Re: Laanat, Curse !
not authenticated but theres no problem with most of the matn
sheikh arnout says sahih isnad nearly always means 'shias posting junk'. you see the same hadiths half of the time being posted as 'sahih sanad' other times just 'sahih'.
I knew some Nasibi junk was coming where one would even disown his own scholar. But no problem, here is another authentication for you in terms of matn. In fact, its gonna hurt you a bit since this will tell you the deceiving tactics used by a grand scholar/author. There is no doubt about the incident since it can also be found in Sahih Bukhari. Bukhari recorded this very tradition from his master Humaidi but being a staunch biased Sahaba worshipper, he deleted the name of Samra and hence we can read this tradition in Sahih Bukhari in this manner:
*Narrated al-Humaidi from Sufyan from Amro bin Dinar from Tawoos from Ibn 'Abbas: *
*Once 'Umar was informed that a certain man sold alcohol. 'Umar said, "May Allah curse him! Doesn't he know that Allah's Apostle said, 'May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah had forbidden them to eat the fat of animals but they melted it and sold it." *
See English Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 3, Book 34, Number 426
When we read this tradition from the original source from where Imam Bukhari had taken it i.e. from Musnad al-Humaidi, we find the name of Sahabi Samra is cited:
Narrated Sufyan from Amro bin Dinar from Tawoos from Ibn Abbas who said:
**Once 'Umar was informed that Samra sold alcohol. 'Umar said, "May Allah curse Samra! Doesn’t he know that Allah's messenger said, 'May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah had forbidden them to eat the fat of animals but they melted it and sold it."
**Musnad al-Humaidi, Volume 1 page 17 Tradition 15
[QUOTE]
do you believe the 'the Prophet forbade abusing the dead'?
[/QUOTE]
It does not really matter what I believe or not. We are debating over your beliefs here and per your school, it is indeed forbidden:
"Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq" (Sahih Bukhari)
But why do you ask this question? Isnt it better to stay on the topic instead of enquiring the permissibility of abusing someone or not?
[QUOTE]
i did notice the change of subject to abusing -which in the case of these reports can be a very broad subject including the area of criticising
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Abusing is worst than cursing hence we all are still on the topic.
[QUOTE]
just junk
sa'ad ra was Muawiya ra's approved governor
[/QUOTE]
Yeah and unlike other Nasibi governors of Muawiyah such as Busr bin Irtat, Ziyad, Kathir bin Shahab, Marwan bin al-Hakam, Sa'ad did not obey they orders of Muawiyah of cursing Ali bin Ai Talib (as) from pulpits!!!
[QUOTE]
we have statements from both Ali RA and Muawiya RA limmiting their disagreement
[/QUOTE]
:DSo Nasibi propaganda machinery is at its best... ic. FYI, the practice of cursing Ali bin Abi Talib (as) from the pulpits was introduced by Muawiya "after Ali bin Abi Talib's death" which continued for 90 years until caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz did not removed it. This historical fact is suffice to water down your feeble defence for your spritual father.
[QUOTE]
all the above although designed to sensationalise has nothing to do with the basis of my comments
*the cursers of the sahaba, can say 52 prayers a day and they will still be outside the fold of islam. will Allah SWT have some mercy on them? i dont know about all of them, but certainly most of them will not be forgiven neither will they be allowed intercession. *
[/QUOTE]
"All the above" is directly linked to the fatwa that you had advanced agasint the one who curses Sahabi. If an individual cursing a Sahabi is outside fold of Islam acording to you, then by the same token all those who cursed Ali bin Abi Talib (who also happens to be your fourth caliph) also go outside the pale of Islam. There CANNOT be double standards !!!
[quote]
this opinion is from Quran and does not apply to personal disagreements between sahaba but applies to 12er shias inlight of their aims
[/quote]
There is nothing such as "personal disagreements between sahaba" because the instances were not over some personal properties or belongings, rather the basis of those disputes was religious. Dont tell me that the rebellion of Muawiya against your fourth caliph was because Ali bin Abi Talib had caused some personal loss to him :P