Fatima Was Angered - Islam - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum › Nairaland General › Islam › Fatima Was Angered (1570 Views)
| Fatima Was Angered by BlueEmbers(op): 1:01pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih that Abu Walid said that Ibn 'Uyayna reported on the authority of 'Amr b. Dinar on the authority of Ibn Abi Malika, on the authority of al-Miswar b. Mukhrima that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: "Fatima is a part of me, and whoever angers, her angers me". "Fatima is a part of me, and whatever she detests, I detest and what hurts her, hurts me". If the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) becomes angry when his part, al-Zahra, gets angry, and suffers for her suffering, it follows therefore that she is preserved from all errors; otherwise it would not have been permissible for the Prophet (S.A.W.) to say something like this. This is because it is permissible to cause suffering and to anger anyone who commits a misdemeanor, regardless of his status, as the Islamic shari'a does not allow leeway for [special treatment for] ties of kinship, far or near, aristocrat or peon, rich or poor. If the matter is as stated, then who was Abu Bakr to hurt al-Zahra and not heed to her anger? In fact he angered her until she died; she was offended and even shunned him, not speaking to him until she passed away, supplicating against him in every prayer she prayed, as is reported in the history of Ibn Qutayba and other historians. Momin.com. After the death of the prophet (sawa), Fatima(s.a) asked Abubakar to give her her share of the land of fadak which the prophet owned in his lifetime. Abubakar denied her this thus angering the prophet's daughter whom the Quran had attest to her infallibility, the weak argument that Abubakar gave was that prophets didn't leave inheritance, this argument isn't supported by the Quran of hadith whatsoever. My question now is, how can someone who unjustlyustly usurped the property of the prophet's daughter, thus angering her and consequently angering the prophet(sawa) and Allah(azwj) be considered a leader fit to be followed?. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 3:10pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
^^ All these shi'as ehn. 1 Like |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 4:24pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
BlueEmbers:Due to the fact that the rafidi twelver shia are the only sect purporting to be Muslim on eartthat revile Abubakar (ra) and indeed almost all of the friends and companions and family of the prophet (ﷺ) not descended from the Persian princess concubine of alHussein (ra), I infer that you must be a rafidi twelver shia. I understand that your sect do not have any system purporting to either the authentication, or the derivation of fiqh from sources of Islamic laws, so I shall lovingly endeavour to pass along this important knowledge. First, to eliminate tadlees (wrong ruling based on deliberate ignoring of context or quote) any hadith must be looked at in context, otherwise, it may not be used to make a ruling; in this case, the ruling that Abubakar (ra) is not fit to be a ruler. Let us look at your quote of this hadith and its context... The same Miswar b. Makhramali reported that he heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) say, as he sat on the pulpit: The sons of Hisham b. Mughira have asked my permission to marry their daughter with 'Ali b. Abi Talib. But I would not allow them, I would not allow them, I would not allow them except that 'Ali should divorce my daughter and then marry their daughter, for my daughter is part of me. He who disturbs her in fact disturbs me and he who offends her offends me. Sahih Muslim 5999. The same hadith has been narrated in a similar way through one of the twelver shia 'imams' , Zain al Aabideen, Ali bin alHussein bin abi Talib (ra). I do not know why this transmission was not accepted, while the other was... 'Ali b. Husain (Zain alAabideen) reported that Miswar b. Makhramah informed him that 'Ali b. Abi Talib sent the proposal of marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl as he had Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), as his wife. When Fatima heard about it, she came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and said: The people say that you never feel angry on account of your daughters and now 'Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. Makhramah said: Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) rose up and I heard him reciting Tashahhud and say: Now to the point. I gave a daughter of mine (Zainab) to Abu'l-'As b. Rabi, and he spoke to me and spoke the truth. Verily Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, is a part of me and I do not approve that she may be put to any trial and by Allah, the daughter of Allah's Messenger cannot be combined with the daughter of God's enemy as the co-wives of one person. Thereupon 'Ali gave up the idea of his intended marriage. Sahih Muslim 6002 This supporting evidence (through various more chains too many to show here) goes to show that the statement concerning angering Fatima, was made concerning Ali bin abi Talib (ra) after his proposal to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. If this statement establishes that Abubakr (ra) does not deserve the Khilafah, how much more does it establish that Ali (ra) who was the actual basis of the context behind this statement, also does not deserve the khilafah... may Allah forbid that either case is correct. Rather, we prefer to affirm your exaggerated inference is wrong. Secondly, in fact, the Prophet (s) said many similar things about other people as well. The Prophet said: “Allah, Allah! Fear Him with regard to my Sahabah! Do not make them targets after me! Whoever loves them loves them with his love for me; and whoever hates them hates them with his hatred for me. Whoever bears enmity for them, bears enmity for me; and whoever bears enmity for me, bears enmity for Allah. Whoever bears enmity for Allah is about to perish!” Narrated from Abdallah ibn Mughaffal by Al-Tirmidhi by Ahmad with three good chains in his Musnad, al-Bukhari in his Tarikh, al-Bayhaqi in Shu`ab al-Iman, and others. Al-Suyuti declared it hasan in his Jami` al-Saghir #1442) There are numerous similar narrations about the sahabah, both collectively and as individuals. One wonders why the rafidi twelver shias ignore the one and fawn over the ones concerning Fatima (ra), which as we have shown, even indicts their own first 'Imam'. Secondly, on the issue of Fadak, it is established that the prophet Muhammad said... "We prophets do not have any heirs, what we leave is Sadaqah". Since you will likely not want to accept evidence from sunni sources, here is a more acceptable one from your point of view. Shia 'Imam' Khomeini cited a narration from alKafi by Kulaini, and authenticated by alMajlisi stating the same thing... Ayatollah Khomeini’s book: الحكومة الإسلامية الخميني صفحة93 (Al-Hukamah Al Islamiyyah, page 93): "Abu Abdullah (Ja’far Al-Sadiq) (ع) said that the Messenger of Allah (ص) said: “[…] verily, the scholars are the INHERITORS of the Prophets, and the Prophets DO NOT leave dinars and dirhams (i.e. money/wealth) as inheritance but they leave behind knowledge so whoever takes from it then he has acquired a huge fortune.” Ayatollah Khomeini’s comment: This Hadith is SAHIH (authentic). [Even Mullah Baqir Al-Majlisi authenticated the Hadith]. Also... “The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42) (The same Hadith can be found in Sunni books. In Tirmidhi). In the face of direct evidence from the prophet (ﷺ), there was no way that Abubakr (ra) would ignore a command of the prophet (ﷺ) to appease Fatima (ra). It is also often forgotten by the rafida that Fatima (ra) would not have been the only heir of the prophet (ﷺ). For example... When the Messenger of God (ﷺ) died, his wives made up their minds to send Uthman ibn Affan as their spokesman to Abu Bakr to demand from him their share from the legacy of the Holy Prophet. At this, Aisha said to them: Hasn't the Messenger of God said: "We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is to be given in charity"? Sahih Muslim. This shows that the wives of the prophet (ﷺ) who also would have been a part of the inheritance, were aware of this hadith, and Abubakr's daughter herself was entitled to a portion of the inheritance, and they did not push for Abubakr (ra) to disobey the prophet's command (ﷺ), unlike the worldly resentment and materialism that the shia try to attribute to the daughter of the prophet (ﷺ), a lady of the women of Paradise, who the shia say was so materialistic that she stayed up 6 months until her death, cursing Abubakr for not disobeying a command of her father, the prophet (ﷺ) and bestowing upon her some forbidden worldly wealth. Also, the rafida tend to ignore the fact that Abubakr (ra) continued to provide the family of the prophet (ﷺ), including Fatima (ra), with the khumus provided for them during the prophet's lifetime, and this continued during the rule of Umar (ra) Uthman (ra) Ali (ra) etc. Furthermore, if the rafidi shia want to impugn Abubakr (ra) with the issue of Fadak, then they must of necessity impugn Ali (ra), for Ali was the Khalifah some years later, and most of those who would have been entitled to a portion of Fadak were still alive then. There is no evidence that Ali (ra) redressed the purported 'oppression' attributed to Abubakr and Umar (ra) and that he gave the 'rightful heirs' their portion of Fadak, so that would make him as much an oppressor as Abubakr according to this view, and therefore should also destroy Ali's right to the Khilafah if it destroys Abubakr's. I think we can close this chapter with a quote from Ali bin abi Talib (ra) himself, through his son, Muhammad bin Ali (aka ibn al Hanafiyyah), who narrated... "I asked my father (Ali); who of the people is the best after the prophet (ﷺ)? He (Ali) said; Abubakr. I asked, then who? He said; Then Umar. Fearing that he would then say Uthman, so I asked him; then you? He replied; I am naught but a man of the Muslims". Bukhari 20/7, Muslim 154/15, Abu Dawud 4605, ibn abi Shaybah 11994... ranked as Sahih. Ali (ra) was an adviser and a soldier who defended the khilafah of Abubakr (ra) against the attacks by the apostates. Centuries later, his purported shia claim they know better than him. and about Abubakr (ra), when he had had an argument with Umar (ra), the prophet (ﷺ) said... "Verily, Allah sent me to you all, and you accused me of falsehood, except Abubakr, who affirmed the truth and believed in me. And he aided me with his person and his wealth. So will you not let my friend alone for me? Will you not let my friend alone for me? (Twice). And Abubakr was not disturbed after that." Narrated by Bukhari 18/7, alHaythami 44/9 and alTabarani through other authentic chains of transmission. So will you not let the prophet's friend alone for him? Will you continue this nonsensical campaign against the best of the ummah after the prophet (ﷺ) in the words of your very first 'infallible imam'? 2 Likes |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Demmzy15(m): 6:12pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
1 Like |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Rafidi: 7:42pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:so much respect for the grandson of the Prophet (s). was the mother of Imam Ali (as) persian? was Sayyida Fatima (as) persian? silly claim. I understand that your sect do not have any system purporting to either the authentication, or the derivation of fiqh from sources of Islamic laws, so I shall lovingly endeavour to pass along this important knowledge.let us assume that the saying "anyone who hurts Fatima has hurt me (i.e. the Prophet) " was first said in respect to Imam Ali (as). does that mean that if Abu Bakr hurts Sayyida Fatima (as), this same saying of "anyone of hurts her has hurt the Prophet" cannot be applied to him because it was FIRST said in respect to Imam Ali (as)? another question: another to the hadith, people were spreading the rumor that Imam Ali (as) wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. let us assume again that truly this was not a rumor but rather indeed Imam Ali (as) wanted to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. is it forbidden for Imam Ali (as) to marry more than one wife? yet another question: based on the hadith, it is said that people spread the gist. then when Sayyida Fatima (as) expressed sadness, the Prophet (s) protested on the grounds that Imam Ali (as) could not marry that woman on the basis that she was daughter of the enemy of Allah, Abu Jahl. had she been the daughter of someone else, could Imam Ali (as) have married her? afterwards, did Imam Ali (as) ever marry a woman while Sayyida Fatima (as) was alive? if not, then why, if truly Imam Ali (as) had any intention to take another wife? Sayyida Fatima (as) said she heard from the people. no mention that she heard from her husband! she complained to the Prophet (s). after the Prophet (s) allegedly expressed disapproval, did Imam Ali (as) continue with the allegedly marriage plan? no. it is said that he gave up the idea. so can Sayyida Fatima (as) still be angry with him? no! did she die in a state of anger with her husband? no! it was her husband who scretly buried her at night so Abu Bakr and Umar would not attend as per her will. it was her husband who gave her the ritual bath of the dead. i really do not understand, how, even if the above rumor/story is true, relates to the fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry with Abu Bakr and she died in a state of anger. i also do not understand, how, even if the above rumor/story is true, the saying that "anyone who angers her has angered Allah and his a messenger" cannot be applied to Abu Bakr. so what if it was first said in relation to Imam Ali (as)? does it absolve Abu Bakr? in the same narration you want to use to equate anger on Abu Bakr and the purported "anger" on Imam Ali (as), we are told Imam Ali (as) gave up the idea of the purported marriage. but she died in a state of anger with Abu Bakr. look at the shameful fabrications attributing lies to the Prophet's (s) by your predecessors, just so that you can absolve your idols of their atrocities. and yet, you want us to believe you respect,honor, and love the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? Secondly, in fact, the Prophet (s) said many similar things about other people as well.we also love the Sahabah. and there are sahabas you also disrespect: Malik Ibn Nuweira, Hujr Ibn Adi, Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra). there are hadiths in which the Prophet (s) denounced some of his sahaba who will change after him in Sahih Bukhari. and he said those sahaba would be taken into the hell fire and away from the Pond of Kawthar. the Prophet (s) would protest that his sahaba have been taken away and he would be told that he does not know what they innovated after him. clearly, it is evident that even with the title of sahaba, some will go into hell fire. why do you ignore that? the report is in your sahih bukhari. in the Quran, the companions who are from Makkah and Medinah (check 9:100-102) are called hypocrites. who are the hypocrites in Surat al-Munafiqoon. was there no a companion who left Islam and became a christian? so what do you say about him? what is your definition of companion? or your title of companion is selective based on those you have awarded tickets to paradise? Secondly, on the issue of Fadak, it is established that the prophet Muhammad said...so she was making a false claim? is that what you are saying about the "Sayyidatun Nisa Al Alameen"? subhanallah! The spiritual inheritors of prophets – This included their successors and the learned Ulema (scholars) since they inherit the knowledge of prophets NOT Dinars and Dirhams [i.e. material possessions] - Prophets do not leave Dinars and Dirham for this category of heirs /inheritors. The biological inheritors of prophets – That obviously includes the biological offspring of Prophets that inherit all Dinars and Dirham [i.e. material possessions] and we have cited one such example of this category of heir/inheritor herein above. -Ulema are not the actual son of Prophets -Prophets are not their actual fathers -Knowledge is not an actual possession that can be distributed. It is also often forgotten by the rafida that Fatima (ra) would not have been the only heir of the prophet (ﷺ). For example...oh yeah...you mean Aisha? the daughter of the same Abu Bakr, right? hahaha...ridiculous! you really expect her to say anything different from her father? unfortunately, the other wives did not have their fathers become caliph. so Aisha's father was the caliph who usurped power. This shows that the wives of the prophet (ﷺ) who also would have been a part of the inheritance, were aware of this hadith, and Abubakr's daughter herself was entitled to a portion of the inheritance, and they did not push for Abubakr (ra) to disobey the prophet's command (ﷺ), unlike the worldly resentment and materialism that the shia try to attribute to the daughter of the prophet (ﷺ), a lady of the women of Paradise, who the shia say was so materialistic that she stayed up 6 months until her death, cursing Abubakr for not disobeying a command of her father, the prophet (ﷺ) and bestowing upon her some forbidden worldly wealth.look at how one wife (Aisha) has turned into "wives". Aisha knew about this hadith but the Prophet's (s0 daughter did not. and you really believe that? we are not the ones pushing. the Prophet's (s) daughter went to the Prophet's (s) mosque in Medina to confront Abu Bakr. read the Sermon of Fatima (as) to Abu Bakr. read her words and know who was lying. what is the punishment for taking the inheritance of another person in the Quran? find out, and seek repentance! he took her inheritance; he usurped her husband's position, and by doing that disregarded Allah's appointment of Imam Ali (as) and disobeyed the Prophet's (s) command/declaration at Ghadir Khumm and on other occasions that Ali (as) is the "master of every believer AFTER me". he also sent Umar and a gang to attack her house and threaten to set fire to it. we are not the ones who say she died in anger at him nor are we the ones who say she did not speak to him for six months till her death. it is your sahih bukhari that says that. Also, the rafida tend to ignore the fact that Abubakr (ra) continued to provide the family of the prophet (ﷺ), including Fatima (ra), with the khumus provided for them during the prophet's lifetime, and this continued during the rule of Umar (ra) Uthman (ra) Ali (ra) etc.fabrications to white wash the image of the irredeemable. Imam Ali (as) did not reverse fadak, did not stop taraweeh, did not force people to practice mutah etc. and so? does that mean your heroes are not guilty? and why did he not change those things? he wanted to stop taraweeh and people were screaming the name of Umar! his caliphate was opposed by both Aisha and Muawiya who waged war against him in the Battle of Jamal and the Battle of Siffeen, respectively. they needed any propaganda to incite people against him and create more FITNAH. if he does they will revolt and accuse him of changing the sunnah of the shaykhain (abu bakr and umar). they were follow shaykhain as if they were their prophet and not Muhammad (s). the reason why Imam Ali (as) refused the caliphate after Umar was that he refused to endorse the sunnah of the shaykhain. he insisted he will only follow the Sunnha of the Prophet (s). had abu bakr and umar followed the Prophet's (s) Sunnah and their words and deeds were not innovations, they wont have insisted he endorse their sunnah. and for your info, the proceeds from Fadak were only given to the children of Fatima (as) by Umar Ibn Abdul-Azeez. so your claim is false. not taking back Fadak at that particular time, Imam Ali (as) was merely adhering to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) 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. the position of Imam Ali (as) on Fadak: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349 that Umar acknowledged the following to Imam ‘Ali (as): Umar’s Words: When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said:” I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadhrat ‘Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:” We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Rafidi: 7:58pm On Jul 17, 2016 |
continuation: another reason Imam Ali (as) did not use force to restore Fadak aside from avoiding fitnah: Shaykh Seduq in Ilal-ul-Sharai, Volume 1 page 155 so that the points we have explained become clearer: Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Fadhal narrated from Abul-Hasan (Ali ibn Musa Al-Ridha) [a]: I asked him about Amir-ul-Momineen, why he did not seek to return Fadak when he ruled the people, and he replied: “Because we the Ahlul Bayt do not take our rights from those who have wronged us, except Him (Allah). And we are the Awliya of the Momineen, we rule for them and take (and return) their rights from those that wronged them, and we do not take it for ourselves.” The words of the Imam (as) make it clear that they rule for the benefit of the common man, when it comes to their personal usurped rights, they do not take them back themselves rather their expectation is that the usurpers and their adherents express remorse for the sin of usurping the right of Ahl’ul bayt (as) and accordingly restore that right to them. THREE SUNNI CALIPHS GAVE FADAK BACK TO THE DESCENDANTS OF FATIMA (as) AND ANNULLED ABU BAKR'S TESTIMONY THAT PROPHETS DO NOT LEAVE INHERITANCE: three Sunni umayyad caliphs VOLUNTARILY gave Fadak back to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as) and Imam Ja'far al-Sadeq (as). Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, Mamun and Mu’tadid-three Sunni Khalifas who rejected Abu Bakr’s decision in the Fadak dispute.- restored Fadak to the descendants of Sayyida Fatima (as). If Fadak was not their legal right then why did these Khalifas offer this rich land to them? Why did these descendants accept the land if it was not their legal right? |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 5:49am On Jul 18, 2016 |
Rafidi:Your response is too amateurish to warrant a rejoinder. I assume that people who are discerning and think logically should be able to find the gaping flaws in your childish arguments without any input from me. I will only respond if I am asked a question by someone else, who is genuinely interested. I also see that you have no intention of giving up your habit of partial quotation of narrations... tadlees. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by ShiaMuslim: 1:38pm On Jul 18, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:Dear Vedaxcool, Please (look up and) do not forget these precious words carved in gold and marble in your "almighty sahih muslim" about your hero: "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".  |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by BlueEmbers(op): 1:42pm On Jul 18, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:Peace. Though Rafidi has already refuted your claims, I'll like to add little more for the benefit of all. First of all, not only shias or rafidis as you claim dislike Abubakar, there are a of sunni ulema who also agree that he did bad things after the death of the prophet (like usurping the rights of Fatima, unjust massacre of the clan of Malik ib Nuweirra among many others) but they, the sunni ulema nonetheless claim these sins of his were mistakes and regard him and love him as a caliph of God. This is the same as saying I love Firoun and love Allah at the same time, that is just ridiculous, Allah has just created for you one heart, which is solely for living Him and hating His enemies. Also, I noticed that you know so much about Imam Ali Zain Al Abidin(as) but I find it perplexing as to how you don't about how much he loves his grand Father (Imam Ali(a.s) and hates his enemies, its hard for someone like Imam Zain Al Abidin(as) to testify against his grandfather. Imam Zain was someone who spent his day and night weeping for his Father Imam Hussein (as) who was the son of Imam Ali(as) and his companions that were killed during the battle of Karbala, a battle whose root could be traced to the ascension of Abubakar to the throne of caliph. The story of Imam Ali(as)'s proposal to Abu Jahl's daughter is in itself faulty in the sense that this story makes Prophet Muhammad (S) appear as someone who refuses to practice what he preaches, or, feel above the Islamic law to himself, and those related to him while requesting others to abide by them. For instance, he (Prophet (S)) deems it lawful for others to marry more than one wife, but refuses this law when it comes to his daughter. This indeed is a disastrous fabrication against the Prophet (S) that the enemies of Islam were able to insert in the pages of our history books, depending on unscruent narrators who report such stories without reflecting upon them. The story also defames ‘Ali (as) by showing him as someone who angered both Fatima az-Zahra (sa), and her father, and defames Fatima az-Zahra (sa) for refusing to practice Allah's commands, which He revealed to her father. I shall not verify the discredibility of the authority on which the narration was based, for it within itself proves its own discredibility. Yet, it is inevitable to ask: Why have the narrators, who fabricated this story, insisted on saying that he (‘Ali (as)) wanted to marry Abu Jahl's daughter, and not any other woman?! How come they did not claim that ‘Ali (as) attempted to marry another woman? Surely, Abu Jahl's daughter did not enjoy beauty and perfection, which no other Arab girl enjoyed! The fact is that they wanted their defamation of ‘Ali (as) to be graver and more effective; for in their story, ‘Ali (as) specifically chose the daughter of the chief of the enemies of Islam. This plot exposed itself, and those who perpetuated it, when they praised themselves while discrediting Prophet Muhammad (S), his daughter (Fatima az-Zahra (sa)), and his cousin (‘Ali (as)). They claimed in the same story that he mentioned his other son-in-law, who is a young man from Bani Abd Shams, and praised him as "a noble son-in-law"; they claim that the Prophet said: "He, the young man from Bani Abd Shams was truthful in his speech and executed his promises to me." They want us to believe that the Prophet praised his Umayyad son-in-law (the Umayyads belong to the tribe of Bani Abd Shams), which in turn means that he was trying to discredit his first son-in-law [‘Ali (as)] who, according to the story, lied to the Prophet, and violated his promises to him by being an unfaithful husband to his daughter!! Another aim for fabricating this story was to divert the attention from the actual people who angered Fatima az-Zahra (sa), and put ‘Ali (as) under the spotlight as if he was the one who did so. It was for this reason that they mentioned the following tradition at the beginning of the story: "The Prophet (S) said: "Fatima is part of me, discomforts me that which discomforts her, and harms me that which harms her." They interpret it as: The meaning of this tradition is that Allah prohibited ‘Ali from marrying another woman besides Fatima, which would harm Allah's Messenger!! (www.al-islam.org). If the prophets didn't leave inheritance, then what would you say about this Quranic verse?; Allah (swt) declares in Surah Naml 027.016: And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: “O ye 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.)” Al-Qur’an, Surah 27, Ayah 16, translated by Yusufali The verse is clear proof that Suleiman (as) the son of a Prophet inherited from his father,hence the claim that the Prophet’s leave no inheritance for their children is a blatant lie. Sayyida Fatima (as) inherited her Prophet father, in exactly the same way that Suleiman (as) inherited from his Prophet father. Any ruling rejecting her entitlement to her father’s inheritance, contradicts the Qur’an. You might say the inheritance here means knowledge, it is not so because sunni commentators and exegesists claim the inheritance is material for example, We read in Tafseer Kashaf: “Waris refers to Kingdom and Prophethood” Al-Kashaf, Vol. 3, Page 140 Tafseer Khazan: ﻗﻮﻟﻪ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ } ﻭﻭﺭﺙ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ { ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻧﺒﻮﺗﻪ ﻭﻋﻠﻤﻪ، ﻭﻣﻠﻜﻪ “Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir} means (he inherited) prophethood, knowledge and kingdom.” Tafseer Durre Manthur: “Sulayman inherited both Kingdom and knowledge” Dur al-Manthur fi Tafseer al-Mathur, Vol. 5, page 193 Allamah Nisaburi records in Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran: ﻗﻮﻟﻪ } ﻭﻭﺭﺙ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﻭﺩ { ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻝ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃﺓ “Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir}, al-Hassan said: ‘It is material possessions, because Prophethood is a gift” We read in Tafseer al-Bahar al-Muheet by Abi Hayan: ﻭﻗﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ : ﻭﺭﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻝ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃﺓ al-Hassan said: ‘Inherited material possessions because Prophethood is a gift’. You also claimed Fatima al Zahra(s.a) was not the only heir, true in some way (as she was the only child of the prophet) but of course, wives are also liable to inheritance and so we find the mother of the faithful, Aisha bint Abubakar asking for her inheritance from Uthman bn Affan, the 3rd caliph, now my question is, didn't Aisha, one who is reputed to know a lot about Islamic laws and has also transmitted innumerable hadith know that the prophets didn't leave inheritance (that's if they truly didn't) for her to ask Uthmab ibn Affan for her share of inheritance?? WHAT A CONTRADICTION! the fitting reply Uthman ibn Affan gave her was what her father Abubakar had told Fatima (s.a), when she asked for the same thing , that the prophets didn't leave inheritance!, though the reply was rather in a mocking manner which angered Aisha who then said in a brutal manner to Uthman "kill this Nath'al", he is an unbeliever!. The truth is clear undiluted, you just need to sort it out amongst falsehood. It is up to you. Ma Salam. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by zeyney(f): 9:09pm On Jul 18, 2016 |
lexiconkabir:lol.no b small 1 Like |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 1:08pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
BlueEmbers:Rafidi has refuted nothing. His write up was full of contradictory and childish bluster. It was not fit to be replied to in normal discourse. Of course, you are free to hold your opinion concerning it, I will not attempt to disabuse you of it. BlueEmbers:Fatima's father himself (ﷺ) negated her right to an inheritance. Prophets do not leave an inheritance. I have given the evidence from authentic Sunni and from Shia sources. I do not expect anyone with an atom of sense to blame Abubakr (ra) for obeying the prophet (ﷺ) regarding inheritance. BlueEmbers:Please do not insult our intelligence with the fabricated fables that are used to charge emotions at your Husseiniyyats on Ashura. I doubt that you believe them yourself. Let us stick to facts. In addition, the ascension of Abubakr (ra) had nothing to do with the battle of Karbala, or any such issue. AlHussein bin Ali (ra) was betrayed and killed by Kuffans and followers of Ali (ra), they were not Makkans or Madinans or from the Shaam. BlueEmbers:The story is not fabricated. There are authentic reports that confirm it. That it is not to your liking does not a fabricated hadith make. Nor does it impugn the Prophet (ﷺ) in any way, your 'disastrous' assertions notwithstanding. The permissibility of marrying more than one wife is not an obligatory one, nor is it deemed to even incur extra reward, it is just that, a dispensation, not a 'law' as you are trying to pass off. It is permitted to stipulate in the marriage contract that a husband not marry more than the present wife. It is neither sinful nor contradictory to Islamic law, please stop searching for a strawman to hang your speculations on. BlueEmbers:Oh really, perhaps we should also render the hadith on Fatima's 'inheritance' as fabricated, since it seeks to defame Abubakr (ra). Or is it only hadith that are perceived to defame Ali (ra) that are false? And why is that? Secondly, polygyny is not a command from Allah, it is a dispensation. So, please let us leave that childish angle. BlueEmbers:Everything you wrote there is totally speculatory to the nth degree. It will be a disaster if we based the authenticity of our Islamic sources and subsequently, our faith, on this conspiracy theory type of empty talk. I do not think it merits a mention actually, except to say that you did not think of the one correct version of your conspiracy theory, that the narrators of the hadith mentioned the daughter of Abu Jahl because that was precisely who Ali (ra) wanted to marry, not because of the entire castle you and al-islam.org built on a foundation of hot carbon dioxide. BlueEmbers:Prophet Dawud (ﷺ) had dozens of children. If the verse was referring to material possessions, then either prophet Dawud (ﷺ) oppressed his other children by disinheriting them and favouring Prophet Sulayman (ﷺ), or he shared his will equally and the Quran mentioned Sulayman's inheritance alone, in what you want us to believe is a frivolous and misleading way (since it implies that others did not inherit). Or... since we know that the Quran is neither frivolous nor misleading (you do know that, dont you?)... we can interprete the verse accurately as more famous interpreters have done (which you forgetfully omitted) and understand the inheritance to be that of prophethood, as the inheritance of Yahya from prophet Zakariyyah (ﷺ) and the family of Yaaqub (in surat Maryam) was that of prophethood (unless you want us to believe that prophet Yaqub had some gold stashed somewhere for thousands of years for prophet Yahya to inherit... considering your past arguments, I believe you really might think that the idea has merit). As for the tafsirs you cited, bolding certain words as I did there, clarify that the inheritance was considered material BECAUSE they considered prophethood to be a gift. Therefore, they admitted that the inheritance was the gift of prophethood. I appreciate your help in citing the evidence. BlueEmbers:Come on, did you even read the hadith I posted? This is irritating. In your hurry to 'refute' authentic hadith and find fault with the prophet's closest friends and companions, your leap over simple language comprehension. I never believed I would have the patience to do this, but here is the hadith again... When the Messenger of God (ﷺ) died, his wives made up their minds to send Uthman ibn Affan as their spokesman to Abu Bakr to demand from him their share from the legacy of the Holy Prophet. At this, Aisha said to them: Hasn't the Messenger of God said: "We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is to be given in charity"? Sahih Muslim Is it now clear who said what? In case you still are unable to comprehend even after I bolded it, it was Aisha (ra) who pointed it out to the other wives. Where you got the salad and mayonnaise story of Uthman (ra) saying it in a 'mocking way' and Aisha (ra) saying 'kill me this nathaal etc' is beyond my ability to imagine. I can only assume that you have been listening to Ashura day commentary by some of your more colourful shia scholars, like the one that was insisting that the prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was REALLY BREASTFED by Abu Talib. What a wonderful discovery to be added to the shia version of history. Would you like me to provide you with the youtube link, so you can entertain yourself with some comedy? Or I'd better not, you might actually believe it. BlueEmbers:This is the only correct assertion you have made in this article. Keep it up 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 1:34pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
ShiaMuslim:That statement was taken out of context from a long hadith, which you shia fail to ever reveal in its entirety. It was actually Ali bin abi Talib (ra) who was called 'liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest' by his uncle, alAbbass bin AbdulMuttalib, when they had a disputation on how to share income from the same Fadak placed under their joint guardianship (which the shia believe was not even theirs, but Fatima's). Any interested party can look it up here. https://imaams./2011/01/10/neither-abu-bakr-nor-umar-was-a-“liar-sinful-treacherous-and-dishonest”/ Here is the full hadith (a bit long, but worth it to understand the context). Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4349: It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by Malik b. Aus who said: Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): “Malik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them.” I said: “I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job.” He said: “Malik, take it (and do what you have been told).” At this moment (his man-servant) Yarfa’ came in and said: “Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. ‘Auf, Zubair and Sa’d (who have come to seek an audience with you)?” He said: “Yes, and permitted them.” So they entered. Then he (Yarfa’) came again and said: “What do you say about ‘Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)?” He said: “Yes,” and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: “Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar (Ali).” The people (who were present) also said: “Yes, Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them.” Malik b. Aus said: “I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ‘Ali and Abbas).” ‘Umar said: “Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘We (prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?’” They said: “Yes.” Then he turned to Abbas and ‘Ali and said: “I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?’” They (too) said: “Yes.” (Then) Umar said: “Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger (may peace be upon him) a special favor that He has not done to anyone else except him.” He quoted the Quranic verse: “What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger.” The narrator said: “I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not.” Umar continued: “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) distributed among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bait-ul-Mal.” (Continuing further) he said: “I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know this?” They said: “Yes.” Then he adjured Abbas and ‘All as he had adjured the other persons and asked: “Do you both know this?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away, Abu Bakr said: ‘I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).’ Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah).” (Referring to Hadrat ‘Abbas), he said: “You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ‘Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: ‘The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said: We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.’ So both of you (Ali and Abbas) thought him (Abu Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you (Ali and Abbas) thought me (Umar) to be a liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. So both of you got it.” He said: “Wasn’t it like this?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.” The Hadith can thus be broken down into relevant parts: 1) Abbas calls Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” 2) Umar repeats the words of Abbas and says that Ali and Abbas thought of Abu Bakr and Umar to be “liar[s], sinful, treacherous, and dishonest” If the Shia propagandists are going to accept this Hadith and use it against the Ahlus Sunnah, then they must accept the entire narration. In order to accept the second part, they must accept the first part in which Abbas-–who is revered by the Shia and comes from the House of Muhammad-–called Ali to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Of course, the Shia will never accept this! The Shia are thus left with two options: either they accept the Sahih Bukhari version of this Hadith as the Ahlus Sunnah does (in which case their claims that Ali called Umar such-and-such are no longer valid), or else they accept the fact that Abbas accused Ali of being a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” As an addendum, if the shia accept this hadith in its entirety, then they must also accept this portion of it... Then he (Umar) turned to Abbas and ‘Ali and said: “I adjure you both by Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?’” They (too) said: “Yes.” This asserts unshakeably that their first 'infallible Imam' Ali bin abi Talib, confirmed and swore by Allah by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained, that he knew that the prophet (ﷺ) said that he had no heirs, and that all property he left behind (including Fadak) was to be given in charity. In which case, this whole article was based on a strawman. Fatima (ra) had no inheritance, even according to Ali bin abi Talib (ra) and his true followers. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Demmzy15(m): 4:44pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Farmerforlife, i've gained something new! جزاك الله خير أخي 1 Like |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Nobody: 5:10pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Demmzy15:و إياكم اخي. Actually, most shia polemics are a study in tadlees, partial narration of hadith, and weak or false historical stories, usually from known liars like alWaqidi. Remember that they have no hadith or history of their own except the ones they made up. I think ot was imam Shafi'ee that said about them that they make up stories, then take these as sources for their deen. May Allah guide them all. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by Demmzy15(m): 5:12pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:Amin Insha'Allah! 1 Like |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by BlueEmbers(op): 9:52pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:I find your argument rather confusing as it contains a lot of absurd and contradictive narratives. Those who concocted the hadith probably forgot that if Ali(as) (who was never far from his master, the prophet all his life) 'knew' (as we can't say he forgot) that the prophet(sawa) 'said' he wouldn't leave inheritance after he died, Ali would never have gone to umar to demand for it in the first place. Ali is someone whom the prophet (sawa) praised in the hadith ( I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate" is not present in the current editions of the Sahih (alternatively called Jami` or Sunan) of al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 AH). This book is one of the Sihah Sittah or Six Authentic hadith books for the Ahl al-Sunnah). Can we then say someone like Ali(as) forgot about the prophet's word about the fadak and thoughtlessly went to umar to demand for it. If you believe this, then you are indirectly calling the prophet a liar (God forbid) for praising Ali as the source to his knowledge. You were right, no one can accept that Abbas called Ali a liar and a treacherous person because we have seen countless narrations about Ali's love for Abbas, we also saw him fighting side by side with Ali(as) against Muawiya(L.A) during the battle of siffin. So how on earth will believe such an hadith that tends to portray the two like they have been lifelong enemies? This tends to make one doubt the authenticity of the almighty sahih bukhari. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by BlueEmbers(op): 11:25pm On Jul 19, 2016*. Modified: 11:40pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:“Allah’s statement {And Solomon was David’s heir}, al-Hassan said: ‘It is material possessions, because Prophethood is a gift” We read in Tafseer al-Bahar al-Muheet by Abi Hayan: DQ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﻦ : ﻭﺭﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻝ ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺒﻮﺓ ﻋﻄﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺘﺪﺃﺓ al-Hassan said: ‘Inherited material possessions because Prophethood is a gift’. Hassan said it is a material possession because prophet hood is a gift here means that an inheritance can not be a gift ( just as prophet hood here is a gift) and rather, that the inheritance was material e.t.c there... simple as pie. I like the way you skillfully circumvented the fact that the prophet can never preach what he could not practice, terming it a childish stuff or so, do I have to remind you that the prophet practiced polygamy and recommended it to his companions? why on earth would he then not want his daughter to have a co-wives(that is if Ali wished for it in the first place), or do you think the prophet is a cunning and unjust person (God forbid) who preaches what he himself dislikes?. As to why it defames Ali(a.s), there are many a reason, which one I think will suffice to satisfy your curiosity; There is an hadith called hadith of Ghadir, which is as follows; The Prophet [s] held up the hand of 'Ali st Ghadir khum and said: "For whoever I am his Leader (mawla ), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla )." [In some narrations the word used was wali rather than mawla - with the same implication] The Prophet [s] continued: "O' God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him." These were the key parts of the speech of the Prophet [s]. There are also more detailed versions of this sermon which are recorded by many Sunni authorities. For someone to be given the same authority as the prophet, the person must as necessity implicates be error-free so as to be able to imitate the prophet perfectly, the actions of the person must be exactly as the action of the prophet, such a man was Ali, whose Immaculateness is attested to by Quran Al Majid (33:33), it is therefore absurd and impossible to say such a man would anger the prophet, it would contradict what the prophet said at Ghadir and of course the Qur'an. You also stated that you can not imagine Aisha insulting Uthman Affan?, well I hate to break it to you that she being one the prophet's wives does not make her infallible as history has recorded her doing 'unimaginable' things like waging a war against Imam Ali (as) while mounting a camel thereby defying Allah ( “ And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of before. .”- Al Ahzab) and fulfilling a certain prophecy of the prophet (sawa) ( The Prophet (sawa ) said to his wives: “ I wonder which one of you will be the instigator of the Camel Affair, at whom the dogs of Haw’ ab will bark, and she will be the one who has deviated from the straight path . As to you Humayra (i . e . , Aisha ), I have warned you in that regard.” Source (Sunni ): History of Ibn al- Athir , v 3 , p 120 ; al - Imamah wa al- Siyasah , by Ibn Qutaybah When A’ isha heard the barking dogs , she realised once again her mistake.. but did that stop her? This prophecy of the Messenger of Allah (sawa ) took place 28 years later in the plain of al- Haw’ ab. The story that all historians tend to agree is that during her journey to Basra (to lead the war of Camel ), Aisha passed by the waters of al- Haw’ ab and heard the dogs barking. She remembered the warning of the Prophet, and she cried and said : “ Take me back ! Take me back!” But Talha and Zubair brought fifty men and bribed them to testify in front of her that the place was not the plain of al-Haw’ ab. Source (Sunni ): al- Tabari ; Ibn al- Athir ; Al - Haakim narrates a variation where who graded it Sahih (See Image ) Qays said: ‘ When Ayesha reached Bani Amer ’ s well at night, some dogs were barking at her, so she said: “ Where is this place?” , so they said: “ Al - Haw’ ab” , she said : “ I must go back !” , Al- Zubair said : “ No , you shall go forward so that the Muslims shall see you and Allah makes peace between them”, she said : “ Allah ’ s messenger (pbuh) once said: ‘ Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of Al -Hawab dogs ?”) this false testimony was the first in the history of Islam and yet you regard these people as honoured companions of the prophet and put r.a at the end of their names. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by BlueEmbers(op): 11:38pm On Jul 19, 2016 |
Hussein ibn Ali(as) was martyred along with 72 of his family and companions by your caliph, Yazid(l.a) , it is established in history and no matter what, nothing , no one, no lies can wash away their blood from the books of history. What would the kufans gain by killing the grandson of the prophet?? how can anyone even think like that!. besides, there is no convincing argument to back up your claim. It is a pity people call themselves Muslims and do not even know about the greatest martyrdom in the history of Islam/the world for that matter, some of us even take it as a day of celebration, as was done by his enemies who saw to his end with all their might. What is more sorrowful is how some people ignorantly defend the likes of Yazid(l.a), while fully knowing his crimes and sins against the prophet. I thank Allah for making me one of the few aware. |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by ShiaMuslim: 6:48am On Jul 20, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:There is a saying that the dead man and the stupid man are both the same. They do not feel the pain but those around them do. You talk of tadlees, but that is what you're using to claim it is the Shia using tadlees. For God's sake, can't you open your eyes and see how misled you are? A Hadith exist that Abu Bakr angered Fatima (as), and whoever angers/hurt her has hurt the Prophet (s). You guys have another parallel Hadith pointing finger that Imam Ali (as) also angered her. So Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) are "same"!!! While evidently, the Hadith that Imam Ali (as) angered her is internally on its own standing and in its own wordings a fabrication because to the very least the Hadith condemning Imam Ali (as) discredits the Prophet! And Imam Ali (as) angering her and later, based on the fabricated Hadith, changed and repented, doesn't negate that she died in a state of anger with Abu Bakr. Two wrongs do not make a right. And I hope you will see why we believe your so called love for the Ahlul-Bayt (as), right from the time of your predecessors, is not genuine love. The second Hadith, you have the same and exact situation. A Hadith exists in your sahih Muslim whereby Umar, Abbass (ra) and Imam Ali (as) consider Abu Bakr as sinful, treacherous and dishonest liar. You have a parallel Hadith where Abbass (ra) is claimed to have described Imam Ali (as) with exactly the same wordings. ma sha Allah!!! You see why you guys can hardly break free from the yolk of the fabrications of Banu Umayyah and your so called Hadith books? Ok, let us agree for argument sake that Abbass (ra) also used the exact wordings on Imam Ali (as) that Umar used on Abu Bakr regarding what Abbass (ra) and Imam Ali (as) thought of Abu Bakr. A simple question for you. Both hadiths are in your sahih book. Isn't it common sense and fair therefore that the wordings qualifying both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as) as "sinful, treacherous and dishonest liar" be used by you to condemn both Imam Ali (as) and Abu Bakr? You still consider both as "rightly guided caliphs". That is a silly thing to do! We are Shia and we do not believe in your so called sahih books to judge our Imam Ali (as). But we can use your sahih book to judge your first caliph Abu Bakr and even your so called fourth caliph (i.e. Imam Ali). So you should abide by what is found in your sahih book and accept that your so called rightly guided caliphs were nothing but "sinful, treacherous and dishonest liars". Besides, it is the least of my concern regarding what Abass (ra) thought of Imam Ali (as) even if I'm to accept both Hadiths for argument sake. To me Abbass (ra) is just another Muslim, regardless of his standing as a good or bad Muslim or a sahabi. What concerns both of us and is relevant to our discussion is what was Imam Ali's (as) position on Fadak and on Abu Bakr's false testimony that prophets do not leave inheritance, a claim that contradicts the evidence in the Holy Quran. Let us go even a step further, do you really believe Imam Ali (as) will claim what doesn't belong to him? I can conveniently say both Abass and Abu Bakr were wrong, and only Imam Ali (as) was right even if I wholeheartedly accept both narrations. There is no problem because the words of Abbass (ra), a fallible man is not proof for me to accept. There is even no justification for Abbass (ra) to used such wordings against Imam Ali (as) because Imam Ali (as) did not tangibly take or deny Abass (ra) of anything even if they had difference of opinion, again assuming for argument sake both narrations are to be accepted. But the words and thoughts of Imam Ali (as) are proof for the both of us because he is your "fourth rightly guided caliph" and he is my first infallible and divinely appointed Imam. So what Imam Ali (as) thought of Abu Bakr is of immense importance to us both and what Abbass (ra) or whoever thinks of Imam Ali (as) has no relevance to us because the position Imam Ali (as) is to us both is higher than that of Abbass (ra) and only the words of the Prophet Muhammad (s) in describing Imam Ali (as) will suffice. But coming back to the parallel narrations regarding the same wordings and the same instance that condemn Abu Bakr must also condemn Imam Ali (as) in your so called sahih hadith book. Don't you have the slightest of doubt that there is foul play by your Sunni predecessors who compiled these narrations? And yet you haven't rejected both Abu Bakr and Imam Ali (as), but you're always quick to use these fabrications against the Shia when they point the ills of Abu Bakr. Your argument is not based on opposing evil. Rather it is based on using a supposed or alleged evil to justify another evil and vindicate its perpetrator (Abu Bakr) instead of treading the path of sincerity and rejecting both evils if you're truthful. These short exhortations are meant to wake you up if you have an atom of a conscience. Don't you see from these instances how misled you are and how you have been placed in bondage through distorted hadiths and history? The same goes about the merits of Imam Ali (as). Every unique merit of Imam Ali (as) is attributed also to Abu Bakr and umar. And every demerit of Abu Bakr and umar are shared and attributed to Imam Ali (as). Don't your have ears to hear and eyes to see? |
| Re: Fatima Was Angered by udatso: 11:56pm On Jul 20, 2016 |
Farmerforlife:Don't mind them. Your first reply is enough to clear out their consequent rebutals. So much flaws in their reply. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Martyrdom Of Sayyida Fatima, Daughter Of Prophet Muhammad(s) • 2 • 3 • 4
Nobel Prize Winner Affirms Health Benefits Of Fasting • The 9th Of Dhul- Hijjah "Arafat Day" • My Dad Is Dying