**Because of the following two reasons people might leave this forum. **
(1) This is very bad practice by Admins of the Gupshup; They close the active thread.
(2) The server is too slow in response as compared to the other forums websites. One can make and visit page much quicker than this site.
Al-Muthanna please proceed from here as the other thread for topic is closed by admin.
In fact - The truth is in contrary to you. This was my question to you, for which you answered yourself somehow. But tell me what you want to prove with the paragraph you wrote above.
If you say: *you (Shia) believe that Imaam Bukhari included Ahadeeth to please Bani Umayyah * This is correct, no doubt in it. Bukhari itself is the evidence.
On the other hand he left many of the things in his book as evidence, which helps us to find the truth. So you have to answer those. I am asking you, why is it so. If you still not able to understand what I am saying. However it was not a big deal. A person must have at least a level of understanding to discuss religious matters. I am going give you an example of a Christen and a Muslim dialogue here.
Muslim: I believe Jesus is a Prophet of God. He is not the Son of God.
Christen: I believe Jesus is the Son of God. Do you have any evidence, Please provide me.
Muslim: It is in Quran. Allah Says Jesus is my Prophet. (Verse so and so)
Christen: Quran? I don’t believe in you, your Prophet Muhammad, and the book Quran. So I am not liable to accept it whatever your books says.
Muslim: If you don’t believe in Quran; I have evidence from your book Bible. That Jesus is a prophet of God. (Chapter and verse so and so)
Christen: Where did Christens say that Jesus is God and you blame us.
Muslim: Its in Bible too.
Christen: Show me please.
Muslim: Jesus is God and son of God (chapter and verse so and so from bible)
Christen: The truth is in contrary to you. Really your matter is strange. One time your priests tells, Bible say Jesus is a God and christens changed Bible to please their Pops and kings and then suddenly in another discussion you argue that Bible says Jesus is a Prophet of God.
See what the Christen has said to him, you are saying the something in the paragraph you wrote. If Bukhari have conflicts in it, like the book Bible. You have to answer as that Christen is liable; he have to answer the Muslim in the dialogue example because Bukhari is your book like bible was that Christian’s and there are conflicts in it on the other hand you say it is Sahih. However this was not the topic discussion. Whatever I wrote is in “Rud” (as an answer to) of your false logic. Right!
So you agree that Ali (AS) is superior to Muawiyya. I would invite you to examine the reason that why is it so. It good at least you agree on the concept of tahrif that there could be fabrications to slander Muawiyya. I would ask you! Couldn’t be there any fabrication in describing his merits? Tell me.
No hadith in praise of Muaweyah that is Sahih
There exist no hadith in praise of Muaweyah that is Sahih. This is not I myself saying.
Sunni Alim Ibn Hajr Al Asqalani says this. “Imam Bukhari on the topic of Muaweyah wrote a Chapter Bab ai Dhikr Muaweyah because no hadith in praise of Muaweyah are proven and Ibn Abi Asim and Abu Umar Ghulam Thalib and 'Abu Bakr Nakash wrote on the virtues of Muaweyah and Ibn Jauzi in Maudu’at wrote about him, then Ibn Jauzi stated in the opinion of Isaac bin Raaviya, in praise of Muaweyah no hadith is Sahih and that’s why Imam Bukhari wrote a Chapter titled bab ai Dhikr Muaweyah rather than bab ai Fadail Muaweyah” Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani - Fathul Bari Vol. 7 page 104
If you agree that there are fabrications to slander Muawiyya in history what would you say about the fabrications to slander Ali. Think the other way. It is proven that the Sunni scholars and writer showed passiveness to mention the merits of Ahle Bait and narrations narrated from Ahle Bait(AS) in their books. However merits of their enemies and narrations from them are in abundant. That is why people of the time of Muawiyya even did not realize the fact that Muawiyya is unable to be a Khlifa or Amir of Muslims because of not fulfilling the basic requirements of a khlifa. How come the matter I am pointing out is strange.
One born illegitimately can not be a Khalifa
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah al Muhaddith Shah Waliyullah Dehlavi in his Hujjutul Balaghtha Volume 2 page 149 “Dhikr Khilafath” states:
*"To be a Khalifa one must satisfy the following six requirements, he must be
1 - wise
2 - mature
3 - Free
4 - a Man
5 - Brave
6 - Possess good ancestry*
Would you not verify the ancestry of Mawiyah and Yazid before accepting them as Khalifa against Ali(A) and Hussain(A) who were pure in their ancestry. No blame on them til Prophet Adam(A) and no question about it.
Anyway you left my last post unanswered: **What is your criteria to judge a person that he is a Shia? Cant we judge people that who is Sunni and who is Shia? You tell me what about those writers who wrote books in MERITS for both Sahaba and Ahle Bait, but in some of their writings they told the truth about those people who are considered as Sahaba as general definition of Muslims and they did bad in their lives. **
Tell me about those men and women who have committed adultery but no witness of their sin. In this case are they sinless in eyes of Allah? Are they sinless in the eyes of community who impalement the law of Allah.
Would you ask me to produce witness against Bill Clinton and Monica?
Would you ask me to produce witness against Diana?
Would you ask me to produce witness if I say Faorh was a bad person.
Would you ask me to produce witness against Yazid.
Would you ask me to produce four witnesses aginst Zulaikha. if I tell you the story of Yousaf(AS) and Zulaikha.
Would you ask me to produce four witnesses if I tell you the story of Qoom e Lot (AS).
If you do so. What I would consider about yourself? The protector and loyalist of those people who works for their support.
There could be many who have committed adultery but no body knows and no body can even tell. In the eyes of society they are sinless but they will get the punishment in the day of judgment.
I am not concern with their punishment. Can such kind of person be a khlifa of Prophet Muhammad or the leader of Muslims; who is the result of adultery? This is my point. He even can not lead in congregational prayer how can he be the khlifa.
Not having witness does not mean the person who committed the sin is not a sinner. To produce witness is the requirement of Law; when the case is reported to Law then you must have to produce witness.
Hadith from Shahi Muslim.
Book 9. Divorce. Hadith 3568.
'Abdullah b Shaddad reported that mention was made about the invokers of curses before Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them). Ibn Shaddad said: Are these the two about whom Allah’s Apostle (clay peace be upon him) said: “If I were to stone one without evidence, I would have definitely stoned her”? Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) said: She is not this woman; but she is the one who (committed adultery) openly.
The punishment is executed only in case of accused being caught by the law. Even in that case, if it is proved beyond doubt that the accused had truly repented over his sin before being caught, the punishment is to be condoned. “Allah accepts the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will Allah turn in mercy; for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.
But this is not in the case of Hind: She spat out the bitter words:
“A free woman does not commit adultery!”
A healthy discussion is highly appreciated. Answering just by quoting a single line at the top of reply absolutely of no importance.