific gift these Prophets were given in regards to understanding the speech of animals. The same can be said of the verses that the Shia propagandists use in regards to Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) who asked Allah in the Quran to grant him a son to become his successor.

It is obvious to all that these Quranic verses refer to the inheritance of the title of Prophethood, and has nothing to do with materal possessions. Allah uses the word “al-irth” in the Quran which does not refer to material possessions in the verses cited by the Shia. It is used to denote knowledge, Prophethood, or sovereignity. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir in the Quran, in which Allah says:

“Therefore We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen” (Quran, Surah Fatir)

As well as in Surah al-Mu’minoon, Allah says:

“Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.” (Quran, Surah al-Mu’minoon)

Is Allah really talking about material possessions when he talks about these people? Truly this would be a ludicrous assumption.

It would not be fitting for a pious man such as Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) to be asking Allah to grant him an heir who will inherit material possessions. This would be superficial. Instead, the reality is that Prophet Zakariyyah (عليه السلام) asked for a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Prophet Yaqoob (عليه السلام) would continue.



Strange enough was Fadak an inheritance or a Gift?

you will see shia saying Fadak was a gift, yet at the same time they still maintain it was an inheritance. Are gifts and Inheritance synonymous? never.

Did Fatima regard Fadak as a gift or an Inheritance?

she regarded it as an inheritance not a gift.

If Fadak was a gift, why did n't Fatima acquired her gift during the lifetime of the prophet instead she had to wait for his death till it became hers. the answer is that at no time did she took fadak as a gift.

this prove that Fadak was not a gift.

Now on the issue of inheritance, fadak was not up for inheritance because it is clear that Prophet's don not leave behind material possession but knowlegde.

i really dont have time in replying to foolishness.and i would not because this thread is home and dry for those who want to see.

i would only touch where necessary for the sake of details.

why was Prophet Zakarya scared of his near-ones and what was his need for a heir (son) who will inherit him?

Surah 19:
(1) A mention of the mercy of thy Lord unto His servant Zachariah. (2) When he cried unto his Lord a cry in secret, (3) Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. (4) Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor (5) Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee).

ACCORDING TO THE FUNNY commentary given by "vedaxcool" that prophets inherit knowledge and prophethood (and not material possessions),it would indicate then that Prophet Zakariya was scared that his near relatives would either inherit or usurp his knowledge and prophethood and not his own son to do that.now last time i checked,prophets were sent to spread knowledge and not hide it or pass it down as a possession.they teach everyone.i dont want to enter into counter-argument to prove that the other verses about Da'wud and Sulaiman (as) also talked about material possession,so that is why i presented a very clear verse about Prophet Zakariya (as) that even a child can understand without commentary.

also last time i checked,prophethood is bestowed by Allah (swt).so it cannot be inherited through grabbing it by force or usurping it.and many of those who claim the title falsely are called "false prophets".many children of prophets were not prophets at all or a number even perished.so did Prophet Zakariya (as) really wanted a son and feared his relatives after him because he did not want them to steal knowledge and prophethood?lollllllllll, that is absurd!

you can further check here on the opening verses of Surah 19 which clearly show that prophets do leave material inheritance.

http://quran.al-islam.org/

as for fadak being either a gift or an inheritance,we know it was given as a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) by the Prophet to his daughter.but who claimed that "prophets do not leave inheritance" and used that to confiscate fadak?it was abu bakr.so even his reasoning and excuse does not even apply because fadak was given as a gift.it only became an inheritance because the daughter outlived the father and fadak was given by her father.whatever it was,gift or inheritance,the usurper has no ground.

In any case, the Shia cannot deny that either Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) the “infallible” is wrong or Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) the “infallible” is wrong, since their own Shia Hadith in al-Kafi contradicts Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). The words of Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as recorded by the Shia are 100% at variance with the words of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). So how can the Shia exaggerate and say that anyone is above mistake, since two of their so-called infallibles are in disagreement?

    * Conclusion

In conclusion, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made a sincere mistake, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was upholding the words of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), according to both Sunni and Shia Hadith. The Shia propagandists will go in circles when they argue about Fadak, but we advise our readers to continually remind them of two points, both which they cannot refute:

1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:

    “The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)
2. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not return Fadak, but rather he continued to use Fadak in the exact same manner as Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did. All of the Shia counter-arguments to this are of an obviously weak nature. If Ali (رضّى الله عنه) used Fadak as a Waqf, then there is nothing wrong in Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) doing this as well.

@vedaxcool

i'm so sorry to use the word,but your brain is really "screwed up" big time.no offence intended.

the hadith or the testimony of abu bakr wherever it may be found cannot be acceptable because it contradicts the Quran.if you hold on to that hadith that "prophets do no leave inheritance" and you actually believe that hadith is "sahih",then you have demolished your faith in islam.do you know why?because the implication of believing in that hadith means you are saying that the Prophet (sa) has contradicted the Quran.the Quran shows that prophets leave material inheritance for their offsprings.even if you go to the bible,(we also believe the bible has suffered tahreef),you will see many instances where prophets left inheritance.

Lady Fatima (as) made no mistake at all.abu bakr was a thief and he took illegally what belonged to the daughter of the Prophet (sa) through a false testimony that "prophets do not leave inheritance".it is that simple and easy.no head scratching and no puzzle at all.i dont know how you can bring a hadith from al-kafi and you tag it by yourself with a "sahih" stamp.you're still doing that after telling you many times that al-kafi or any shia hadith compilation is not 100% "sahih" as sunnis call their compilations "sahih" bukhari,"sahih" muslim,e.t.c, we examine each individual hadith and the first condition:the hadith must not contradict the Quran.if it does,then we throw the hadith away!

it is really wonderful how Lady Fatima (as) the daughter of the Prophet (sa) would not know that her father cannot leave inheritance but rather claimed inheritance.that cannot be a sincere mistake if prophets do not leave inheritance.the issue here is either Lady Fatima (as) is wrong or abu bakr.you choose who the thief was.as for us,abu bakr was the thief.

all this discussion is even not taking into consideration that fadak was given as a gift to Lady Fatima by her father before his death.yet still,it was confiscated by abu bakr under the lie that "prophets do not leave inheritance".

as for the stance of Imam Ali (as).it has being explained earlier in details.you can keep repeating yourself as you like.

LagosShia:

you can further check here on the opening verses of Surah 19 which clearly show that prophets do leave material inheritance.

19:5 And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir
19:6  Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].

This only shows how Karala intoxicants again have left our hypocritical shia friend exposed, Zachariah in ayah 5 clearly indicates he wants a successor becasue fears he successor after him, I do not need beating on the matter since this Karbala dried brain simply thinks Zachariah a.s at his old age was afraid of his brothers inhereting his property. only a fool thinks like that, Zachariah needed a successor, who will carry on from him and the line of Jacob, if u are too blind to see that, sorry sorry sorry!!!

according tothe translation of Yusuf ALI 19:6 is
Yusuf Ali
"(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!"

hence clearly he was talking of son that would succeed him

If these Quranic verses are assumed to speak of material inheritance, it does not make much sense that it is being mentioned in the Quran, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud (عليه السلام) nor to Sulaiman (عليه السلام). Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulaiman (عليه السلام) and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking, and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Prophets, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Prophets which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘he died, and his son inherited his property’, or ‘they buried him’, or ‘they ate, drank, and slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Quran.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, Volume 1, p.240, with minor adjustments) It is thus obvious that the Quran is talking about inheriting the loftiness of Prophethood, much like the Quran talks about who amongst the believers will inherit the lofty position of Paradise.

LagosShia:

@vedaxcool

i'm so sorry to use the word,but your brain is really "screwed up" big time.no offence intended.

the hadith or the testimony of abu bakr wherever it may be found cannot be acceptable because it contradicts the Quran.if you hold on to that hadith that "prophets do no leave inheritance" and you actually believe that hadith is "sahih",then you have demolished your faith in islam.do you know why?because the implication of believing in that hadith means you are saying that the Prophet (sa) has contradicted the Quran.the Quran shows that prophets leave material inheritance for their offsprings.even if you go to the bible,(we also believe the bible has suffered tahreef),you will see many instances where prophets left inheritance.

I see the Karbala intoxicants have twisted your drunken brain, as I have shown that Prophets do not inherit property, and have clearly proved that Zachariah was not looking for an heir to inherit his material possession, but he was looking for an heir to succeed him in the family tradition of prophetood, but because you and your drunken shia hords who think that their imams are equals to prophets, that is why you have the audacity to say that Zachariah fears where because he did not want his relatives to inherit his property, that  is not only absurd but shows how karbala intoxicant has hindered you from thinking well, again his fears what his relatives would do as his successors, not that he was guarding material possession which people of his own line could have inherit or  did not want his relatives from continuing as prophets along the line of Jacob.

LagosShia:

Lady Fatima (as) made no mistake at all.abu bakr was a thief and he took illegally what belonged to the daughter of the Prophet (sa) through a false testimony that "prophets do not leave inheritance".it is that simple and easy.no head scratching and no puzzle at all.i dont know how you can bring a hadith from al-kafi and you tag it by yourself with a "sahih" stamp.you're still doing that after telling you many times that al-kafi or any shia hadith compilation is not 100% "sahih" as sunnis call their compilations "sahih" bukhari,"sahih" muslim,e.t.c, we examine each individual hadith and the first condition:the hadith must not contradict the Quran.if it does,then we throw the hadith away!

It does not contradict the Qur'an only a drunken intoxicant laden Karbala delusional individual like yourself can actually say so.

LagosShia:

it is really wonderful how Lady Fatima (as) the daughter of the Prophet (sa) would not know that her father cannot leave inheritance but rather claimed inheritance.

Oh, now Fatima is now the all knowing? you are a mere joke.

LagosShia:

that cannot be a sincere mistake if prophets do not leave inheritance.the issue here is either Lady Fatima (as) is wrong or abu bakr.

Fatima was wrong, one can be wrong sincerely, only a karbala druken individual like yourself would think being wrong must always be deliberate. Fatima was wrong sincerely because she did not know of the Prophets statement that states Prophets do not leave behind inheritance.

LagosShia:

you choose who the thief was.as for us,abu bakr was the thief.

Karbala intoxicant I see has made you full of foolishness.

LagosShia:

all this discussion is even not taking into consideration that fadak was given as a gift to Lady Fatima by her father before his death.yet still,it was confiscated by abu bakr under the lie that "prophets do not leave inheritance".

Karala intoxicant has destroyed your brain, how does a gift become inheritance? are this silly? A man has a piece of land and decides to dash his daughter, such dash, confers the land unto the the man's daughter immediately. Fatima did not ask for her gift. she asked for her inheritance, if it was a gift she would have indicated so, gifts and inheritance are not synonymous, only karbala drunken men can say such. a Gift is acquired immediately not after the person dies. an inheritance is a right, gifts aren't.

An astounding revelation–of which many people happen to be uninformed of–is the fact that, according to Shia Hadith, a woman does not inherit land or fixed property. How is it that the Shia accept it for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) to inherit Fadak, when their own Hadith does not allow the succession of a woman to land or fixed property?


Some Shia propagandists will then claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) gifted Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) Fadak as inheritance that she would assume after his death. Do the Shia not realize that this is accusing the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) of commiting a Haram act? Both the Sunni and Shia jurists do not allow a man to “gift” inheritance upon his death. If this was possible, then a man could simply “gift” all his inheritance to the son, and thereby completely deny inheritance to the daughter. In fact, one could “gift” inheritance to whomever he pleases! The entire Islamic laws of inheritance would become nothing short of a joke. Indeed, once a person dies, the property must be doled out according to the portions ascribed in the Islamic laws of inheritance. (In the case of Prophets, the only portion–according to the Shariah–is to charity.)


In the Shia book of Hadith al-Kafi, al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land.” In this chapter, he narrates a Hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir:

    “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

He asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied:

    “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said:

    “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152)

Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq said:

    “Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

So the Shia Hadiths themselves would deny the inheritance to Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) even if the Prophets were allowed to give inheritance to their heirs (even though they are not). This makes the Shia arguments against Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) even more useless.

Just to clarify some points:

1.) Prophet Zakariyya (as) as earlier explained cannot have fear of anyone inheriting prophet hood from him because when it comes to "making prophets" it is the choice of God that does it and not the power of men. There is no way prophet hood can be "inherited" if God does not will it for that person. It is therefore funny to think that a prophet of God would have fear of someone stealing prophet hood after him. aside, there were many prophets that have no child that become a prophet. I would be happy if vedaxcool can explain to us how prophethood can be inherited by force?

[b]Also, if I am to accept the argument that Prophet Zakariya (as) as all prophets did not leave material possessions for inheritance but only left prophet hood, let vedaxcool and all the sheikhs and scholars of sunnism answer me: who inherited the prophet hood of Muhammad (sa)[/b]did it go to waste? Was there no need for someone to carry on at least in terms of leadership (or what the shia call imamah)? Or does it simply proves that prophet hood is not inherited but bestowed by Allah (swt) and if Allah (swt) does not will it for a person that person can get nothing of it. so why would Prophet Zakariyyah (as) fear for something that is beyond the reach of man? Your argument is making a prophet look frail and ignorant (astagfirullah).

Yusuf Ali's translation is a distortion as many other verses in his translation are made to project a particular view through the selection of words and playing with meanings through translation.you can best see the verse in Arabic and know that the idea projected by that translation is faulty as many others are meant to project sectarian and one sided views.

let me give you a hint: the caliphate was stolen by unjust men, but it never made the claim of the Imams starting with Imam Ali (as) illegal or outdated because while the caliphate is material and a worldly station, imamah like prophet hood is a divine station. God makes people prophets and messengers and imams to the Prophet. Claiming it cannot give it to you or deprive the rightful man the choice of God given to him.

2.) the testimony that "prophets do not leave inheritance" is a false testimony first given by abu bakr and repeated ever since that contradicts the Quran.

3.) whether gift or inheritance, the land was given to her by her father before his passing away. Only thieves and unscrupulous people claiming Islam can justify the confiscation of that land. vedaxcool said "inheritance is a right but gifts are not”. a gift given to me is my right if you don’t know.

4.) the moronic statement that a man can simply gift all his possession to his son to deny his own daughter is animalistic and inhuman. Why would one prefer his son over his daughter and even go to the extent of giving his son everything and deny his daughter all? Yet still if a man has no fear of God,what still prevents him from denying his daughter an inheritance anyways?This shows the jahiliyyah mentality against the female child that has crept into sunnism just as violence and terrorism survived from jahiliyyah tradition in the name of sunni salafism and it is giving islam a bad image.

what the fools also forget is the fact that at the death of the Prophet Muhammad (sa),he only had one daughter alive. Lady Fatima (as) was his only surviving child. In the shia school of thought,we do not share our inheritance with our uncles and relatives if the man only has a daughter. It is a known fact that a former prime minister of Lebanon, who is sunni became shia to avoid the eventuality where his only daughter would share his property with his own brothers.he had no son. in shia islam a daughter can inherit all of her father's belongings. in sunnism a daughter has to share the property of her father with the uncles/relatives if she has no brothers. If the man had sons, then the sons can inherit the land and family house to carry on the legacy of the father. but in the event there is no male child, the daughter takes it all. Also in the case of the Prophet (sa),Lady Fatima (as) was married to his cousin and someone the Prophet raised by himself in the name of Imam Ali (as).

please compare the prayer of Prophet Zakariyya (as) who wanted an heir to inherit him and his ancestors with the prayer of Prophet Musa (as) who wanted Allah (swt) to make give his brother prophethood to share his task.there is a striking contrast in the two cases that can clearly show the different between material inheritance and prophethood.

Surah 19:2-7

A mention of the mercy of thy Lord unto His servant Zachariah.When he cried unto his Lord a cry in secret, Saying: My Lord! Lo! the bones of me wax feeble and my head is shining with grey hair, and I have never been unblest in prayer to Thee, my Lord. Lo! I fear my kinsfolk after me, since my wife is barren. Oh, give me from Thy presence a successor Who shall inherit of me and inherit (also) of the house of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, acceptable (unto Thee). (It was said unto him): O Zachariah! Lo! We bring thee tidings of a son whose name is John; we have given the same name to none before (him).

Surah 20:25-37
(Moses) said: My Lord! relieve my mind And ease my task for me;  And loose a knot from my tongue,  That they may understand my saying.  Appoint for me a henchman from my folk,  Aaron, my brother.  Confirm my strength with him  And let him share my task,  That we may glorify Thee much  And much remember Thee.  Lo! Thou art ever Seeing us.  He said: Thou art granted thy request, O Moses.  And indeed, another time, already We have shown thee favour,

in the two cases we clearly see a difference between one praying for a son to inherit him and one praying for a prophet to share his task.reading both cases can reveal a difference or even differences.if at all,the second case of Prophet Moses (as) shows that prophethood is only granted with the permission of Allah (swt) and cannot be gifted or inherited or passed from father to son if God willed it not and there is no fear that any man can enter a room in heaven and steal prophethood or snatch it from its rightful owner.

a verse that will prove that prophethood or imamate (unlike material possession) cannot be inherited or taken by evildoers,those very same people Prophet Zakariyya (as) was scared of:

[Holy Quran 2:124]
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."

^^^^^

seee how foolish you are, where does it say the prophets descendants cannot be his heir in prophetship, it only indicates that evil doers amongst Abraham progeny would not be made prophets. stop being a lousy Karbala misfit. You only showed why fool is your middle name, now it is either you are suggesting that Zachariah was wrongly accusing his relatives or you are drunk with Karbala intoxicants. as Zachariah must have seen certain characters in this people that made him pray to God to give him a pious son that would carry on from him, and indeed ALLAH accepted his prayers. you can continue rambling about on this issue or you can use the barely minute sense left from Karbala intoxication to think well. it makes no sense for Zachariah to fear his relatives inheriting his property, Zachariah prayers clearly indicated that he did seem certain issues with this successors, God accepted his prayers, and it seems you are frustrated as the verse you gave only corroborates the story properly, God gave Zachariah a child that would continue the line of Jacob, thereby preventing the evil doers amongst the offspring of Abraham from taking the charge of ALLAH affairs. And ALLAH knows best.


Let’s look at the verse again;


19:5 And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir
19:6 Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].

It is apparent that someone is suffering from Karbala intoxicants. As verse 19:5 clearly shows the kind of inheritance Zachariah was talking about, that is a successor. Zachariah a.s clearly showed that he fears the successors after him, clearly this indicated that there was some sort of priesthood, the Jews had in place. hence Zachariah prayers was that ALLAH should give him an heir who will continue the good associated with the line of jacob. Karbala intoxicants should have known that was his motive, not that he feared of his relatives inheriting his property that would be absurd in every sense. Again like I have indicated earlier before the drunken individual unintelligent response that.

Now, the fool still confuse gift and Inheritance as being the same thing, again as i have showed earlier, on Islamic principles it would have wrong for the prophet to have gifted the inheritance before his death, that in its' self is wrong, what the polytheistic karbala misfit fails to tell us is that the Prophet wives would also have a share in such inheritance if it was an inheritance, but the foolish shias like the karbala intoxicants, keep asserting that the prohet's wives had no share in such inheritance, the mere fact that Fatima asked for her inheritance not gifts clearly shows that Fadak was not a gift from the prophet pbuh to Fatima. the Kabala drunk can continue repeating his foolish argument that it was a gift and it was an inheritance at the same time, but conventional wisdom clearly makes it not a gift. Gift are automatically bestowed on their owners not requiring the death of the giver.

how hard is it for block heads to understand a simple sentance:

prophethood cannot be inherited as material possessions;so any fear on the part of Prophet Zakariyya (as) is not because he feared they would inherit his prophethood.God ordains prophethood and imamate.children can be prophets but that is with the decree of Allah (swt) just as Prophet Ibrahim (as) had two sons who were prophets (as).also,the Quran tells us of how God blessed the family of Noah,Ibrahim and Imran (as).

just as God gives power, yet you would see people praying to be given positions of authority. Just as God determines who will be rich and those who will be poor, you will find people praying to God for wealth. the Karbala misfit keeps showing how the karbala intoxicants have left him utterly delusional, a[i]s it was clear from the Qur'anic statement Zachariah feared the successors after him, meaning his relatives would have eventually take over the reign of preisthood, the karbala drunk keeps insisting that it was prophethood, yet what the fools fails to tell us is how does the death of a prophet automatically confers the prophethood unto his relatives?[/i] it is clear that oga kabala drunk does not know what his is talking about, Zachariah fear stems from the fact that e believed that when he dies those who will carry out the mantle of leadership of the prieshood would have done things that would be unacceptable, hence his prayer that God gives him a son that would inherit of him and the line of jacob to be as . reading the translation of Yusuf Ali, we would see according tothe translation of Yusuf ALI 19:6 is
Yusuf Ali"(One that) will (truly) represent me, and represent the posterity of Jacob; and make him, O my Lord! one with whom Thou art well-pleased!"
this clearly indicate the form of inheritance he had in mind. But the Kabala drunk, keeps misrepresenting what i said. for the records Zachraiah had issues with the character of his relative and saw that they were not worthy of leading the religious leadership of the jews then,his calms wwas around that, and clearly when we read the Qur'an about John the baptist, you see his character was exceedingly pious. Prophets leave behind knowledge not inheritance. and like i pointed according to shia theology women do not inherit land or fixed property.

Vedaxcool,

I would exercise patience and reply your posts to the last dot and refute each and every argument because I admit and recognize your ignorance. But this would be my final post to you in this forum because you are a disgrace to Muslims and Islam. this is how you argue and debate in every post by using insults and bad disgusting language against others. Islam does teaches us manners. the Prophet (sa) said:"I was only sent to complete "makarem al-akhlaq" or in other words to be an exemplary human being when it comes to manners. Here you are;you keep repeating "Karbala" and "intoxicant" which is forbidden side by side. I dont know if you think you will make more sense or you think you will spite me while you forget the responsibility every muslim has to observe when it comes to the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and his Household (as) and you forget that Karbala means alot to them.you are only following the legacy of tyrannical rulers who claimed to be "sunni" and "muslim".Do you know the importance of Karbala in Islam and in the words of the Prophet (sa)?or have you not being taught? Or was it concealed from you deliberately?

See here and feel the reality (with English sub-titles):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BLPBVyEo18&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gs9mENDS80

your argument in the above post sounds as if Prophet Zakariyya (as) was the last prophet of God. You forget the fact that Musa (as) (and other prophets too) had no son who inherited his prophet hood but he was not afraid of his near relatives because Allah (swt) will appoint someone else that is even not related to Musa (as) directly to the task of prophet hood and Musa (as) was not afraid of the deviant elements among the children of Israel. So for you to tell us that if Prophet Zakariyya (as) does not have a son, his near relatives would endanger "priesthood" or "prophethood" is an exaggeration and you sound like an atheist who does not believe in the will of God and His power to guide His religion. In the Quran we  are told "It He who sent His Messenger with the religion of truth that it prevails over all religions, even though as the unbelievers detest it”. you are here accepting the fact that the relatives of Prophet Zakariyya (as) were capable of doing harm after Prophet Zakariyya (as).you forget that those around Prophet Zakariyya (as) are his own sahaba. you have seen with your own eyes that a prophet can have those around him that can be of harm to him after him. But you don’t apply the same measure when it comes to the Prophet Muhammad (sa).you think that the sahaba (companions) of the Prophet Muhammad (sa)  were all angels and could not harm a fly. You even accuse the Shia-Muslims of “kufr” or infidelity for talking against/exposing the “bad eggs” among the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) who did much harm and wars which claimed thousands of lives. And have you questioned yourself on the need for the Prophet Muhammad (sa) to have an heir granted by God to inherit him for the fear that those around him would distort his message? Or was Prophet Zakariyya (as) more concerned about his legacy/prophet hood than the Prophet Muhammad (sa)?

While I more than you do accept the reality and importance and need for a prophet to have an heir from his children or from his nation or from humanity in his time to continue his legacy and thus the Shia-Muslims  believe  in 12 divinely appointed Imams (as) from the progeny and Household of the Prophet Muhammad (sa),I still do not believe that anyone can claim prophet hood or imamate if Allah (swt) does not will it for that person. In other words there is nothing a prophet can be scared of when it comes to inheriting prophet hood or knowledge or anything abstract or spiritual; a man can only be scared of someone else inheriting his material/physical possessions and not spiritual possession. So the prayer of Prophet Zakariyya (as) prompted by the fear of his relative and the request for an heir to inherit him is because of the hands of his relatives that can be used to take over his belongings. If those relatives are not righteous, no matter how bad they are they can never put their hand or claim prophet hood. the promise of Allah (swt) to Prophet Ibrahim (as) was clear and straightforward in the verse [Holy Quran 2:124]. Those of the offsprings of Ibrahim (as) who are not righteous would not be among the chosen ones nor would they have a share of prophet hood/imamate. To even imagine that if Prophet Zakariyya (as) did not have a son, prophet hood would be endangered is ridiculous and un-Islamic. Prophet Zakariyya (as) was granted a son Yahya (as) or John. furthermore, we are not told of Yahya (as) having a prophet son who inherited prophet hood. so does that mean every prophet had a son who inherited prophet hood? prophet hood is not a family business.did Allah then broke His promise to Zakariyya (as)?it is the will and choice of Allah (swt) who select particular people to have this divine gift of prophet hood because those chosen people were made by Allah (swt) to take that position.

Lagoshia, did I hear u saying u won't respond? U must be a joker. U started it afterall. Remember the thread where abuhanifa warned u. U must finish what u started.

alienvirus:

Lagoshia, did I hear u saying u won't respond? U must be a joker. U started it afterall. Remember the thread where abuhanifa warned u. U must finish what u started.

i will respond and finish what i start,no doubt.you must be a big joker after many pages and threads to think that i am someone that "gives up" when i know truth is on my side.as for Vedaxcool i'm as good as finished with her.evrything was made clear enough even though she keeps repeating the same thing over and over again.but in another occassion on this forum,whether in a thread started my me or someone else,i will not reply to her.you can examine the other threads she participates in.all that person does is the use of bad expressions and foul language even when it is uncalled for and no one insulted her.in another thread someone even told her because she insults people,it is the "nature of islam".we all argue and debate here without behaving as she does.take a look here at what two others said to her:

Number_One:

Dude, Resorting to insults will NOT establish your point. How many none Muslims have been killed in Britain in religious clashes? How many in Nigeria? Get the message? Islamophobia is a global phenomenon, its NOT just restricted to Nigeria. I'm NOT against Islamic Banking, I live in Abuja and have muslim friends. Remove religious sentiments, Nigeria is NOT ready for this.

dankol:

Pls mind your words. It is ratheq unfair of u to insult people. I wld nt blame u. Its d nature of islam. I see a man full of jealousy 4 d xtian fold nd blames d backwardnes of islam on non muslim. U talk of xtian universties are dere nt muslim universities. U are as dogded as islam

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-700034.32.html

LagosShia:

Vedaxcool,

. . .  this would be my final post to you in this forum. . .

A poster who can make LagosShia throw up his hands and cry "uncle!"   No offense.  LS is the most dogged, most tenacious, most persistent poster I've ever seen!

I have to read more of Vedaxcool's posts. lol

Lolllllllllll

isale_gan2:

A poster who can make LagosShia throw up his hands and cry "uncle!"   No offense.  LS is the most dogged, most tenacious, most persistent poster I've ever seen!

I have to read more of Vedaxcool's posts. lol

thank you for the compliment.

my issue with Vedaxcool is not about the argument or how long it would take me to reply her or continue to.i'm ready for that.the issue is with insults.even personal insults dont move me or deter me.but she is using terms that are islamically forbidden.you dont need to read much to see the bad language.take for example:"k*rbala intoxicant".if a christian utter that against islam or any islamic figure in the north,an ignorant abooki may endanger his life.but this is what a so called muslim is utterring repeatedly and thinks its cool!

alhamdulillah thumma salatu wa sallam ala nabiyy wa ahli-hi wa sahbi-hi ajmaeen

It was when I was planning to take my leave from Nairaland that I observed this fellow called Lagosshia. His username indeed indicates the kind of person he would be – a shia to the bone marrow. And it was more surprising to me when I found out he sounds like a Yoruba fellow which confirms the fear that some Shias are trying to make inroads within the Yoruba Muslims. But when I saw his latest posts I felt very sad because he vigorously sounds like a person that can mislead others. While the doubts he has been raising are like the ones his Shia old comrades like Zaky-zaky and others have been parading. The scholars of Sunnah have adequately answered them as they have answered other deviants.

How I wish I have the time to engage him …if not that Imam Ahmad enjoins in Usuul Sunnah that people of innovations should not be engaged in debates. But this is Lagosshia here boasting he is rightly guided as the Ahmadis and other deviants who hide under the cloak of Islam do.

Hmm, if he is not careful and stop confusing people, he will eat his yam raw, I swear by Allâh.

Allâh suffices as my witness.

Muhsin, vexdacool what a good job!

isale_gan2:

[size=18pt]A poster who can make LagosShia throw up his hands and cry "uncle!"[/size]