An open question to all Ithna Ashariya/ Rafidah Shia

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

[quote]
Originally posted by Alpha1:
**It seems that a great deal of digressing has been taking place and verry little talk about the subject of this thread it self. Khair, let us continue....

The reason for my opening this thread is to show the weak arguments of the Rafidah Shia, Rafidah (Rejecters) because they rejected Zayd ibn Alee when he refused to disassociate himself from the first three rightly guided Caliph of Al-Islam.

I believe it was HelloHello who in another post gave us his reasons why he hated the Sahaba. He said that Abu Bakr as-Siddique denied the inheritance of Fatimah, the noble daughter of the noble Nabi (saw). This assertion is nothing new, it is a classical ploy to convince the mainstream to accept their heresy playing on the emotions of the Muslims. In fact this whole Rafidah Shia facade is all based on emotions, not even on intelligence, for if intelligence is used just look at the posts by A1Shah et al who at the one hand agree that Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) did not say anything or complain of anything about the Sahaba, but then the Rafidah Shia seem to have some special cause to claim that Ali was persecuted. For the Rafidah Shia it has become sawaab (rewarding from Allah) to curse and swear. This is nothing less than jahiliya.

Note that I specifically use the term Rafidah Shia to distinguish this particular group of the Shia as other Shia groups are more closer to the Sunnah and are not inclined towards this heresy.

The following is an excerpt from the book entitled “Talbees Iblis” (The Devil’s Deception) by Ibn al-Jawzee. In this book, he describes in great detail the deviations of some of the main sects who have gone astray. In it he says:

So either Alee (who took charge after Uthmaan) continued with this oppression of himself and his family or Abu Bakr was right in not giving Fatimah the oasis of Fadak.

Firstly, what was this property? Fadak was an oasis town near Khaibur which the Prophet (saw) had received as Fay (war spoils taken without a fight) and it remained in his possession during his lifetime. After his death Alee said that the Prophet (saw) had given it to his daughter, Fatimah , her son, and the Prophet’s uncle al-Abbaass ibn Abdul-Muttalib. Caliph Abu Bakr ruled that it could not be inherited. After Abu Bakr’s death, Caliph Umar allowed al-Abbaass and Alee to take benefit from the oasis town, but did not allow them to own it. (Abdul-Qaahir al Baghdaadee, ‘al-Farq bain al Firaq’, Beitut Daar al-Marifah, pp 16-17).

So why did Abu Bakr not allow the family of Ali to take ownership of this town? ‘Aa’isha reported that Fatimah sent asking Abu Bakr for her inheritance from what Allah had given the Prophet (saw) as Fay, Sadaqah (charity) in Madeenah, the oasis of Fadak and the remainder of the Khums (one fifth) of the war spoils turned over to the Prophet (saw) from the battle of Khaibar. Abu Bakr replied. “Allah’s Messenger (saw) said, ‘What we Prophets leave behind is charity and not inheritance. Muhammad’s family may take from it, but no more than they need.’ By Allah, I will not change the status of the Prophet’s Sadaqah but will keep them as they were in the Prophet’s lifetime and dispose of them as Allah’s Prophet did.” Alee then exclaimed, ‘I testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger.’ Then he added, ‘O Abu Bakr, we acknowledge your good qualities’. Then Alee mentioned their relationship to the Prophet (saw) and their rights. Abu Bakr replied, “By He in whose hands lies my soul, I love to do good to the relatives of Allah’s Messenger more than I do to my own relatives.” (Sahih Bukhari Vol 5 Chapter 13, pp 49-50, Hadeeth no. 60 – Madeenah Daar al-Fikr).

So the reason was that Allah’s Messenger (saw) had said that what the Prophets of Allah leave behind is Sadaqah, and if the spoils were given to Alee and Fatimah, then this would have changed the status of the Sadaqah of the Nabi.

Ultimately, why do the Shia malign the Sahaba-e-karam? The companions of the noble Messenger of Allah. Ibn al-Jawzee goes onto explain this in the same book:

This is the ultimate aim of the Rafidah Shia, the Shia who slander the companions of the Messenger of Allah. To weaken our faith in Islam, and to make us accept in its place their heresy.

That’s why my brothers and sisters, it is futile to discuss the sharia, fiqh, seera, or any other aspect of Islam as they seek to deny its existence.

May Allah the all mighty, the all knowing, the eternal, in whose hand is the soul of every living being, guide us all to the sirat al mustakeen - the rightly guided path. Allah is pleased with the companions as indeed they are pleased with Allah. May Allah curse those who curse them.

**
[/quote]

Rafidi Alpha,

Talk about digression.

I see that no sunni on this board wants to comment on verse 33:33 and the hadith posted from Sahih Muslim.

One step at a time boy.

Avoiding truth and labelling people as mis-guided isn't going to win yr cause.

Go discuss with Sholay and come back with an answer.

And don't run from the thread on 12 caliphate either. I'm not done with you yet.

42

As for Bakri's character, this is what yr sunni scholar has to say:

Abu Bakr said: "May Allah save me from His anger and Fatimah's anger"
(the same words used by al-Bukhari) then he cried bitterly when she
said, "By Allah, I will curse you in every prayer that I do." He came
crying out and said: "I do not need your pledge of allegiance and
discharge me from my duties."

  • Sunni reference: Tarikhul Khulafa by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p120
43

Rafidi kay bachay Zein,

Get yr head out of that hole you've dug and listen to yr famous sunni scholar, Jalaluddin al-Suyuti. I assume u have heard of him boy.

Here is the
historical background for the Land of Fadak, and after that is the text for
the Tafseer for the Verse 26 Chapter XVII.
Imam Ali (AS) was sent to Fadak, a Jewish town not far from Khaibar to
take it. But, before the use of any force, the inhabitants tendered their
submission, ceding half of their property to the prophet.

When the Angel
Gabriel revealed to the Prophet the Divine Command as in the Verse 26 of
Chapter XVII (17)
"And give unto one who is of Kin (to thee) that which is due" [17:26]
and the Prophet asked as to who was meant as "being of Kin". the Angel
named Janabe Fatimah (AS) and told the Prophet to give Fadak to her (AS) as
the Income from Fadak belonged wholly to him on account of its being ceded
to him without the use of force. T

The Prophet (PBUH) accordingly bestowed
upon Janabe Fatimah (AS) his estate of Fadak for the substinence of herself
and her children.

Now you tell me what right Bakri had to take Fadak away.

44

A1SHAH

Dear oh dear.

If you are going to use a Sunni Sahih in order to over ride an actual Qur'aanic ayat, then so be it.

But please be consistant in your logic and arguments. Just like you have used the A'Hadeeth for your benefit, then also use the A'Hadeeths relating to the Sahaaba from the same source:

Book 031, Number 5871:
'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If I were to choose a bosom friend I would have definitely chosen Abu Bakr as my bosom friend, but he is my brother and my companion and Allah, the Exalted and Gliorious. has taken your brother and companion (meaning Prophet himself) as a friend.

Book 031, Number 5872:
Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If I were to choose from my Umma anyone as my bosom friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr.

Book 031, Number 5901:
A'isha reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There had been among the people before you inspired persons and if there were any such among my Umma Umar b. Khattab would be one of them. Ibn Wahb explained the word Muhaddathun as those who receive hint from the High (Mulhamun).

The list can go on and on.

The point is very simple.

If you are going too use A'Hadeeth from a certain source, then please don't ignore other A'Hadeeth from the same source because they are not 'in par' with your belief system!!! Use reasonable logic, common sense and courtesy to say the least.

For you to incorrectly state the A'Hadeeth only implied to the members you have mentioned, clearly indicates that the Prophet PBUH was UNFAIR and UNJUST, as he purposley left out his other 3 daughters!!!!

Which in turn implies that the Prophet PBUH either made a mistake and so therefore was NOT infallible. This has now shattered your concept of INFALLIBILTY.

Before you subconscously Blaspheme, please rethink your stratgey and don't use 'bits and bobs' of information totally ignoring the majority!!!!

45

[quote]
Originally posted by sholay:
**
A1SHAH

Dear oh dear.

If you are going to use a Sunni Sahih in order to over ride an actual Qur'aanic ayat, then so be it.

But please be consistant in your logic and arguments. Just like you have used the A'Hadeeth for your benefit, then also use the A'Hadeeths relating to the Sahaaba from the same source:

Book 031, Number 5871:
'Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If I were to choose a bosom friend I would have definitely chosen Abu Bakr as my bosom friend, but he is my brother and my companion and Allah, the Exalted and Gliorious. has taken your brother and companion (meaning Prophet himself) as a friend.

Book 031, Number 5872:
Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If I were to choose from my Umma anyone as my bosom friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr.

Book 031, Number 5901:
A'isha reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There had been among the people before you inspired persons and if there were any such among my Umma Umar b. Khattab would be one of them. Ibn Wahb explained the word Muhaddathun as those who receive hint from the High (Mulhamun).

The list can go on and on.

The point is very simple.

If you are going too use A'Hadeeth from a certain source, then please don't ignore other A'Hadeeth from the same source because they are not 'in par' with your belief system!!! Use reasonable logic, common sense and courtesy to say the least.

For you to incorrectly state the A'Hadeeth only implied to the members you have mentioned, clearly indicates that the Prophet PBUH was UNFAIR and UNJUST, as he purposley left out his other 3 daughters!!!!

Which in turn implies that the Prophet PBUH either made a mistake and so therefore was NOT infallible. This has now shattered your concept of INFALLIBILTY.

Before you subconscously Blaspheme, please rethink your stratgey and don't use 'bits and bobs' of information totally ignoring the majority!!!!

**
[/quote]

There you go everyone.

The topic was Verse 33:33 and Sholay's answer is how great Bakri was.

He has no answer to Verse 33:33 and the hadith from Sahih Muslim.

Says it all.

A bunch of jibbirish and nothing else. I asked for a direct answer but what can you say anyway.

NOW Sholay, remember this thread, this debate the next time you post verse 33:33 and falsely include the wives of the prophet (pbuh) in it. I may not be around and I wouldn't want you to mislead anyone.

Seems like you do not have much belief in the sahihs as well. You had no answer for who the 12 caliphs were, and now you have no answer to the hadith CLEARLY showing that ayat-e-tathir is referring to the holy five.

Sunni mentality of running from the truth hasn't stopped in 1400 yrs. Why stop now ?

ws

[This message has been edited by a1shah (edited August 31, 2001).]

46

a1shah: whata foul mouth you have

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/disgust.gif

We oughta be Changez like, don’t we?

47

Changez,

Looks like u have nothing better to say as well.

The laughs on you boy.

48

A1SHAH

The Qur'aan makes it abundantly clear, who the Ahl'Bayt are. I've already explained to the likes of you why the sentences used CONJECTURES!!!! But as usual, this fell on deaf ears and the usage of Nouns was more important to you then the actual ayat in itself with the usage of Conjectures for simultaneousness in continuation of a statement. Nothing new from your end!

Furthermore, the Qur'aan also reveals the following ayat:

033.053 .....Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah’s Apostle, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah’s sight an enormity.

Why was this order given if the Wives were NOT part of the family and were like any other women as you say. This ayat has removed a fundamental right from a WIDOW? Which if we use your reasoning is in direct contradiction to Islamic Shari'at Law and Cotradiction to another Qur'aanic ayat (see below). Can this be so!!!

002.234 If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do.

002.235 There is no blame on you if ye make an offer of betrothal or hold it in your hearts. Allah knows that ye cherish them in your hearts: But do not make a secret contract with them except in terms Honourable, nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term prescribed is fulfilled. And know that Allah Knoweth what is in your hearts, and take heed of Him; and know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Take your time to answer.

The Qur'aan supercedes any A'Hadeeth.

Secondly, you did not answer the question concerning why the Prophet PBUH would decide to only chose 1 daughter and her family as the Ahl'Bayt and excluding the rest. Let's not forget, you are saying this in order to justify your claims. Please think very hard before you answer.

Thirdly, the issue about Hazrat Abu Bakr was a simple point, which as usual you either did not understand or you decided to overlook. The fact of the matter is you got to either take All the A'Hadeeths from a Sahih or you take NONE. The choice is yours!!!

As far as the 12 Imaams are concerned, if you recollect, I asked you your REAL intentions on asking such a question before I gave you an answer, but to date I am still waiting!

No need to get upset, because sometimes the Truth HURTS!!!!

49

A1SHAH & CREW

How can there be a reconciliation between the Ahlus Sunnah and shiah?

The Ahlus Sunnah are those who learnt and protected the Qur'aan al Kareem,
who preserved and protected the Sunnah of Rasulullah ((Sallallaahu Álayhi
Wasallam)), those whom Allah Ta'ala has used to protect His Deen, and they
made Jihaad in the way of Islam. And history bears ample testimony to this.

The Raafidhah (shiahs) are those who curse the Sahaabah and attempt to
destroy Islam. The Sahaabah Radhiyallaahu Ánhum are those that transmitted
the Deen to us. If we had to cast aspersions at the integrity of the
Sahaabah, it will imply the destruction of the Deen. How can there be a
reconciliation between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Raafidhah (shiahs) while
they swear and abuse the three Khulafaa ur Raashidah? If they had any
intelligence then they would realise that their abuse is in fact an abuse of
Rasululllah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Umar
Radhiyallaahu Ánhuma are the fathers-in-law of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam). They were his close confidants during his lifetime, and
his close neighbours after his demise. Who can achieve this honour? Who can
achieve this honour? They took part in Jihaad with Rasulullah (Sallallaahu
Álayhi Wasallam) in all the Jihaad campaigns.

Hadhrat Uthmaan Radhiyallaahu Ánhu was husband to two of the daughters of
Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam). Allah Ta'ala will not choose for
his beloved Rasool except the best of men, and the best of companions. This
was the relationship between Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) and
the three Khulafaa ur Raashideen.

How can there ever be a reconciliation between the Ahlus Sunnah and the
Raafidhah (shiahs), when they believe Khomeini, the imaam of deviation, to
be sinless. They assert that he is the deputy of their concocted Mahdi.
Since they regard their imaams to be sinless, and since in the absence of
the principle the deputy has the same status, they assert Khomeini to be
sinless.

And one form of Baatil only assists another. And one form of Baatil only
assists another.

The shiahs are the followers of Ibn Saba, the yahoodi, and of Abu Lu'lu-ah,
the majoosi (fire-worshiper).

Until next time!!!!!!!

See ya, cuz I wouldn't wanna be ya!!

A bit of your own medicine for a change!

50

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by a1shah:
**NOW, Compare Verse 33:33 to the following hadith:

A1shah, you are making a mockery of yourself over and over again. The world ahl-ul bait , means the entire family of the Prophet and not specific people in a family unit, especially excluding parts of that family.

Let me illustrate this to you by how the Angels of Allah (swt) understand and use that word.

READ!

11: 69 ** There came Our Messengers ** to Abraham with glad tidings. They said "Peace!" He answered "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf.

70 But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal) he felt some mistrust of them and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: we have been sent against the people of Lut."

71 And his wife was standing (there) and she laughed: but We gave her glad tidings of Isaac and after him of Jacob.

72 She said: "Alas for me! Shall I bear a child seeing I am an old woman and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"

73 ** They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you O ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise full of all glory!" **

Transliteration Qa_lu_ ata'jabina min amrilla_hi rahmatulla_hi wa baraka_tuh(u_), 'alaikum ** ahlal bait(i),** innahu_ hamidum majid(un).

A1shah, in this verse the Angels/messengers are addressing the ?Ahl-ul bait? of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh} which includes himself his son and his two wives.. (even if they are NOT present, it does not exclude any of them)

In verse 33:33, of the Qur?an ( which should be read from verses 30 to 34 to understand the correct context) specifically addresses the Ahl-ul Bait Of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) which in this particular verses is more towards his wives since , that verse admonishes the wives of the Prophet , such that they will set an good example for others to follow.

Yours silliness in Only reading verse 33 and failing to understand its full meanings ( which you need to do, (since you are a shia) in order keep you erroneous faith) has led you to keep trumpeting verses 33:33 again and again.

Subsequently quoting the hadith no 5955 does not alter verse 33: 30 to 34 in any way. ( I cannot comment much on this hadith since I am outstation at this moment, will try to give you more details on this when I return to Philippines.

Most of all a1shah!, ANSWER THIS TWO QUESTIONS

1) IF the Prophet enjoined a certain conduct for Muslims to follow who amongst his family( ahl ul bait) or any one else have the right to alter it??