₦airaland Forum

Seun:
In light of the tragedy in France, which claimed 84 lives, I'd like to ask Nairaland muslims a very important question:

Is there something in Islam that makes it very easy for bad men to convince young muslim men to take part in evil terrorist attacks?

If so, what is it? And what should be done to permanently end the perpetration of terrorist acts by people who claim to be muslims?

First and foremost, the simple answer to your question should be NO! There is nothing in Islam that encourages terrorism, as rightly established by previous posts. Since most non-Muslims would have preconceived notions about Islam and Muslims, I see it rather beneficial to buttress the fact that terrorism is not peculiar to Muslims, by stating clearly that Islam is different from Muslims, for Muslims are also humans, and being human has its peculiar characteristics, therefore, there would always be conflicts, crisis and contestation, and in most cases, this is as a result of seeking political authority and what have you among other worldly aspirations of man.

Man would use any of the methods available to him to achieve legitimacy, and it can be through violence or through other subtle means, depending on his capacity financially, numerically, academically, socially, intellectually, politically and even spiritually. Terrorism can come equally from an oppressor and from the oppressed;I dare say, terrorism is an orphan, a crime which is not exclusive to a religion, tribe, ethnicity or race. If we keep tagging Islam and Muslims as being terrorists and supporters of terrorism, and shy away from other groups of people who are also terrorists and other forms of terrorism which are prevalent in our society, then we are hypocrites, no lasting solution can be found with such disposition and approach.

In a book review published on Guardian newspaper, the below point was made and I believe it to be the proper understanding of the root course of global terrorism:

“…Entitled “A De-Mystification of the Pervasive Understanding of Terrorism” Chapter three rejects and debunks the notion that acts of terrorism are religiously based.

Since every religion advocates for tolerance, peace and peaceful coexistence, it cannot and should not be argued that acts of terrorism are based on any religion doctrine. Rather, the author argues, acts of terrorism are both theoretically and practically traceable to structural existential and perceptual realities of domination and rebellious resistance. He is point blank, noting that terrorism should be viewed within the nexus of global asymmetric or unequal hegemonic power configuration.

Specifically, reference is made to acts of state terrorism as practiced during the Cold War, where training was given to some groups or individuals who were later deployed in fighting proxy wars in places such as Angola, Apartheid South Africa, Nicaragua and Mozambique.

According to the author, the notion of terrorism embraces extreme actions that deliberately involve destruction of life and property in order to effect social and political changes and in effect terrorism may also involve a state, but this might attract different appellations.

America’s war against Iraq under Sadam Hussein is purely a case of state terrorism per excellence. America’s foreign policy during the Cold War, especially against the Soviet Union and its allies took the form of state terrorism…” (Rasheed I. Akinyemi “How Politics, Not Religion, Brews Terrorism” Rev. of Nexus of The State and Legitimation Crisis by Prof. Adebayo Ninalowo. The Guardian Newspaper, 3 April, 2016:31. Print.)

Muslim Scholars, groups, societies and individuals have all condemned terrorism as not being Islamic; they provide evidences from the Qur’an and hadith, as well as the history of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). If we still experience these forms of global terrorism, after strong condemnation from Islamic authorities from all over the world, then it should be obvious that terrorism is beyond scriptural recommendations, but rather terrorism is as a result of deep rooted social problems of which poverty, illiteracy, corruption, injustice, oppression and bad leadership are at the front burner.

ShiaMuslim:
your opinions and those of mine really do not matter as to the reasons the Iranians allow this. but now you are putting words into my mouth and adding pepper and maggi to the story, as the sole purpose of this thread was for that. i fail to see how i lack empathy over the decision someone make to change his sex. if a fatwa says the act is not forbidden, it may still be deemed makruh, then how is that coercion? no one send you and you choose to do it. save your fake sympathy. Shias get massacred weekly and you have not shown that sympathy. i havent read a post or thread of yours showing us your sympathy. our scholars are custodians of our faith. whatever decisions they reach is best known to Allah and to them. however, on such an issue which is not binding upon me, and scholars can differ on and it does not affect me anyhow, i am indifferent.

Oga Ade! I did not put words in your mouth, I only responded to your statement of "300 being insignificant" accordingly. I used somewhat coerced, you even opined that the basis of this fatwa was due to the strict law on homosexuals in Iran, and if you had watched the videos, one of them actually said he wouldn't have gone for the sex change, there was even an argument in the video number 4 about the fatwa. The fatwa was the propelling force to go ahead with the surgery, if the fatwa wasn't there, these guys would still be guys!

Anyways, I pray innocent people would understand Islam more and not fall into this horrible trap called fatwa, people with homosexual tendencies or other issues pertaining to their sex and sexuality should rather go to a psychiatrist and seek professional help, instead of compounding their woes...

ShiaMuslim:
when the Prophet (s) was alive, he was also the Imam of all Muslims. so Imam Ali's (as) imamate was not active or has not commenced. so you can say it was in abeyance.

Interesting, first, you need to understand my question properly, since Imamah was established during the time of Ibrahim (AS), and Allah (SWT) directly appointed him as an Imam, so how , where and when were other Prophets or other Imams appointed? Was Imamah suspended after Ibrahim (AS)?

ShiaMuslim:
yes, imamate can be higher than prophethood. imamate combines spiritual and worldly leadership while prophethood is only spiritual. this is the case, except for the Prophet Muhammad (s) who is superior to all prophet, messengers and holy/divinely appointed imams.

Who is a Prophet? Why did Allah (SWT) appoint Prophets for mankind?! In the Qur’an, I had even posted a verse establishing believing in Prophets, but we cannot find anywhere in the Qur’an this status of this your Imamah, except for you people’s interpretation of Q 2: 124, as being an higher position from Prophethood…I have not read anywhere that a Prophet is not an Imam, as in a person who leads others, in which other people follow and emulate towards achieving success in life and hereafter, pick any Prophet mentioned in the Qur’an, and you would see how this your classification is false.

ShiaMuslim:
do we say this verse points out the imamate is a divine station? no we do not. the verse we hold and claim points out imamate is made through divine appointment is verse 2:124. the verse of obeying ulil amr only maintains our obedience to the 12 holy Imams (as). in other words, even if we must obey ordinary Muslims in dispensing the day to day affairs of Muslims, their legitimacy must come from Allah through the 12 Imams (as) who must have appointed them or endorse them directly or through their teachings. in all ways, leadership is divine because man is the khalifa of Allah on earth.

Do you know what is most beautiful about the Qur’an? It is quite simple to understand if you are willing to, it is self-explanatory, and Allah (SWT) in His Wisdom would always make clear whatever anyone wants to use to create issues…I agree with you, Qur’an 2:124 is the verse of Imamah according to you Shi’ah. I also agree with you, we are the Khalifa of Allah (SWT) on earth, thus anyone of us can be given the mantle of leadership, especially when we are righteous, and follow the Qur’an and Sunnah. It is even one of the prayers found in the Qur’an:

“And those who say: O our Lord! Grant us in our wives and our offspring the joy of our eyes, and make us Imams” (25:74)

So is the above not also a verse of Imamah?!

But I disagree with your claim that legitimacy must come through the 12 Imams, bring proofs from the Qur’an for this!

Now let me quote verses of the Qur’an which should clear any doubts with regards to verse 2:124 (although I would have gone with the tafsir, but these verses, actually addresses all your points at a go)

I’ll quote Qur’an 2:124 first:

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."

Allah (SWT) states in another chapter of the Qur’an after narrating how Ibrahim (AS) was guided:
[b]
“And that was Our Proof which We gave Ibrahim (Abraham) against his people. We raise whom We will in degrees. Certainly your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.

And We bestowed upon him Ishaque (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob), each of them We guided, and before him, We guided Nuh (Noah), and among his progeny Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), and Harun (Aaron). Thus do We reward the good-doers.

And Zakariya (Zachariya), and Yahya (John) and 'Iesa (Jesus) and Iliyas (Elias), each one of them was of the righteous.

And Isma'il (Ishmael) and Al-Yas'a (Elisha), and Yunus (Jonah) and Lout (Lot), and each one of them We preferred above the 'Alamin (mankind and jinns) (of their times).

And also some of their fathers and their progeny and their brethren, We chose them, and We guided them to a Straight Path.

That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whomever He wills of His servants. But if they had associated others with Allah , then worthless for them would be whatever they were doing.

Those are the ones to whom We gave the Scripture and authority and prophethood. But if the disbelievers deny it, then We have entrusted it to a people who are not therein disbelievers."[/b]
(Q6:83-89)

When you juxtapose these verses together, it becomes clear, the Prayer of Ibrahim (AS) was accepted, and what Allah (SWT) gave the offspring of Ibrahim (AS) were:

1. Scripture
2. Authority (on the scriptures i.e understanding, and applications of the rulings therein)
3. Prophethood

I still humbly await who among those listed here that the Imams are higher than, the Imams that were not given scriptures, not given revelations, depends on the authority of the Prophet (SAW), and are not Prophets…

ShiaMuslim:
the 12 Imams (as) are only below the Prophet Muhammad (s). Prophet Muhammad (s) through was revealed the Quran, the final message and the most advanced shariah. the knowledge thus given to him is superior to the other prophets. the 12 Imams (as) are inheritors and heirs of the knowledge, wisdom and revelations of Muhammad (s). by this virtue, and being protectors of the sharia of Muhammad (s) based on divine knowledge and wisdom, they are superior to all other prophets who had lesser revelations to the Quran and lesser sharia to that of Muhammad (s). you assertion that he followed in their footsteps is utterly false. if he acted in their footsteps, he wont have refused the condition for taking power over from Umar. and talking about his opinion on his predecessors, you can examine this as tip of the iceberg:

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.

copied from:
https://www.nairaland.com/3232005/fatima-angered#47640468

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an:

“Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)." (Q 2:136)

Here we read believe in Prophets and not making distinctions, such as you have introduced as some being Imams, and others not Imams, or making distinctions in the revelations given to them. The Prophets were all saddled with the same responsibility; guide their people to Allah (SWT). So how can you now say Imams who are not even Prophets are higher than some Prophets?!

Another verse from the Qur’an:

“And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and a goodly company are they! This is grace from Allah, and sufficient is Allah as the Knower.” (Q4:69-70)

Here again, no Imams mentioned. But Prophets clearly mentioned, the truthful ones, the martyrs and even the good…How could this important Imams be omitted continuously?! Why?! Again, what the Prophet (SAW) left to be inherited is still with us, the Qur’an and Sunnah! Every Muslim on the surface of the earth is entitled to this inheritance, it was never reserved for a selected few, rather Allah (SWT) sent His messenger to the whole of mankind, and who ever chooses, inherits the Prophet’s divine knowledge, wisdom and revelations embedded in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Or what other revelation apart from the Qur’an and authentic narrations do you want to call us to?!

With the proofs thus far, how can you then still say that Imamah (according to you Shi’ah) is in the Qur’an?!

Now don’t see this as me wanting to argue with your points, but rather, I do have proofs from the Holy Qur’an, and I cannot ignore clear verses provided thus far to follow some conjectures, the reason I respectfully ask for your proofs from the Qur’an as well.

With regards to Abu Bakr’s khalifah and the narration and link you put up, I’ll rather pass, reason being that it is not really important to the topic, and it had been handled on the thread you even posted…

@ShiaMuslim

The concept of Ijtihad is fully understood in Sunnism, and there happens to be adequate materials in regards to this. That you are indifferent to this issue is unsettling, saying just 300 out of the whole population is insignificant shows your level of empathy to your fellow man, not to even talk of to your fellow Muslim brother. So if just one person in your hood is made to suffer, you are indifferent right, it is just one person right?! Even for the fact that it is Iran, and they are shi'ah, I do feel empathy for them, I believe they were ill informed and were somewhat coerced into making such a choice by the fatwa.

In sunni, such a fatwa would have been addressed by scholars and properly put in its right place, i.e in the trash. But it seems your Ayatollahs can get away with anything, no one dares ask questions...

Having two heads is an anomaly, and science being able to provide a machine to fly with, is quite different from growing wings out of my back...If Allah (SWT) want's human beings to fly, he would have created us with wings. Do you believe in scientist more than Allah (SWT)? Are you saying Allah (SWT) didn't know what he created and why he created us so?! (Subhanallah!)

If what one of your highest religious personality says does not concern you as a member of that religion, you might as well say you do not belong to the religion in the first place.

ShiaMuslim: in Iran, there is much opposition to homosexuality. i believe this fatwa was made on the basis that it is a corrective measure to homosexuality; either to dissuade young people from homosexuality, or to correct it. if you are a man and you want to sleep with another man, then change your sex. if you wont change your sex, then do not sleep with the same sex. it sounds like a deterrent.

The above reason is not a corrective measure and deterrent to homosexuality, and it is not funny either. It reminds me of a group of people who want to eat their cakes and have it, or people looking for ways to bend the rules, something peculiar to people who lack faith, people when Allah (SWT) forbids something, they look for ways to still do that which is forbidden, by calling it other names or changing its form, like calling usury, business, and now homosexuality, by transgender/sex change, I also know you do not frown at anal intercourse...Well what can I say, we are truly in the end times...

May Allah (SWT) safeguard us. Ameen.

ShiaMuslim:
Your claim can be refuted in two ways:

1. The verse has a context. It refers to the time of the Prophet (s) before the commencement of the Imamate.

2. The Shia too have ordinary Muslim leaders, even in the times of the 12 Holy Imams who took directives from them. Example: Malik al-Ashtar (ra) who was appointed the ruler of Egypt by Imam Ali (as).

Even three ways:

3. The 12 Holy Imams (as) have never been or claimed to be a separate authority from the Prophet (s) and whatever they judged or ruled was based on the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). In fact this is the point that made Imam Ali (as) not to be chosen by the committee of six imposed by Umar to choose a caliph. They conditioned that Imam Ali (as) must abide guy me Sunnah of the Prophet (s) and the sunnah of the shaikhain (Abu Bakr and umar). Imam Ali (as) refused and said he will only abide by the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). Had gone two shaykhain ruled by the Sunnah of Muhammad (s), there wouldn't have been need to insist Imam Ali (as) also abide by their own teachings and actions. But apparently based on this condition, they had deviated. The Imamate is a reflection of prophethood. And it is based on the Sunnah of Allah and His Prophet (s) the 12 Imams (as) ruled and judged. Thus the Imamate did not introduce any new rule or Sunnah or sharia or laws that they maybe the source for judgment. The Imams ruled and judged based on the Prophet's teachings. When there is a dispute, the 12 Imams (as) themselves would insist the matter is resolved based on the Quran and Sunnah of Muhammad (s). Anything more or short of that is not acceptable.

So you guys should stop acting like Christians and speaking based on conjectures. The Christians are lost on finding the source of the Quran. They devise different and contradictory arguments. Now you guys are lost on interpreting Quran verses that uphold Imamate. Take it easy. Learning is gradual and so also seeing and accepting the truth. Accepting the truth is a habit too. With time and training you will get there, Allah willing!

Your efforts are well appreciated, I do understand you abhor arguments and rather want me to learn, which happens to be is one of my hobbies.

1. Could you please clarify this? was there a period when Imamate was in abeyance? Considering the verse you claimed was in regards to "general Imamate" of which you made the below statement:

"5). The verse of general Imamah in the Holy Quran is verse 2:124. This proves that Prophet Ibrahim (as) was given a position which was higher than the position he had already attained in prophethood.This would put Imamate at the time of Ibrahim (as)."

This your statement above is quite informative, for you clearly want us to believe that the appointment of Imamate, is higher than that of Prophethood...

2. Well, I cannot really see how this helps to clarify issues, the verse does not recognize your Imamate as divinely appointed individuals. Since they are not the messengers of Allah (SWT), they fall under the heading " 'wulul Amr " and this can be anybody and there can be dispute with them which we would have to resolve by going back to the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is important to state here that nowhere else in the Qur'an does Allah (SWT) make reference to obey any divinely appointed Imamate. If you do have proof(s), you may present it/them.

3. If the Imamate are not separate authority from the Prophet (SAW), they do not go against the Qur'an and Sunnah, then why do we have to take them as anything special?! They have no other guidance except for the guidance of the Prophet (SAW), they must follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAW), in other words, they are below the prophets. Any good Muslim leader can uphold the Qur'an and Sunnah and some of these Imams never even attained the position of authority in their land. For the fact that Imam Ali (ra) didn't overturn the rulings of his predecessors after he became the Imam, but rather followed their footsteps, clearly indicates that his predecessors were upon the Qur'an and Sunnah. I had asked your other brother to prove from authentic narrations, Imam Ali's opinions of his predecessors, did he considered them misguided? did he consider them the way you shi'ah portray them to be today?!

All in all, you haven't been able to bring a clear-cut verse from the Qur'an that clearly explains the concept of Imamah according to you shia'ah thus far.

ShiaMuslim:
At least you are making some sense for the first time and you are not lying.

In every law, there are people who try to beat the gun and abuse the intent of the law. If you look at Islamic practices, you can find everyone that has been exploited for the wrong purpose by mischievous people.

Secondly, to us, the sharia is not holy. The sharia was not revealed. The Quran is holy. The sharia is based on interpretation of laws by fallible scholars, via the Quran and authentic Hadith, be they Sunni or Shia scholars. Those scholars are neither holy/infallible imams of the Ahlul Bayt (as) nor prophets. So these laws can be reviewed, annulled or adjusted if the bad is weighted to be more than the good. I'd leave that for the Iranians and their leaders/scholars to decide for themselves and what is good for them in sex change.

Further it is very possible to find another Shia ayatollah who views the permission by Ayatollah Khomeini on sex change to be invalid and haram. In Shia Islam, our scholars are mujtahids. The concept of ijtihad did not stop as it stopped in Sunnism with the four scholars of the four Sunni schools of thought. That is why in Shia Islam, the highest scholars can and are permitted to hold different views and opinions in interpretation. That will keep the religion fresh, dynamic, for all times and progressive. So there is no question about whether the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini can be wrong. It can. That is why in Shia Islam, based on the open concept of ijtihad among the highest scholars (marjaiyyah) who issue fatwas, the ordinary Shia (laity) can choose any among the 80 to 100 of them in the world to follow. You as a Shia can follow any of these scholars opinion and interpretation of Islamic laws and practices and you can also disagree with any of them. The concept of the marjaiyyah is for the laity to choose one of the ayatollahs and make him his source for emulation, as Sunnis follow one of the founders of the four Sunni schools only, and those four have died about a thousand years ago. We follow scholars that must be alive in terms of marjaiyyah or source of emulation called Taqlid. This means our scholars are not infallible and we accept criticism and improvement, as far as the criticism is of their legal opinion and interpretation and not of the fundamentals of the religion expressed unequivocally in the Holy Quran or the authentic Hadith.

So when your fellows want to turn this thread into a bashing exercise of Shia and they want to use it as launch pad to lie and talk nonsense, I simply laugh at what you do not know. You guys are used to anyone who knows some verses of the Quran and had memorized few fatwas with a long beard as worthy of being a scholar. And usually their views are put on par with the Quran and disagreeing with them can lead to Takfir. That's why you see Wahhabis can kill even themselves. Shia on the other hand do not go to such extremes and we view differences of opinions as healthy for our faith and progress as Muslims. And only the marjaiyyah-scholars with the title of ayatollah- that can issue fatwa for Shia. Not even our sheikhs issue fatwa!

In this way we are more organized and our scholars cannot become fatwa machines or government employees calling themselves muftis who make political fatwas to serve governments or tyrants as witnessed many times in the Sunni countries or even by terrorist groups. That is also why I'm Shia Islam not anyone calling himself scholar can call for jihad. Our scholarly system is based on the Imamate. When the ghaibatul kubrah of the 12th Imam (as) started, we are instructed to follow the fuqaha (plural of faqih). The scholar with title of ayatollah is the highest faqih we follow.the marjaiyyah gets its legitimacy from the Imamate and learning in the hawza and not through appointment.the Imamate is a divine station like prophethood.it is a reflection and successorship of prophethood. And both gain legitimacy from Allah (swt).

Both prophethood and Imamate are understood as political and spiritual leadership. The Sunni caliphate on the other hand doesn't get legitimacy from prophethood because you believe the Prophet left without any successor or system to choose a caliph and he left it for the people. Caliphate gets legitimacy from the people. And the Quran says Allah's choice is above ours and the Prophet has more right over us than we have over ourselves since the Shia believe the Prophet appointed a successor. We obey secular authorities on taqiyyah and for the sake of peace where do not have numbers and power (means) for the establishment of Islamic law. We were created on earth as khulafa of Allah and all authority must obey Allah and follow the line of prophethood and imamate to have divine approval/legitimacy for us to listen to and abide by. For a scholar to become an ayatollah or marja taqlid who can issue fatwa, he must have the approval of two existing and living ayatollahs in the hawza ilmiyyah (Islamic seminary in Qom or Najaf, the highest center of Shia learning equivalent to al azhar for Sunnis).

I have always been reasonable, and even with you people's outright dissimulation and deceits, I still maintain my open-mindedness and reasonableness in addressing all of the (sometimes) illogical attacks you people bring forth on a regular basis.

Anyway, what I intend to establish here is the problems associated with the strange fatwa of Khomeini, which you seem not to be against from your submissions thus far (you may correct me if I'm wrong). Now what I would have expected, with such evidences which clearly shows the dangers and problems this fatwa in question portends, is a strong proof against the videos, such as what the fatwa entails, and how people had abused it, or other Ayatollahs going against this fatwa as not Islamic. For the avoidance of doubt, it is haram to change what Allah has created, even drawing a tattoo isn't allowed or giving yourself a gap-tooth to look more beautiful etc. Well, perhaps such restrictions do not exist in your books, but we know for sure Allah (SWT) stated clearly in the Qur'an: "Verily, We have created man in the best of stature (image)" (Q95:4). This fatwa is problematic, I wonder how comfortable anyone can be with a man, who has turned to a woman or vice versa. This process defies nature, even with the surgery, the new transgender cannot function appropriately i.e the man who turned woman cannot ovulate, while the woman turned man cannot produce sperm. One would then ask, what is the essence of sex change in the first place? What problems was it trying to solve? Is this sex change about hating your body or as a result of thoughts brought about by society, especially, the west? Are there alternative solutions?!

If an individual has both sex organs, then that is a different case entirely, it is not a case of sex change, but rather correcting an anomaly, which is reasonable. This cannot be used as an excuse for allowing sex change. If you do have one sex organ, a male or a female, that is what Allah (SWT) wants you to be. If a man or woman feels strange in his/her own body, then such people need a psychiatrist, not surgery to change their body to fit their desires, for a man can wake up tomorrow, and wants to be a bird! Yeah! to fly and fly away!

Isn't it funny how you guys can paint Salafist/Wahabist with the same brush being terrorists and takfiris, Saudi Arabia the home and supporters of these terrorists etc. But when the same is said about your sect and Iran, you all become philosophical, that is hypocrisy if you do not know.

Mr. ShiaMuslim, I want to believe you watched the videos, and I want to also believe that Ayatollah Khomeini was trying to solve one of humanity's problems with his fatwa, which I would say is a good idea i.e solving humanity's problems. Be that as it may, in one of the videos, one of the transgender was said to have been tested, and found to be 100% male, but still went ahead to go for a sex change. Also these set of people are not really recognized in their communities, they are victimized, shunned and humiliated. They have regretted going for a sex change, and it seems that the problems these fatwa is causing, is far greater than what it was trying to solve in the first instance. From the foregoing, wouldn't it be appropriate if such fatwa is reviewed, and possibly expunged for a more humane, and Islamicaly legitimate verdict for these kinds of humanity's problems?!

ddude:
May Almighty Allah bless you guys abundantly. God that has made you know the truth will not deviate you. You- Sino, lexicon and other al-husunnah have opened my eyes.in my own little way,I will spread the message on the danger these people portend for our deen.

Ameen, Jazakumullah khayran. May Allah (SWT) continue to guide us on His right path ameen.

lanrexlan:
SubhanAllah! My dearest brother, I understand the fact that you got my mail late and I got your reply late too. I should have replied your mail but I have been very very busy . May Allah assists us, you did not offend the kid jare. Allahumo ameen to your duas. Will contact you very soon. Just seeing the mention though.

Alhamdulilah! this gladdens my heart , I was worried and concerned, again Alhamdulilah! Ameen brother mine, Jazakumullah khayran for your warm reply. May Allah (SWT) ease your affairs, Ameen. I look forward to your mail brother. Merci beau coup!

ShiaMuslim:
most of you stupid folks think people come to online forum to waste their time with long posts and senseless argument. i do not aim to win arguments here or win any trophy or impress anyone. i have pointed out that the Quran supports imamate. there is the Verse of Imamate in the Quran, the Verse of Wilyah, the Verse of Tathir, the Verse of Mawaddah etc. there is absolutely NOTHING we believe that CANNOT be backed by the Quran. brother Albaqir has the patience to spoon feed your and make long replies, and provide you with references and isnad, but not everyone will. maybe he can help you. but of course, with all his effort, hatred has not departed from your heart.

if you want truth, go find it yourself. google is your friend. if you are an agent of Iblis, stay in your darkness. i have given you replies, but you still want to prove to be a philosopher in ignorance. i will give you answers, and you keep asking questions of denial. if you want to know more, search. if you want to argue, deny the truth. very simple. the choice is yours.

Your hypocrisy knows no bound; you should be ashamed of yourself and the sect you belong to. You on another thread would quote articles from different websites to buttress your points, but all of a sudden, you cannot do same on this thread, why?! You people have the same MO, when brought face-to-face with facts, superior arguments, and most importantly, the truth, you become venomous, defensive, redundantly asking silly questions or bringing up superfluous conjectures and applying deceit…

You claim the Qur’an talks on Imammah, we ask you prove it, you go typing several responses with no substance…If a non-Muslim asks you to prove Allah (SWT) is one, that the Prophet (SAW) is His messenger from the Qur'an, do you go on a ranting spree?! As I had said, your scholars would say A, you guys would thereafter say xyz, one wonders what type of religion you people practice, you guys have no solid foundation to stand your belief(s) on…

Here is one of your scholars confirming that the concept of Imammah cannot be found in the Qur’an:

Al-Khomeini said: Had the matter of the Imamah been fixed in the Quran, then those who do not care for Islam or the Quran except where it comes to matters of this worldly life and [matters of] Leadership, they would have used the Quran as a mean to fulfill their suspicious objectives, and would have omitted these verses from its pages121 …

This can be found in his book “Kashf Al-Asrar” p. 131.

I await your spin, as well as your rants, I am not into nonsense arguments, if what you believe is true, bring your proof(s) from the Qur’an kapish!

By the way, this is another verse that destroys your false believe in Imammah. Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an:

“It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allah etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al- Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masakin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and gives the Zakat, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are patient in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles). Such are the people of the truth and they are Al-Muttaqun (pious). (Q2:177)

The above verse is so clear, we do not find your skewed belief in Imammah, We see Tawheed clearly, we see Salat, we see Zakah, even we see freeing of the slaves, and even further, we see Sabr being mentioned by Allah (SWT) as prerequisite for piety and embodiment of righteousness, no believe in Imammah, give me one good reason to believe that Imammah is any important to Islam, and why Allah (SWT) didn’t mention it in the Qur’an…

If you do not have answers, it is not by force to reply, just quietly move along...

ShiaMuslim:
the verse does not at all refer to disagreement between the Muslims and "those in authority". the verse refers to disagreement among ordinary Muslims themselves. how the author of the above article managed to smuggle "disagreement between Muslims and those in authority" into this verse is mind-boggling. this is an act of tahreef.

Well from the verse, Allah (SWT) knows that those in authority are also ordinary Muslims, so when He (SWT) made the directive on how to resolve conflicts among ordinary Muslims, HE (SWT) said go back to Allah (SWT) and His messenger (SAW) to solve your differences, and no one else, because those in authority are not divinely appointed (they do not receive any form of revelation from Allah (SWT) ), we are the ones who appoint them, hence we are to obey them, and we may disagree with them (especially when they call to disbelieve and what the shari'ah never sanctioned). It is very simple bro, or is the verse missing some more information?!

lexiconkabir:
^^ This is nice!!! Youtube actually opened my eyes to their deviance, they always claim that they dont believe in ta'reef of the Quran, i later got to find out that its all Taquiyya!!

Na'udhubillahi minashayateen.

Bro, I wasn't quite sure about the shi'ah beliefs before, I only listened to scholars condemn their beliefs, but my first encounter with them showed they were mostly filled with hate and curses, that was a red flag, then I started a little research, and the more I read, the more I realized their beliefs are not only strange, but false, mostly, their belief system are always antagonistic against the sunni, its like without the sunnis, they wouldn't exist in the first place, a sect created just to oppose the sunnis... And their deceit is legendary, not to mention the fact that their books are filled with mind boggling contradictions and fabrications.

May Allah continue to guide us right Ameen.

Brother Sheriff.shatterz wrote:

"One verse in the Qur'an completely destroys the shia imamate belief

As the active Members on this group know that, in any of previous post the Shias miserably failed to prove their fundamental belief of Imamate after Prophet(SAWS) from any CLEAR verse of Quran WITHOUT the help of any Tawil or ahadeeth, as they themselves admitted, hence which proved them to be a deviant sect as per Quranic verse (3:7).

Now in this post let us see that how a CLEAR verse of Quran destroys the whole concept of Imamate after Prophet(SAWS). The verse is So deadly for the Shias that, they attributed reports to their Imams where they suggested additional wordings in the verse, claiming that this is how it was revealed. And the Shia Scholar like Majlisi went ahead to explain this hadeeth by saying that the wordings HAS BEEN REMOVED from Quran. So this verse was so deadly for their belief that they had to claim Tahreef of this verse in order to save their belief.

Here is the Quranic verse:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.(4:59).

(I). In this clear verse, we find that in matters of disagreement between those in authority and those under authority, we need to refer back to Allah and the Messenger. Had it been that, those in authority were divinely appointed then, Allah wouldn't have given any scope to disagree with them.

(ii). If those in authority were divinely appointed then, Allah would have asked the believers to refer them along with Allah and Messenger in matters of disagreement.

But Allah(swt) giving the possibility of disagreement with those in authority, and asking us to refer back to Allah and Messenger is a clear evidence that those in authority were not divinely appointed and their obedience is conditional, unlike the obedience to Allah and Messenger, which is unconditional.

Lets see what authentic Shia hadeeth had to say about this clear verse destroying their belief, see how they claimed that the verse had additional wording:

In Rawdat Al-Kafi #212 we read:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ كَيْفَ يَأْمُرُ بِطَاعَتِهِمْ وَ يُرَخِّصُ فِي مُنَازَعَتِهِمْ إِنَّمَا قَالَ ذَلِكَ لِلْمَأْمُورِينَ الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ

[`Ali bin Ibrahim, from his father, from ibn abi `Umayr, from `Umar bin Udhaynah, from Burayd bin Mu`awiyah that abu Ja`far (as) RECITED: {Believers, obey Allah, obey His Messenger, and your leaders, if ye fear that you would differ among yourselves then refer it to Allah and the messenger and your leaders} Then he (as) said: “How can he order their obedience then allow you to differ with them? He only meant the ones who are under orders when he said {Obey Allah and obey the messenger}.]

The narration was declared as “Hasan(GOOD)” by Al-Majlisi in his book “Mir’at al-`Uqoul” 26/76.

Esteemed Shia scholar Al-Majlisi adds:

و ظاهر كثير من الأخبار أن قوله:” وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ” كان مثبتا هيهنا فأسقط

[It is apparent from many of the narrations that the term “and the leaders among you” was affirmed here, but was then removed.](“Mir’at al-`Uqoul).

In the footnotes of Hayat ul Quloob(3/165), the Shia translator Molvi Basharat Hussain states that:

[ “The author(Baqir Majlisi) says, Hazrat(Imam) meant that, If ulil amr is not mentioned in the end(of verse), it would be the evidence that the ummah can disagree with them, and this is against the order of obedience towards them which is in the beginning of the verse”]. (Hayat ul Quloob 3/165).

So see respected readers, when a Clear verse of Quran destroys the myth of divinely appointed leaders after Muhammad(SAWS), how these people try to manipulate the verse of Quran by claiming that, it had an extra wording, which was removed.

May Allah Guide the truth seeking and objective Shias."

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/one-verse-in-the-qur'an-completely-destroys-the-shia-imamate-belief/msg11705/#new

Subhanallah! this is seriously messed up, how could the Ayatollah pass such a fatwa?! I really feel sorry for these unforyunate victims of this crazy fatwa, the last person tried to be brave and was factual, but couldn't help but breakdown, this is like compounding their problems as they had to result into mut'ah for survival, selling their fake gender for money (i.e prostitution)... Imagine a society so confused...Allahu mut'an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I truly hope the above is your last word

Can anyone help me find lanrexlan/lanreylan, I believe I had offended him , I am sincerely sorry bro, I had to come here to apologize publicly, May Allah (SWT) forgive us our sins and grant us His Tawfeeq Ameen.

Slitz:
wa anta fa Jazakallahu khairan. Glad you did and Eid Mubarak. Taqabalallahu Minna wa minkum @sino

Wa Iyyakum, Ameen. Many thanks, indeed.

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

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

# Physically, how is it possible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lexiconkabir:
Salam aleikom oh brothers and sisters in Islam, , it brings me joy as i wish you all a happy celebration of today's eid, may Allah reward us completed with good for the just concluded Ramadan, i pray to Allah that we see more, but most importantly if we die we should be granted Al-jannatul Firdaus just as the prophet recommended, hope we get the full rewards for todays eid, most importantly Allah should always keep us to the straight path which we always ask for in our five daily prayers and I greet you just as the sahabas did to eachother in times of eid, Taqabbal Allaahu minna wa minkum (May Allaah accept (this worship) from us and from you), Amin.

HAPPY EID AL FITR, E SE JEJE OOOOO!!!!! Dont overfeed oooo........

Mightyraw(m), Ramwab94(m), TaiKuun(m), AllstarZ(m), mrquleak(m), haliruali(m), Arisheloaded(m), eherbal(m), WORDWORLD, DeathStroke007(m), Mrreed(m), mubarakopeyemi(m), IdisuleOurOwn(m), carinmom(f), haffaze777(m), Demmzy15(m), klickash077(m), sawsaw(m), mukina2, sissie, maclantunji, udatso, Aminat508, Empiree, Rilwayne001, Newnas, eitsei(m), gokay11(m), Khodry(m), demmyzenny(m) lagusta, contact17, sino, yahmohy27, Antina, Damjoy, gaffig, HaneefahRN, bursar, Topestbility, Teeminjin, mrolai, oladim001, dominique, Aareonakakanfo, And to All my brothers and sister out there in islam,

Assalamu Aleikom warahmatAllahi Wabarakatuhu.

Wa Alaykum Salam Wa Rahamahtullah Wa Barakatuhu brother! Jazakumullahu khayran, taqabbala llahu minna wa minkum...Eid Mubarak to all Muslim faithful, May we witness more of this day by Allah's Grace Ameen.

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

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


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

AlBaqir:
# Point one:

Surah al-Baqarah: 187

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hadith 1: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

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

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


Hadith 2: Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlBaqir:
# Point four:

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

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

The Safest Place I Have Come to Know By Sino

Shall I tell you of a place I know?
Shall I share with you its secrets that seldom show?
Perhaps it may arouse in you, a feeling of zeal
Perhaps to you, the truth of all things reveal

In this place is mutual rivalry and vying
Challenges that seems overwhelming and daunting
A place of brain, stamina and intellectualism
A place wherein lies the principles of all forms of spiritualism

The path to this place is narrow and long
But on Angel’s wings shall you walk along
And verily, death on this path seeking this place,
Guarantees Jannah, with everlasting grace

Age never matters in this place
Don’t you know you are meant to seek from the cradle to the grave?
And indeed, what you seek in this place,
It’s like a drop in an ocean’s wave

The safest place I have come to know
Wherein lies peace, love and tranquility
Therein the Deen’s beauty show
Islam simplified, a religion of purity…

Jazakumullah Khayran Slitz for the updates, they are beautiful and inspiring...

Just checked out your blog, it's really cool, keep it up! ma sha Allah!

From all information that I have come across with regards to Sheikh Habib and his recent “outburst”, it seems he happens to be reading from a book which he is basing his current issues on. Be that as it may, I have only watched a small fraction of his video on Facebook, and in that video, I didn’t really hear him making any clandestine attack on sahih Bukhari. I was also on his Facebook page and read some posts and comments …based on the foregoing, I believe the questions, or doubts or concerns raised by him are not new, scholars had tackled those doubts, concerns and questions in the past and even still do at present. It should be noted that those who champion these forms of campaign are either Christian evangelical bigots, Shi’as or ignorant Muslims.

One of the issues raised on the Sheilkh’s Fb page was about adult breastfeeding, and I could remember trashing that on Nairaland with Mr. AlBaqir, one of the shi’ah on this section. Unfortunately again, he has towed the line of poor research and absolutely poor reasoning with his recent post regarding the Prophet (SAW) visiting his wife in a night.

Please note, people who go about bringing up these issues are quite poor in Arabic language, and sometimes extremely poor in knowledge of the religion as well as the Arab culture. I would implore those with genuine concerns and questions about narrations found in Sahih Bukhari or Muslim or any other collection of Hadith to go ask a reputable and righteous scholar for proper explanation.

I found a nice article online that did justice to the issue raised by AlBaqir…

Prophet Muhammad visiting all his wives in one night?

Some of the Christians use the following tradition and yell obscenities against the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, saying that he had passion for women.

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."
But as a matter of fact this is clearly wrong translation and the words within parenthesis do not find any place here.

Actual text of the Hadith and correct translation:

Now the Hadīth goes as;
أَنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فِي اللَّيْلَةِ الْوَاحِدَةِ وَلَهُ يَوْمَئِذٍ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ

The word, يَطُوفُ like طواف i.e. circumambulating the Holy Ka’ba only refers to going around and has no other nuance whatsoever. So the correct translation of the Hadīth is:

Narrated Anas: The Prophet I used to go round all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.” (Bukhari, Hadīth 275)

There is nothing special in the Hadīth. It infact shows that he cared for all his wives and went to see them.

The query probably rises from the famous translation of this Hadīth which is there in well known software. In that software it reads;

"The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives."

One can clearly see that the words ‘have sexual relations with’ are in parenthesis, that is to say these are not the direct meanings of the Arabic words but addition by the translator to help understand according to his understanding.

But I disagree with his understanding and thus believe that these words in the parentheses are not helping to understand better but are rather misleading. Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, did visit them all but its not that he had sexual relations with each of them.

Details of Prophet’s visits to his wives:

Urwa reported on the authority of his father:

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

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

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

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

Imam Shaukani has taken the hadith on same account. He writes;

وَكَذَلِكَ يَجُوزُ لِلزَّوْجِ دُخُولُ بَيْتِ غَيْرِ صَاحِبَةِ النَّوْبَةِ وَالدُّنُوُّ مِنْهَا وَاللَّمْسُ إلَّا الْجِمَاعَ كَمَا فِي حَدِيثِ عَائِشَةَ الْمَذْكُورِ

"Similarly it is allowed for the husband to enter upon the wife [even if, it being] without her turn [to spend night with] and to come closer to her and touch her except the intercourse as in the Hadith of Aisha mentioned above." (Nayl al-Awtar 10/213)

It makes it clear beyond all doubt here that he visited all of them just to see them and dint have intercourse with each of them but only with the one whose turn was it that day.

Further clarification:

One may refer to the narration from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, in which he related the same issue of Prophet, may Allah bless him, all his wives in a single with him being given the "strength of thirty men." One may say this implies the Prophet, may Allah bless him, used to have intercourse with all his wives. But how can the implied understanding of some other companion be taken in precedence over a direct authentic report from none other than the wife of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him? Who else would have been more knowledgeable of such intimate details of the Prophet's personal life?

Similarly even the word يَطُوفُ implies 'intercourse' when used in relation to a person going to his wife [or wives] it will not work here for an explicit authentic report from the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him, bars us.

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

source: Click Here

Now even if we rubbish the above article, and even claim that the narration by Aisha (RA) the wife of the Prophet (SAW) and the mother of the believers, explaining clearly how the Prophet (SAW) engaged in his visits, is weak, or fabricated (just for argument sake), then the questions to ask are; what is wrong with the idea that the Prophet (SAW) engaging in his conjugal obligation with his wives in a night, or in an hour?! Aren’t they his wives?! Are conjugal relations with one’s wife not rewarded by Allah (SWT)?! Did we find that the Prophet (SAW) was not able to perform his functions as a Prophet and all other functions attached to his noble status because of this conjugal obligation as narrated in the Hadith in question?! Why would anyone think that having conjugal relations with one’s wife/wives in one night equates to debasing the person’s spiritual status?! Is it haram (taboo) for the Prophet (SAW) to cohabit with his wives?!

Well, when people are filled with hatred, envy and jealousy, they can easily make a mountain out of a molehill. Allah (SWT) warned us against these very bad and horrible habits, because they take away Iman (faith) from the heart, and burns good deeds like a kindled wood splinter, and eventually, those with such habits end up in hell. May Allah (SWT) guide and protect us, Ameen.

Below is another view that tries to unravel the shari’ah stand point and the understanding from the hadith about killing the apostate:

“To continue with examples of apostates not killed by the Prophet, there was the case of al-Harith ibn Suwaid and a group from Mecca. We also know from the hadith reported by al-Bukhari from Jabir about the Bedouin who came to the Prophet in Madina and accepted Islam only to return feverish the next day and declare that he was withdrawing his faith. Not one of these persons was killed by the Prophet. I have also referred to the actions of the companions in this matter. So where does the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas leave us?

First, we must conclude that in Islam faith is a voluntary thing and there can be no coercion in religion. On my own understanding, the hadith refers to Muslims who change the religion by introducing heresies into its doctrines and creeds. Alternatively, we may begin by accepting the position of scholars who say the hadith covers all forms of “changing religion”, including leaving Islam for another faith. If we do so, we must recognize that almost all the scholars accept that if an apostate repents he must not be killed, even though they differ over the time limit for repentance. But therein lies the problem.

If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. God says in the Qur’an (XXXIX:53-54: Say: “(Thus speaks God): O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succoured.” God also says in IV: 18: “Repentance shall not be accepted from those who do evil deeds until their dying hour, and then say, “Behold, I now repent”. Nor from those who die as deniers of truth.” And there are several verses of this tenor. If God himself has asked man not to despair of His mercy and forgiveness, and if God himself has given man up till his dying moments the opportunity to repent, then is it given to any scholar to place a limit or time frame in a matter in which repentance is accepted?

We have no option but to argue that even if we say the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view, as we have seen, of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsudden al-Sarakshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. But then this brings us full circle to where we started. For it makes the ruling in the hadith, as understood by jurists, redundant, never to be applied. It leaves us with the only rational option of reading the text along with other related texts. We must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy” (mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Holy Prophet.”

Unfortunately, I couldn’t get the link for the above quote, and if my memory serves me right, it is actually from an article written by His Eminence Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi.

Now let me go further, apart from the fact that it happens to be a case of Ijtihad, according to the Saudi Scholars in the conference mentioned earlier, meaning the Jurist do have options depending on the peculiarity of the case…What I find most intriguing on this topic is the approach of one of the earlier scholar Abu Al-Hasan ‘Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Habib Al-Basri Al-Baghdadi Al-Marwardi (d. 450AH) in his book titled “The Laws of Islamic Governance” “Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah” under the topic “Command of Wars Waged for the Public Good” he states: “There are three kinds of jihad other than that against the mushrikun: fighting renegades, rebels or bandits:

"A. This section concerns those persons who reject after having been legally acknowledged as Muslims, irrespective of whether they were born into the natural behavioral pattern of Islam or they became Muslims after a state of kufr: both of these groups are treated as renegades. If they do abandon Islam for any other deen – be it for that of the Jews or the Christians which is accepted of them, or that of the heretics or pagans which is not – it is not accepted of those who renege, since their previous recognition of the Truth necessarily entails that corresponding laws of this Truth be adhered to. The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “Whoever changes his deen, then kill him.” If they are subject to the death sentence, having reneged on the deen of Truth for some other deen, one of two possibilities exists:

I. Either they are dispersed as individuals and do not have a territory which distinguishes them from the Muslims, in which case there is no need for us to fight them in order to subject them to our control: rather the reason for their rejection of the truth should be investigated. If they express doubt in some aspect of the deen, it should be explained to them using proofs and reasons until the truth becomes clear for them and they turn away from the falsehood in which they had engaged. If they do turn away, their renunciation of rejection is accepted and they return within the pale of Islam as before."

I only stated the one of the two cases, because the above is what the topic is about, an apostate, the most important thing to do first is to investigate the reason for leaving the religion, thereafter if it has to do with doubts, then competent scholars are to go explain the religion to him, and remove his doubts, until he accepts the deen, there happens to be no time limit here. What I understand here is that such a person who has genuine doubts, is not an enemy to the state, and should be engaged, and made to see the truth, if he still continues in his apostasy and disbelief after then, then he has no status in an Islamic state, he may leave the Islamic state to pursue his new found religion, if not, he could face punishment, which could be death (depending on his form of renegade) and even at that he would be given 3 days respite to repent.

I repeat this is for an Islamic State, for the fact that safe guarding religion is one of the primary objectives; just as safe guarding democracy is one of the primary objectives of a secular state practicing democracy. A competent Islamic court would decide the fate of such an apostate.

And Allah (SWT) Knows best.

Assalam Alaykum, First I believe Tbaba’s response should have settled the whole argument for and against killing the apostate in an Islamic state, to me it seems we just are not ready to understand ourselves…May Allah (SWT) rectify our affairs, ameen.

I must state that those saying the hadith goes against or contradicts the Qur’an show lack of understanding how Islamic laws are being established, do you all think the Islamic Scholars do not read the verses of the Qur’an before coming to their conclusions?! There is what is called “Maqasid As-Shari’ah” Primary objectives of Islamic law, which are:

1. Preservation of the Religion
2. Preservation of life
3. Preservation of intellect
4. Preservation of progeny
5. Preservation of property

And traditionally, the main sources of Islamic law (shariah) are as follows:
1. The Qur’an: such as the verses that prohibit interest
2. The Sunnah (i.e hadith): sayings of the prophet (SAW)
3. Ijma’: all agreed to collect the Qur’an
4. Qiyas: analogy pointing to the prohibition of drugs

The above are synthesized, thoroughly investigated through Ijtihad before arriving at a conclusion. Difference of opinion may arise due to Ijtihad of different Islamic Scholars, but the underlying principle is the effort in establishing the primary objective of the Islamic Law (Shari’ah).

@lexiconkabir, the reason (and this is what I think), why most people are going against your post is majorly due to the way your post would be generally understood, it would seem like Islam is just out to kill, and that Muslims derive pleasure in killing anyone who go against its teachings, the reason why some people had raised the need to apply wisdom, especially when dealing with non-Muslims.

The Shariah, which is the totality of Allah’s commands, that regulates the life of every Muslim in all aspects, is not meant to be cruel or harsh against humans (both Muslims and non-Muslims), rather it is meant to make things easier and a mercy, so as for us to live in peace and tranquility. Allah Says: “We sent thee (i.e Prophet Muhammad (SAW) not, but a mercy for all creatures” (Q21:107), “O mankind! There hath come to you direction from your Lord and a healing for the (diseases) in your hearts and for those who believe, a guidance and a mercy.” (Q10 : 57)

Therefore,

From the book: Documented Proceeding of The Conference of Riyad on Muslim Doctrine And Human Rights in Islam (1972).

I’ll list the Saudi delegates here, so as to show that the people making the below statement are not just anybody:

The Saudi delegates include:

1. His eminence the Minister of Justice, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Harakan, President
2. Sheikh Rached ibn Khounein, Under Secretary of State of the Misitry of Justice, and one of the prominent canonists of the kingdom.
3. Sheikh Omar ibn Matrek, Assistant Under Secretary of State of the Misitery of Justice, one of the prominent canonists of the kingdom.
4. Sheikh Muhammad ibn Joubair, President of the Superior Council of Justice
5. Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Masnad, former Director General of the Faculties and Institutes of Religious Sciences in Riyad
6. Sheikh Muhammad Al-Moubarak, Professor of at the Islamic College of Mecca.
7. Dr. Munir Al-Ajlani, First Counsellor of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Riyad
8. Dr. Maarouf Al-Dawalibi


PROHIBITION OF A MUSLIM TO CHANGE HIS RELIGION

“Regarding the prohibition of a Muslim to change his religion and which is considered by a man alien to Islam to be also a restriction violating Article (18) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which gave every person the right to change his religion and on which the kingdom also gave its reservations at the time of the drafting of the charter, we say that according to the reasoning of Islam, this is not a restriction on the freedom of every person to change his religion, but is the outcome of a historical incident. It was established to curb a Jewish conspiracy which was plotted in the early days of Islam when all the Arabs of the city of al Madinah Al Munawwara united themselves after an armed conflict between them caused by the Jewish refugees. The Jews then craftily thought to let some of them join Islam then renounce it in order to make the Arabs suspect their religion and be misled. A law originated from that incident preventing a Muslim from changing his religion and threatening to penalize him so that nobody could join Islam excepting after making rational and scientific study of its doctrines ending with his permanent acceptance of the Muslim creed. That was meant to cut off the way for evil men and their like of superficial people, under the threat of punishment, from joining Islam, for the sake of extirpating malicious elements who have been persisting in spreading evil on Earth.

It is clear from the reasoning of Islam respecting this point also that it does not spring from the logic of restriction of freedom but rather from logic of the curbing of the intrigues of the plotters who are addicted to the spread of evil in the world. Thus, this matter is purely an Islamic interpretation-Ijtihad-which is one of the requirements of freedom of opinion. It should not be opposed by a counter-interpretation, for everyone has his own interpretation of things, and we have our own interpretation which is supported by historical facts, and our concern on not letting anyone join Islam excepting those who believe in it in a positive and decisive manner. This shows the extent of sacredness attached to the faith which Islam does not allow to be superficial and subject to the misleading of evil persons.”



The below link is an example of how people with sinister motives try to create problems, imagine if such people are in an Islamic state, spreading such deceit and lies…
https://www.nairaland.com/1321731/faaaake-ex-muslims

It is obvious that the people in the above link are paid agents that would want to cause trouble, their aim is to attack the religion, nay the Islamic state, thus their case can be seen as treasonable or even worse, because I doubt these people in the link are Muslims in the first instance, and if such people are caught in an Islamic state, then a capital punishment shouldn’t be seen as cruelty, or an act against human right.

AlBaqir:
^ The onus lies on you to provide us daleel that Nabi, salallahu alayhi wa ahli ever prayed "Tarawih" immediately after Salatul Ishai and for 29 or 30days in Jama'a. His ruling stands for all times when he dissolved the uninvited congregation at his back saying, "O people! Perform your prayers AT YOUR HOMES, for the BEST prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer."
# We have equally provide clear proves where your Salaf unanimously explain the meaning of Tahajjud/Tarawih. You are free to provide sahih evidence that says otherwise.

ShiaMuslim:
of course he cannot provide any hadith and he may not mind practicing bid'ah as long as the Shia are opposed to it. look at what the other one is saying. that you are Shia so he should avoid you even when you speak the truth. bad habits die hard. i am sure if the Prophet (s) were to resurrect and tell them taraweeh is bid'ah the likes of MrOlai would tell him "you are Shia".

@AlBaqir and ShiaMuslim
You guys keep avoiding germane questions that would have revealed how truthful your claims are/were, you keep on repeating the same line of argument as if that would automatically prove your claims to be accurate.

Anyways,

1. You claim that tarawih in congregation is bid’ah, you have done so by providing sunni narrations, especially using Umar’s (ra) narration where he mentioned “what a good bid’ah”…If we are to accept this your claim, then it would mean the Prophet (SAW) also indulged in the bid’ah for three days according to the narrations you have provided here thus far, right?

Again, in the same narration, it stated clearly that some companions were observing in small groups and some individually, in the Masjid before Umar (ra) joined them under a single reciter. Now the question is, were those companions also oblivious that tarawih in jam’ah was a bid’ah? And that they ought to have been observing it in their homes?! So no single sahabah could come out to challenge those observing it in the Masjid in small groups, and no one confronted Umar (ra) not even Ali (ra)? Were they all hypnotized?! What explanation do you have for the above issues raised?!

2. I had asked you to give us when night starts according to the shi’ah, I thought you guys always follow the Qur’an and understood it more than the sunnis, tahajjud/tarawih is called night prayer in the Qur’an, Allah (SWT) commanded the Prophet (SAW) to pray in the night except a little, half of it, or to increase it more than half…another issue is when does isha prayer starts and when does it terminate?! I do not know of you shi’as, but what is established is that isha prayer has the longest period being after the complete sunset till before fajr shows…If this is the case, then why should observing tarawih/tahajjud after isha be an issue?! If I prayed my isha at 1:00 am, and immediately commence my tahajud/tarawih, does that nullify my tahajjud/tarawih? Did the Prophet (SAW) forbid praying nawafil immediately after Isha?

3. Again, tahajjud/tarawih is a supererogatory prayer, if you do not observe it, you are not punished, the rewards in observing it are enormous, and the reward for observing it during the month of Ramadhan are even far greater… Arguing about the timing and number of rakah by you shi’a, is a paradox…note, no one forces anyone to observe 20 rakahs or immediately after Isha, since we have on record that the best of generations, the companions of the Prophet (SAW) observed it so, and there was no contestation, you and your cohorts can never label such activity a bid’ah, and as already been established, your understanding of Umar’s (ra) statement “what a good bid’ah” is skewed, for if those far more knowledgeable than you and were more concerned about safeguarding the true teachings of their beloved Prophet and leader (SAW) did not misconstrue Umar’s statement, then you should know you do not have a point at all to stand on and say it is bid’ah.

4. It seems you couldn’t refute the narrations from your books that claim the Prophet (SAW) observed tarawih immediately after Isha, I guess you guys should concern yourselves with what is written in your books, or do you believe our books are more accurate than yours i.e those narrations I posted are all fabricated? Well I know your sect desperately depends on what can be found in our books, although you people apply lots of twisting to suite your doctrines, and since you cannot even prove the fundamental of your sect from the Qur’an, I understand you people’s plight, continue to quote our books seeking for legitimation for your alien beliefs…Do I need to remind you what your scholars say about the narrations found in your books not being reliable?!

5. And as already stated before, the shi’ah only reason for always going against the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW), is basically because of hatred for the companions of the Prophet (SAW) especially, Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar (ra). Hating on the companions of the Prophet (SAW) would never guaranty your salvation; it can only lead to a painful torment both in this world and the next.

With regards to the proof you seek, I am astonished! You yourself had provided the proof that taraweeh was observed after Isha by the best of generation, what other proof do you seek? Moreover, I asked in another thread, why were the companions on the fourth day that the Prophet (SAW) didn’t come out to pray taraweeh in the masjid with them thought the Prophet (SAW) had slept?! If they knew the Prophet (SAW) had slept earlier, shouldn’t the reasonable thing to say or think is that the Prophet (SAW) is yet to wake up?!

Also, The Prophet (SAW) said "O people! Perform your prayers AT YOUR HOMES, for the BEST prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer." Indeed the words of the Prophet (SAW) are true, but do you understand?! Didn’t the Prophet (SAW) pray other non-obligatory prayers in the Masjid?! When a superlative such as best is used for two options, does it automatically mean the other option is bad or worse?! Haven’t you heard of good better best?! How do you apply your intellect bro?! This is quite shameful, very shameful!

Downloaded, would read over the weekend...Jazakumullahu khayran for sharing

Newnas:
What else do you expect from a Sufi whose religion is nothing but drumming (bandiri), singing and whirling like a dervish?!

I understand your point bro, there are crazy innovations done by those who claim to be sufis, they are cancers in the body of the Ummah...

But I also like to give individuals the benefit of the doubt, especially when we factor in our locality as well as our upbringing. Some have a strong background in sufism or should I call them "bandele" according to Yoruba parlance. Most of us were either trained by "Alfas" who are neck-deep in "jalabi" and other forms of mysticism. It is only by Allah's Rahmah that some of us have been saved from such paths.

I believe when empiree sees irrefutable evidences, he accepts, although as it is said in a Yoruba adage/proverb, "ko kin tan lara omoba ko ma ku daansaki" (i hope i got that right)...

May Allah (SWT) rectify our affairs ameen.

Empiree:
Looool... I expected this

Sunni/Shia them no go carry last

It's no winner/loser.

#kontinu

You should have known by now this is not a joke, and it is not about some flimsy rivalry or envy, not about wining or loosing, but rather about the truth, it is about Islam, it is about how we would eventually end up either in jannah or hell!

Ha! This is the most shameful defense on Ali’s (ra) behalf, the fact that all the narrations in shi’a’s books are not reliable, just as farmerforlife had established here, which are actually statement made by their scholars, the above narrations ShiaMuslim presented are so lame when you apply common sense…

First I’ll take this narration below and use it as the basis to respond to his claims:

Imam al-Baqir (as) and Imam al-Sadiq (as) were also asked about the permissibility of praying optional prayers in congregation during the nights of Ramadan, they both narrated a tradition of the Prophet (s) where

he said:

“Verily, the offering of nafila (recommended prayers) in congregation during the nights of Ramadan is an INNOVATION… O people! do not say nafila prayers of Ramadan in congregation…. Without doubt, performing a minor act of worship which is according to the sunnah is better than performing a major act of worship which is an innovation.”
al-Hurr al-Amili, Wasa’il al-Shia, volume 8 page 45

I would have asked for the chain, but I know it is a waste of time, but again, a quick question, did any of the above Imams met the Prophet (SAW)? If no, then the chain would need to come, so as to verify this bogus narration…Anyway, so let’s believe this narration is authentic (according to the shi’a) for example, the questions that needs answers are:

1. How can the prophet (SAW) who observed congregational tarawih prayer himself with his companions, then say that it is an innovation?! Does this make sense at all?

2. During the life of the Prophet (SAW), he only warned against bid’ah, a statement which would mean that such practices would/did not happen during his life, but after…so we ask you shi’a, who were those practicing this bid’ah during the Prophet’s life?! Was it in the masjidu nabawiy or in their own mosque?

3. Why did all (or even some of) the companions not go against Umar (ra) stating clearly that the Prophet (SAW) said congregational tarawih is a bid’ah since you shi’a also believe Umar (ra) statement of a “good” bid’ah he introduced to mean it is a bid’ah?!

4. Again in the narration of Umar (ra) that you lots like quoting, didn’t it state that some companions were in the Masjid observing tarawih in small groups before he now joined them all under a single reciter?! It seems only the Imams knew of this bid’ah of tarawih that the Prophet (SAW) forbade?!

5. When you shi’ahs claim Ali (ra) forbade people from a bid’ah but they protested, and coupled with other so called bid’ah introduced by his predecessors, in what light are you portraying Ali (ra)?! An ineffectual leader? So he would rather let the caliphs go away with such atrocities and lead astray his followers, just because he was afraid of being left alone and the shouts of o Umar, or Umar’s tradition is changed? Who does that?! If we are to go buy you people’s ridiculous claims, no doubt Ali (ra) had to come fourth, for if he was to be the first caliph, then perhaps Islam may not even have crossed the Arabian peninsula… Naudhubillah from this poor, horrible and dangerous fabrications from the enemies of Islam and enemies of ahlu-l-bayt.

Previously, I would have been angered by these ridiculous claims, but now I am only full of pity, and prayerful that Allah (SWT) continues to keep me on the right path of Islam. Ameen

AlBaqir:
^How Shi'a perform Nawafil is NEVER a justification for Sunni BID'AH of Tarawih. That's desperation.

What desperations? Are you afraid to explain your antagonism for nawafil in congregation (as exhibited here) isn’t based on your irrational hatred for Umar (ra)?! Now remind us how Imam Ali (as) banned congregational tarawih during his caliphate, since you claim it’s a bid’ah …

AlBaqir:
# Do you, Sino, EVER believe in any of Shi'i hadith? And to my surprise, how does Umar ibn al-Khattab came into the fold? The OP has NEVER talked about him yet. Deal with the chakkenges you have at the op first.

Your antics are well known and documented on this section, and haven’t you mentioned Umar (ra) eventually?! You guys are easily predictable…And I see no challenges in the OP…

AlBaqir:
# The OP is clear in its presentation. According to Sunni cited traditions, Prophet NEVER perform Tarawih in congregation for 29/30 days in his entire Ramadan life.

I guess this is one of the challenges right?! The narrations are clear, and most importantly, there are evidences that the Prophet (SAW) indeed prayed tarawih in the month of Ramadan in congregation. The number of days he did so becomes irrelevant, when the same hadith stated clearly the reason for discontinuing the congregation was out of mercy for it not to become obligatory on us. It is quite clear and simple. When you now raise the question or challenge that the Prophet (SAW) never prayed 29/30 days in congregation, it only makes you look silly…

AlBaqir:
# He never performed the "Tarawih" after Isha.

LOL, the narrations from your books says otherwise bro, I expected the usual defense. They are fabricated right or are they weak?! LOL

The narrations you presented in the OP for the three nights the Prophet observed the tarawih did not indicate the time, in fact unlike the other nights other than ramadhan, which usually indicated the time he would wake up from sleep.

Now let’s have a closer look at one of the narrations in the OP,

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) took a room made of date palm leaves mats in the mosque. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) prayed in it FOR A FEW NIGHTS till the people gathered (to pray the night prayer (Tarawih) (behind him.) Then on the 4th night the people did not hear his voice and they thought he had slept, so some of them started humming in order that he might come out. The Prophet (peace be upon him) then said, "You continued doing what I saw you doing till I was afraid that this (Tarawih prayer) might be enjoined on you, and if it were enjoined on you, you would not continue performing it. Therefore, O people! Perform your prayers AT YOUR HOMES, for the best prayer of a person is what is performed at his home except the compulsory congregational) prayer."

The bold in red indicates that the companions thought he had slept? If we are to go by your claims that the Prophet (SAW) never prayed tarawih/tahajjud/qiyamu layl after isha, wouldn’t the companions thought ought to be that he had not woken up from sleep and hence hum to wake him up?!

Anyway,

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an:

O you wrapped in garment (i.e Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

Stand (to pray) all night, except a little

Half of it, or a little less than that

Or a little more, and recite the Qur’an (aloud) in a slow, (pleasant tone and) style (Q73:1-4)

In the above glorious verse, we read we can observe the tahajjud/tarawih (in Ramadan), for a whole night except a little, or for half of the night, so I ask you, O wise AlBaqir, when does night start from? Is after isha prayer not night?! Is there any narration that prohibits praying tahajjud after isha?!

AlBaqir:
# He abrogated the practice of "Tarawih" in congregation and ruled that the BEST of your Nawafil is the one you pray at HOME furada (individually and singly).

First and foremost, it is well understood amongst the ahlu sunnah that nawafil are best observed at home, but that does not make observing them in the masjid or in congregation a taboo, there is nothing like abrogation here, but I understand you are looking for anything just to prove your point. Anyways a few hadith to give you a good understanding of nawafil in congregation and in the Masjid…I hope you know that tarawih/qiyamu layl/tahajjud is a naflah?!

Narrated Ibn 'Umar, Allah's Apostle said, "Offer some of your prayers in your houses and do not make them graves."

Narrated Abu-Wa il: 'Abdullah said, "One night I offered the Tahajjud prayer with the Prophet and he kept on standing till an ill-thought came to me." We said, "What was the ill-thought?" He said, "It was to sit down and leave the Prophet (standing)."

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: I offered with the Prophet two Rakat before the Zuhr and two Rakat after the Zuhr prayer; two Rakat after Maghrib, Isha' and the Jumua prayers. Those of the Maghrib and 'Isha' were offered in his house. My sister Hafsa told me that the Prophet used to offer two light Rakat after dawn and it was the time when I never went to the Prophet."

Source: Sahih Bukhari

The above clearly establishes the following:

1. The reason or the need to offer some nawafil at home, and this is a sunnah, it is not compulsory to do so, but highly recommended, thus there is no prohibition whatsoever…

2. The Prophet (SAW) observed tahajjud in congregation, and since you agree that tarawih is the same as tahajjud, then we ahlu sunnah have more evidences to support observing tarawih in congregation

3. Evidence that shows the Prophet (SAW) observed some nawafil in the Masjid and some other in his house.

I now ask you, how does observing a nawafil that the Prophet (SAW) himself observed in congregation become a bid’ah?!

AlBaqir:
If you are truly "Ahlu Sunnah", you should stick to that.

Eyah, don't worry, we are the people of Sunnah ma sha Allah!