thankyou...so i take it that mohammad means, successor???
one more question....sahaba means ppl who the prophet associated with, rite?..
can you , off the top of ur head, name some bad/evil sahabas?
X-communist,
Before I answer that question, can you tell me whether it is yr belief that every companion who existed at the time of the prophet and were with him were good and that no munafiqs existed. This is the general ahl-sunnah belief - that all sahabahs were righteous.
In order for you to answer this, you will have to know the names of ALL the munafiqs that were present and exclude them from the sahabah group.
Sahabahs do not only consist of Baker, Umar, Usman, and Aisha you know.
Lets take it from here.
Lets see what you sunnis accuse Shias of. False propaganda is a general trait of you sunnis that was inherited from your forefather, Muawayah :-
In this conversation between 2 scholars, the SHEIK is sunni and the WELL-WISHER shia.
'SHIAS' ACCUSING A'YESHA OF
ADULTERY' AND ITS REPLY
Sheikh: The worst thing that the Shias are guilty of is that they accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha of adultery. It is an acknowledged fact that she had the honor of sexual intercourse with the Holy Prophet of Allah and that she was his loving wife. They do not realize what this slanderous accusation leads to. Have they not read sura an-Nur (Light) of the Holy Qur'an? Allah says: "Bad women are for bad men and bad men are for bad women. Good women are for good men and good men are for good women." (24:26)
Well-Wisher: First the charge that the Shias accuse Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha of immoral actions and adultery is absolutely false. Never has such a thing been said by Shias. This assertion is a blatant calumny circulated centuries ago by the Nawasib and Khawarij in order to instigate confusion. They attributed to the Shias what they themselves said. Subsequently others, without making inquiries, attacked the Shias as you are now doing. If you would study Shia books, you would not find anywhere that Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha has been accused of adultery.
A'YESHA'S EXONERATION FROM
THE CHARGE OF ADULTERY
If you read the Shia histories and commentaries, you will see how they have defended Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha from the charges of adultery. The fact is that such reports were made by a group of hypocrites during the time of the Holy Prophet. Some of those involved were Mista Bin Uthatha, Hasan Bin Thabit and Abdullah Bin Ubayy. Concerning A'yesha's exoneration from the false charges of the hypocrites, seven verses were revealed in the Holy Qur'an. Shias believe that to make a false charge of adultery or immoral action against any Muslim is unlawful, not to mention a wife of the Holy Prophet, whether she is A'yesha or Hafsa.
A HUSBAND AND WIFE DO NOT NECESSARILY
SHARE THE SAME LEVEL OF ATTAINMENT
Second, the holy verse you have recited does not mean what you have said. It is not necessarily so that if a husband is a virtuous believer and worthy of Paradise that his wife will be the same. There are many instances which prove that spouses may attain different levels of virtue.
Allah says in the Sura Tahrim (The Prohibition): "Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they were unfaithful to them, so they availed them nothing against Allah, and it was said: 'Enter the fire with those who enter.' And Allah sets forth an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh when she said: 'My Lord! build for me a house with Thee in the Garden and deliver me from Pharaoh and his doing, and deliver me from the unjust people.'" (66:10-11)
Sheikh: It is strange that during this short period there appears to be a clear inconsistency in your statements.
Well-Wisher: Please tell me what you see as inconsistent.
Sheikh: At one point you say that accusing anybody of adultery is unlawful but at another you say that Noah's and Lot's wives were unfaithful to their husbands. Are these two sentences not inconsistent with each other? Is it not unbecoming of you to accuse the wives of the prophets of adultery and faithlessness?
Well-Wisher: I am sure you know you are adopting a deceptive manner. You know very well what "faithlessness" means in the holy verse referred to earlier.
MEANING OF FAITHLESSNESS OF
NOAH'S AND LOT'S WIVES
It is strange of you that you mistake faithlessness to mean adultery though there is a vast difference between the two. The wives of the prophets were absolutely free from adultery. Here the discussion is about their faithlessness. First, if a wife of a prophet acts against the instructions of her husband, she is certainly faithless. Second, I am not the one who says that they proved faithless. The Qur'an itself states it: "They were unfaithful to their husbands," and unfaithfulness was not adultery. As I have said earlier, the wives of the prophets were free from this kind of unfaithfulness. So the meaning of their unfaithfulness was disobedience.
The Prophet Noah's wife was opposed to her husband and used to insult him in public. She said: "My husband is mad. Since I am associated with him all day and night, I know his true state. Do not be deceived by him." The Prophet Lot's wife used to inform the people of every guest that came to his house. She used to create mischief by disclosing the secrets of the house to his enemies.
FAITHLESSNESS OF WIVES
DOES NOT IMPLY IMPURITY
According to Qur'anic commentators and also according to the statements of the infallible ones, the meaning of the verse of the sura an-Nur (Light) from which you make your point is that impure women deserve impure men and impure men are inclined towards them. Pure women deserve pure men and pure men are inclined towards them. In the same chapter in the preceding verse Allah says: "The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater." (24:3)
In short, the holy verse "impure women are for impure men..." in no way proves your point.
REFERENCE TO A'YESHA'S CONDUCT
The criticism of A'yesha is not due to prejudice. It is because of her wrong conduct. She committed misdeeds which no other wife of the Holy Prophet, including Hafsa, daughter of Umar, did. Moreover, the Shias' criticism is strictly within the bounds of the comments made by your owns ulema, who have reported that this anxious woman committed serious wrongs.
Sheikh: Is it proper for a noble man like you to make such charges against Ummu'l-Mu'minin?
Well-Wisher: All the wives of the Holy Prophet except Ummu'l-Mu'minin Khadija, are of equal rank. Umme Salma, Suda, A'yesha, Hafsa, Maimuna, and the others in our view all are Ummu'l-Mu'minin. But A'yesha's conduct and her words were certainly different from those of the other women. Again, this is not merely my version, but your own prominent ulema have written that her life was blemished. The good and bad actions of people cannot remain hidden forever. Eventually truth reveals itself.
Sheikh: Assuredly, because she opposed Ali, you find fault with her regarding insignificant matters.
Well-Wisher: We do not find fault regarding insignificant matters. A'yesha's opposition to Amiru'l-Mu'minin, Imam Hasan, Imam Husain, and the Ahle Bait is a separate issue. But the foundation of the ugly history of her life had been laid during the period of the Holy Prophet himself. She used to vex and torment him.
Sheikh: It is strange that you consider Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha, the beloved wife of the Holy Prophet, so morally debased that you dare to say that she vexed the Holy Prophet. How can we accept your assertion when Ummu'l-Mu'minin had definitely read the Holy Qur'an and the following verse: " Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and he has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace." (33:57)
So it is possible for her to vex the Holy Prophet so that she could be cursed by Allah? This is definitely one of the slanders of the Shias.
Well-Wisher: No it is not a lie! Regarding these holy verses, I admit that not only Ummu'l-Mu'minin A'yesha must have read them, but her father Abu Bakr and other eminent companions must have also read them. In the light of those reports and hadith which I have mentioned in previous nights, many truths may be revealed to us provided that we are just.
A'YESHA GRIEVED THE HOLY PROPHET
The fact that A'yesha grieved the Holy Prophet is not only related by Shia ulema, but by your own eminent ulema. Imam Ghazali in his 'Ihya'u'l-Ulum, vol. II, ch. 3, Kitab-e-Adabu'n-Nika, p. 135, has reported many hadith condemning A'yesha's conduct. Among them is her quarreling with the Holy Prophet and Abu Bakr's intervention. This event is also narrated by Mulla Ali Muttaqi in Kanzu'l-Ummal, vol. VII, p. 116; Abu Yala in his Musnad and Abu'sh-Sheikh in his Kitab-e-Amthal. They write that when Abu Bakr went to see his daughter, he found that there was a grievance between A'yesha and the Holy Prophet. The decision was left in Abu Bakr's hands. A'yesha used insulting language in her remarks. In the course of her conversation, she asked the Holy Prophet to be fair in his attitude. This insolent remark made Abu Bakr so indignant that he slapped her so severely in her face that blood flowed down her clothes.
Also Imam Ghazali in the same Chapter on Marriage and others, too, have narrated that once, when Abu Bakr reached his daughter's house, he found that the Holy Prophet was displeased with A'yesha. He asked them to tell him what was the cause of their grievance so that he might bring about reconciliation. The Holy Prophet asked A'yesha if she should begin telling it. She replied, 'You may begin but you should speak the truth.' In her next sentence she added, 'You are a man who really thinks himself to be a Prophet!'
These remarks show that A'yesha did not believe that the Holy Prophet was the divinely appointed Prophet. Such degrading remarks are reported in your books in large numbers. They were the cause of great anguish to the Holy Prophet.
NO SUCH REPORTS ABOUT OTHER
WIVES OF THE HOLY PROPHET
You will note that the ulema and historians of both the sects have not recorded such things about the other wives of the Holy Prophet. They have not attributed such things even to Hafsa, daughter of Umar. It was only A'yesha's behavior which led to her indignity. We related only as much as your prominent ulema have said about her. Have you not studied Imam Ghazali's books, the histories by Tabari, Mas'udi and Ibn A'tham Kufi etc. which report that all your eminent ulema have described her as disobedient to the Holy Prophet. Still, you complain because I have criticized Ummu'l-Mu'minin's conduct. Can there be any clearer blot on one's character than transgression against the order of Allah and His Prophet and revolution against the Caliph of the Holy Prophet?
In the sura of al-Ahzab (The Clans), Allah has addressed the wives of the Holy Prophet: "And stay in your houses and display not your finery like the display of the ignorance of yore." (33:33)
Of course the other wives of the Holy Prophet complied with this order and never left their houses without an urgent reason. Even A'mash has reported this fact.
UMMU'L-MU'MININ SUDA DID NOT
GO OUT EVEN FOR HAJJ OR UMRA
It is reported in the Sahih and other books of your traditionists and historians that people asked Suda, wife of the Holy Prophet, why did she not perform the Hajj and the Umra. She replied, "It is compulsory for me to perform one Hajj and Umra and no more. And He says: 'And stay in your houses.' So in obedience to this command, I shall not go out of my house; rather, my intention is that I will not, as far as possible, go out of the room in which the Holy Prophet of Allah had placed me until I die." In fact she did this and it was her dead body which was taken out of the room.
Suda, A'yesha, and Umme Salma, were wives of the Holy Prophet and were mothers of the believers. Of course they differ from one another because of their conduct.
According to the community, A'yesha and Hafsa are worthy of respect, not because they were the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar, though you respect them on that score, but because they were the wives of the Holy Prophet. But the wives of the Holy Prophet deserve honor when they are devout, as it is clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an. "O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any of the other women." (33:32)
U poor soul!
May ALLAH make u see the right path, and every shia out there, for there is a very thin line between IMAN and SHIRK.
alrite, when i think of the word sahaba, i think of the prophet's friendly comapnaions.
The kuffars were NOT sahaba.
ie: abu jahl, was not a friendly companion.
RE: sunni accusations:
we do not accuse, we CRITICIZE. criticize at ur thoughts for a WIFE of the PROPHET.
farmore, i belive the ALI issue is more vulnerable to be criticized than the adultery of aisha.
azee1 - thank you for yr concern. Another sunni talking crapola without knowledge.
x_communist - please ponder upon Aisha's poor behavior with the holy messenger- its in the article - then find proofs for yrself in Sahih Bukhari
Let's see what yr sunni scholars say about Imam Ali (as):
. Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in his Musnad, Mir Seyyed Ali Hamdani Faqih Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba; Ibn Maghazili Shafi'i in his Manaqib and Muhammad Bin Talha Shafi'i in Matalibu's-Su'ul Fi Manaqib-e-alu'r-Rasul narrate from the Holy Prophet that he said, "I and Ali Bin Abi Talib both were a single light in the presence of Allah 14,000 years before the creation of Adam. When Allah created Adam, he deposited that light in Adam's loins. We remained together as one light until we separated in Abu'l-Muttalib's loins. Then I was endowed with Prophethood and Ali with the caliphate."
Mir Seyyed Ali Hamdani Faqih Shafi'i in his Mawaddatu'l-Qurba, Mawadda VII, mentions this point. "Ali and the Holy Prophet are from one Light. Ali was endowed with such qualities as were not given to any one else in all the world."
Among hadith which have been recorded in this Mawadda, there is a report from the third Caliph, Uthman Bin Affan, who said that the Holy Prophet said, "I and Ali were created from one light 4,000 years before the creation of Adam. When Allah created Adam, He deposited that light into Adam's loins. We remained as one light until we were separated in Abdu'l-Muttalib's loins. Then I was endowed with prophethood and Ali with vicegerency."
In another hadith he writes that the Holy Prophet, addressing Ali, said: "So prophethood and messengership came to me. Vicegerency and the Imamate came to you, Ali."
X-communist;
With the clear Quranic verse threatening the holy prophet to announce to the people + the events of Ghadir Khum + numerous other hadiths on the superiority of Imam Ali (as), whatelse do you need to be convinced ?
X-communist;
Do you agree that you can be friendly on the outside yet have bad intentions ?
As such, would it not be wise to judge a person according to their actions ?
By the way, yr definition of sahabahs contradicts yr ahl-sunnat version of who sahabahs are.
believe me, if aisha's behaviour had crossed the islamic limits, it would have been mentioned in the quran as topics like 'wills', 'purdah', and so on.
i dont need al-kafi, or nahajul balagha to tell me the wrong doings of aisha.
and werent we discussing sahabas.?
[quote]
Originally posted by a1shah:
**When asked about Al-Mahdi, the holy messenger said that he would be the ninth decendent from Imam Hussain (as), his name would be Muhammed, and would be the Imam of the time, truthful, and Allah (swt)'s representative and proof on earth.
He then described them with the holy words that you critize in my signature.**
[/quote]
Can you tell me where we can find this hadith? The name of the book, page number, section number etc. Also if you know the narrator as well. Thanks!
[quote]
Originally posted by X_Communist:
**believe me, if aisha's behaviour had crossed the islamic limits, it would have been mentioned in the quran as topics like 'wills', 'purdah', and so on.
i dont need al-kafi, or nahajul balagha to tell me the wrong doings of aisha.
and werent we discussing sahabas.?**
[/quote]
Sister now tell me how many teaching do u follow daily that are not mentioned in Quran
is it mention how to pray in Quran,
is it mention Abu bakr should be first Khalifa
sister how many things u belief that are not mentioned in Quran, yeah sure in Quran there are ayats in the Quran saying Prophet's wives not to leave the houses and wat kinda tone and behavior shall they adopt.
and history is our prooof, look at Jamal who disobeyed Quran, can u deny it. Can u say Ayesha was on Haq. Sister learn to accept the truth rather then coming up with the lame excuses.
[This message has been edited by Insaniyat (edited January 02, 2001).]
http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/
Azam check this site out, it might help u learn more about the event, with lotta references
[quote]
Originally posted by Insaniyat:
** Sister now tell me how many teaching do u follow daily that are not mentioned in Quran
is it mention how to pray in Quran,
is it mention Abu bakr should be first Khalifa
sister how many things u belief that are not mentioned in Quran, yeah sure in Quran there are ayats in the Quran saying Prophet's wives not to leave the houses and wat kinda tone and behavior shall they adopt.
and history is our prooof, look at Jamal who disobeyed Quran, can u deny it. Can u say Ayesha was on Haq. Sister learn to accept the truth rather then coming up with the lame excuses.
[This message has been edited by Insaniyat (edited January 02, 2001).]**
[/quote]
Pristine just asked for some reference and all she gets is twisting and beating up the same answer. Just give her the reference, please.
lame excuses?..
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/rolleyes.gif
it was a simple statement.
if pharoah (fir’own) is mentioned in the quran because he disobeyed a prophet’s sayings, im pretty sure Aisha would have also been mentioned.
and if that is stilll “LAME”,
shia’ history differs from sunni history significantly.
how am i supposed to believe a sect’s (that existed after the prophet) history wehn i have the quran?
oh and by the way, your HISTORY gave u a right to BLAME a member of the PROPHET"S FAMILY???
Ayats that ramesha presented in another post were left unaddressed. THEY WERE IN REPLY TO YOU too MISSY. GO read em there.
which one was that?..tabarruk?..
Sister the event i m talking about happened after the death of the Prophet, the battle of Jamal was fought after teh death of the Prophet, she disobeyed Quran, after the death of the Prophet what happened with Pharoah was before the Quran was revealed to the Prophet, Open ur mind sister before making judghement, Sister i don’t understand what do u mean my saying a sect that existed after the death of the Prophet. What teaching don’t we follow that Prophet asked us to follow i have brought the hadith of Prophet to follow Quran and Ahleybait after his death and also the the references regarding Ghadeer-e-Khum, If we came into existance after the death of Prophet didnt u ppl too, do u have any evidance that Holy Prophet gave Khilafat too Abu Bakr, He said there would be 73 sects after his death, and also asked to follow Quran and Ahleybait sister. I dont know what significant difference does it make if we don’t respect Ayesha sister, we have reasons and proofs what she did, i don’t know how it makes significant differences among us. The event u r talkin about happened before Quran was revealed, If Quran didnt mention her about her but it did give her warnings to what kinda attitude is she supposed to follow, plzz stop coming up with lame excuses and open ur judgement. Or prove the Ayat or her acts right
[This message has been edited by Insaniyat (edited January 02, 2001).]
The two martyrdoms, that of Uthman (RAA) and of Hussain (RAA), have caused agony in the hearts of the Muslim Ummah and have cast their gloomy shadows over its fourteen hundred year history. The have caused dissension and fighting among the Muslims who have fallen into the trap of those who sowed the seeds of discord and shifted the blame to the most respected persons of the Ummah. It is, in fact, the triumph of those intriguing elements who were jubilant over their accomplishment. Now, we are at each other’s throat and hurl bad names and odium on the very honorable personalities of Islam. Some people consider names of Yazeed and Shimer a symbols of profanity and an anathema while some others use Amar Ibn Sa‘d’s and Ameer Mu‘awiya’s (RAA) names as expletives. May Allah guide such people to the right course and protect us from sharing their company or views and give us the wisdom and strength to heed Prophet’s warning:
Beware of expressing opinions about my Companions and, after I am gone, do not use them for your own ends; for whosoever will love them would do so because of their love for me and whosoever would have rancor against them, would do so because of their rancor against me.
You (Muslims) are the best nation ever raised among the mankind: (because) you
advocate righteousness and FORBID EVIL, and you believe in (one) GOD (ALLAH).
(Sura: Alay-Imran; Ayat:110)
**Sitaaron Pay Jo Daltay Hain Kamand!**
Shaheen=An Eagle or A Flacon!
How come people come up with the idea that Shaheen is a "gal"????
[This message has been edited by Shaheen (edited January 02, 2001).]
Ok sister xcommunist
tell me one thing u like to go everything with Quran and i do respect it as the most authentic book and a way for guidance for us, so tell me does Quran ask us to respect Ayesha, Abu Bakr and Umar. Well if it doesnt and we have our own reason, which i have shown with the proofs, there where is this significant diff coming from
Waiting for your reply