Binb:
no vex

That is not an academic reply to my questions concerning the origin and meaning of the term "Sahabah."

Binb:
I don't know about the authenticity of the Hadith you quoted. if you are asked to translate the word ahlul bayt into English what would your answer be?
Secondly can you expatiate on the two instances where the word occurs in the Qur'an?

I asked you some questions about the word "Sahabah." Answer them first. They are simple questions.

Moreover, I gave you a sahih Sunni hadith (at least, you shouldn't doubt the competence of al-Tirmidhi and al-Albani), which defines the "Ahl al-Bayt" of the Prophet as his "descendants." That proves to you that the term has been used in a technical sense in that hadith. If you do not know about the authenticity of the hadith, and you have doubts about the competence of al-Tirmidhi and al-Albani, then ask those whom you consider "superior" to them in knowledge of hadith. Ignoring or dodging that hadith on the pretext of not knowing its authenticity is not an academic approach.

Besides, what is your view of the above hadith? Is it authentic? If it is not authentic, why? If it is authentic, do you follow it?

Binb:
What is proof (from Qur'an or hadith) for this "technical" definition

Well, actually, we should start from the Sunni definition of "Sahabah." That word itself does not exist in any verse of the Qur'an or hadith of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. Moreover, the Qur'an and Sunnah have NOT given ANY technical definition for the term "Sahabah" or "Ashab". Yet, the Ahl al-Sunnah have invented their own technical definition, and some of them have used this man-made definition as their basis for bombing some Shi'ah.

I would like to ask you: do you consider Abu Lahab and Abu Jahl as "companions" of the Prophet? If you do not, please tell us why, with explicit evidences from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

As for your question, we Shi'ah have our independent books of hadith, and we have mutawatir proofs in them for our technical definition of the word "Ahl al-Bayt." Since you do not accept Shi'i books, I will, for the time being, only quote this Sunni hadith from Sunan al-Tirmidhi, # 3788:

[size=16pt]حدثنا علي بن المنذر كوفي حدثنا محمد بن فضيل قال حدثنا الأعمش عن عطية عن أبي سعيد و الأعمش عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت عن زيد بن أرقم رضي الله عنهما قالا : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم به لن تضلوا بعدي أحدهما أعظم من الآخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض فانظروا كيف تخلفوني فيهما

قال وهذا حديث حسن غريب
قال الشيخ الألباني : صحيح
[/size]
This hadith, which is declared "sahih" by Shaykh al-Albani and "hasan" by Imam al-Tirmidhi shows that the Prophet commanded his Ummah to follow both the Qur'an "and my descendants, my Ahl al-Bayt" in order to not go astray after him. Here, the Prophet has specifically defined his Ahl al-Bayt as his descendants, and the guides of the Ummah after him.

Binb:
My question is who are the ahlul bayt? do they include the wives of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or not?

The term "Ahl al-Bayt" is like the term "Sahabah." Both of them have literal meanings as well as technical meanings. For instance, a Sahabi in the literal meaning is any "companion" of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. Whether that "companion" was a Muslim or not is irrelevant. In fact, the Qur'an has used that word in this literal sense, calling the pagans of Quraysh the "companions" of the Prophet. This means that people like Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab were "companions" in the literal sense. However, in the technical sense, only those who lived and died upon iman among the companions were Sahabah. The same goes for the term "Ahl al-Bayt." In its literal sense, anyone who is related to the Prophet by marriage or blood is part of his Ahl al-Bayt. This definitely includes all his wives, all of Banu Hashim, all the Abbasid caliphs, and even the kings of Morocco and Jordan and the current Leader of Iran. Also, people like Abu Lahab were part of the "Ahl al-Bayt" of the Prophet, in the literal sense. However, in its technical sense, the term "Ahl al-Bayt" refers only to the Prophet and some thirteen other pure individuals.

tayebest:


Fatimah, what am trying to say is that this genocide wont have happen if the 'shiite father' have take time to educate them on dealing commuters on road. You know you always do on possesion there are some law guilding it, why dont you abide to it?
Nowhere in the world her Army will allow such. The both parties were wrong, but you dont expect the army to postrate to you. Why not your people release an apology statement to the government and let the cleric father be release? Or think the shiit are bigger than Nigeria government?

My brother, are you willing to give the same advice to all road blockers in Nigeria? Or, are you concerned only about the Shi'ah? You have never seen Christians who block roads? You have never seen Sunni Muslims who block roads? You have never seen traditional pagans (especially in Yoruba land) who block roads (sometimes even for days)? You have never seen politicians who block roads? You have never seen students who block roads? You have never seen workers who block roads? You have never seen traders who block roads? The truth is: everyone blocks the roads in Nigeria. I am not saying it is justified to do that. But, if the government is seriously concerned about how roads are blocked, then President Buhari will have to murder more people - perhaps millions. It does not seem sensible to massacre the Shi'ah for allegedly blocking the road while leaving the other Nigerians to do the same thing free as they like. It is so bad that some police officers under the Buhari administration guard illegal road blockers (especially during marriage ceremonies which often take place on the roads).

Let us be fair, my brother.

tayebest:



lets try to reason well, we all agree that both sides were wrong. But the assertion there is that, why dont you people take time to educate your people about about dealing government property and individuals. It seems they dont uderstand how having affairs with people. El-zakyzky run parallel government in zaria and nobody dears him all because he has upper hand from Iran, fucck them. As i said earlier, if one of the general was pelted with 'stone' what will you have said? Wont you critisized them. Army dont use dart to cripple, they fire straight bullet. They are trained to kill.

According to the vedio, The shiite were seen holding weapons. What are they up to with that in front of army, Excuse me, that is a life threat. Forget about saddam here. The shiite really cause the fuse

I have mentioned again and again that they were wrong for blocking the path of the COAS. We are both agreed on that. I do not understand why you still brought it up. We also both agree that the army over-reacted and committed crimes against humanity. Two wrongs never make a right. Besides, the IMN is a large organization with millions of members. You cannot expect everyone in such a huge organization to behave properly or to always follow the instructions of their leader. The large an organization is, the higher the possibility that some of its members will not behave properly. This is why every organization has a disciplinary committee. Even small organizations have that committee! I do not defend the wrong actions of some IMN members. My contention is that the army should have behaved better. The fact that they hold the guns does not make them gods. We will all die one day, and we will meet our Creator. We will all give accounts to Him of all that we did on this earth. Everyone needs to remember that before doing whatever he wishes to do.

As for Iran, they have no connection with what happens here. And, as far as I know, Shi'ism actually instructs Shi'ah to obey the laws of their countries of residence - and there are several Shi'i fatwas to this effect. You can read one of such fatwas here http://www.jafariyanews.com/2k6_news/june/15sistani_msg.htm from one of the leading Shi'i scholars, Ayatullah al-Sistani.

tayebest:


The main point is if the shiite have pave way for the COAS convoy, No how the Army will commit the genocide on them. Remember that The COAS is just like a president if a Nation is run under Military government. So i dont really know why the shiit were just so dumb to comprehend that. Army are not people who use tear gas, rubber bullet, or even use dart. So why threathing their life? If at Buratai or one of the generals was assault, you & i will be the first to castigate them, call them all sort of names.

Meanwhile i schooled in ABU i understand how the shiite run parallel government in zaria, no one dear cross their path when in their matching. Infact the way you might see them will really scare you and mistake them for some like extrimist. Directing motorist in a one way on FG road faa.. Hovering in black, flying diff sort of flags, singing what i cant even comprehend.

Even though we conderm the genocide made by the Army, believe you me the shiit have the first order offence. Even if a narrow way was pave for the army this poo wont have happen.

The COAS is not "just like" a president. He is a public officer, under the command of the President. Those guys obstructed him. There is zero evidence that they threatened his life. They obstructed him to make complaints about the military's earlier massacre of Shi'ah in Zaria. However, they were wrong to have done that. But, even then, the convoy of President Jonathan was pelted during the election campaigns, and he did not order a massacre. That seems to show the difference between people from the South and others.

Secondly, the majority of IMN are Shi'ah. However, not all Shi'ah are members of their organization. In fact, there are lots of Shi'ah who oppose their sometimes confrontational attitudes, and there are lots of Shi'ah who have absolutely nothing to do with them, and who do not wish to ever have absolutely anything to do with them. It would be unfair to condemn a whole branch of a religion, on the basis of the actions of a few people.

UyiIredia:
@ fatimah2016: I hear that the main bone of contention between Shaias and Sunnis is the successor of the Prophet. Please confirm the truth of this as well as any other differences betw3n Shias and Sunnis.

In a way, you are correct. But, the issue goes beyond merely matters of political succession.

Shi'ah believe that the pure teachings of Prophet Muhammad, sallallah 'alaih wa aalih, must be transferred from him to his future followers after him by some others. This is because, even though he has been sent to all mankind till the Day of Resurrection, he died 1400 years ago. So, it is impossible for him to personally present his divine messages everyone who will exist till the end of the world. On account of this, we Shi'ah believe that - with Divine Permission - he designated some specific people, twelve in number, to transfer his messages, from him, on his behalf and in his name, after him to humanity till the Day of al-Qiyamah. The Ahl al-Sunnah, by contrast, insist that he did not appoint anyone in particular to carry his pure teachings after him. This is the major difference between Sunnis and Shi'ah.

tayebest:



@bolded, according to you now is that, The people who Block road were not really shiit member, but your pain is why the Army went ahead to kill in shiit centre

Are you deliberately ignoring or misinterpreting what I wrote? I said they were wrong theologically. The fact that someone is wrong by the standards of his religion in a particular issue does not automatically expel him or her from it. They were Shi'ah who were wrong in a matter, and they were murdered by the Nigerian government. The punishment for public nuisance is not massacre under Nigerian law. President Buhari himself - before he became president - blocked roads several times, especially for his campaign activities. Would it have been correct for the army to massacre him and his followers back then? Also, some of his utterances led to communal clashes in the country, in which hundreds of lives were lost. Does that mean he is no longer a Sunni Muslim? What he did contradicted Sunni Islam, but that does not remove him from its umbrella.

NB: It seems you are confusing membership of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria (IMN) with Shi'ism. They are different. It is perfectly possible to be a member of the IMN without being a Shi'a, and vice versa. The Shi'ah are a branch of Islam, while the Sunnis are another branch. This is like the situation in Christianity between Catholics and Protestants.

tayebest:


so who are we to blame now??

-The shiite who are threathing the COAS with stones, Cutlass, stick et all and even blocking FG road (for past 20years)

OR

-The Army who kill over 300 shiit member cause they were threaten??

Certain things must be made clear here. Every religion/sect has people who claim its name but act contrary to it. As I said earlier, blocking the road of the COAS was plain wrong, both legally and theologically. However, the military did not kill only those who blocked them. They went ahead to massacre even those who knew nothing about the actions of the road-blockers, and murdered them in the hundreds. All those who were killed at the Shi'i centre were murdered in cold blood. They had nothing to do with the actions of the road-blockers. It is like if a group of over-enthusiastic Christians block the road during a large Church service, and the military kills them, and also proceeds to kill all those peacefully worshipping in the Church "out of anger." That is cold-blooded massacre by any standards. Besides, the military overreacted by murdering even the road-blockers. There are legal procedures for dealing with such matters of public nuisance. Massacre and house demolition are not part of them.

tayebest:


Why did your people refuse to pave way for the COAS and let them go??

Those who blocked the path of the COAS were clearly WRONG in what they did. There is no doubt about that. There was no justification for what they did. Nigeria is a country of laws; and all citizens must be law-abiding. However, the soldiers overreacted and went above board in their response to the provocation. They could have gotten those guys arrested and prosecuted by the proper authorities. There are due legal processes for such matters, which the military did not follow.

As-Salam 'Alaikum to all,

After the extrajudicial massacre of Shi'ah in Zaria by the Buhari administration, I noticed a sharp rise in anti-Shi'ah propaganda efforts all over the social media, including here on Nairaland. Many of those who read these materials have no background knowledge about Shi'ism, and are therefore deliberately misinformed by the propagandists. Here, I am opening this thread to provide firsthand answers from a Shi'i about questions you might have about the Shi'ah. I am a Shi'i, by the way; and whatever reply I give will be supported with authentic evidences wherever available. May Allah be with us all.

I will be expecting your questions, and will insha Allah do my best to provide honest and well-supported replies.

Thank you.