Showing posts with label shia scholar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shia scholar. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Imam Jafar (as) Could Not Even Find 17 Imami Shias During His Era ?
I posted this clip a few years back, and now I found a reference to the above clip.
H 2311, CH 96, h 4
Muhammad ibn al-Hassan and Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Bandar have narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad al-Ansari from Sadir al- Sayrafi who has said the following:
“Once I went in the presence of abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, and said, ‘By Allah, it is your obligation not to sit (without proclaiming your leadership).’ The Imam asked, ‘Why O Sadir?’ I said, ‘Because your friends, Shi’a (followers) and supporters are so many. By Allah, were Amir al-Mu’minin (Ali ibn abu Talib), recipient of divine supreme covenant, to have that many Shi’a (followers) as your Shi’a, friends and supporters, no one of the tribe of Tamim or ‘Ady could dare to disturb him.’ The Imam said, ‘O Sadir, how many do you think they are?’ I said, ‘One hundred thousand.’ The Imam said, ‘One hundred thousand!’ I said, ‘Yes, in fact, they are up to two hundred thousand, and I said, ‘Half of the world (population) is your Shi’a.’
“The narrator has said that the Imam remained calm and then said, ‘Is it possible to come with us to Yanbu’?’ I said, ‘It is fine with me.’ He then asked to bring a donkey and a mule already saddled. I hurried to ride the donkey and he said, ‘O Sadir, can you consider to allow me ride the donkey?’ I said, ‘The mule is more beautiful and noble.’ He said, ‘The donkey is friendlier for me.’ I then dismounted and he rode the donkey and I rode the mule. We traveled until it was time for prayer. He said, ‘O Sadir, dismount and we should pray.’ Then he said, ‘This ground is soft, prayer is not permissible here.’ We moved to a red ground and he looked to a boy who shepherded goats. He said, ‘O Sadir, were I to have as many Shi’a (followers) as the number of these goats, then it would not have been permissible for me to sit (without proclaiming my leadership).’ We dismounted and prayed. When we finished the prayer I turned to the goats and counted them. There were seventeen heads of goats in the flock.’” (al-Kafi)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33892794/Usool-al-Kafi-Vol-2-English
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Shia Scholar Warns Not To Curse \ Make Dua Against The Sahaba
This lecture was recorded by in Pakistan in early 80s. This was the annual Sham-e-Ghariba from PTV. The Scholar from his views is a Tafzili Shia, and his name is Sayyid Naseer-ud-Deen sahab. After listening to this clip some 12rs might say that Sahaba are only those who reject the 3 calipahs, and accept Imam Ali (as) as the first calipah. However, to prove such narrow minded and taqiyyah abusing 12rs Shia wrong, I have added the clip where he praised Umar (ra) in the end.
Shia Scholar Praises Umar (ra) & Adds (ra) After His Name
This lecture was recorded by in Pakistan in early 80s. This was the annual Sham-e-Ghariba from PTV. The Scholar from his views is a Tafzili Shia, and his name is Sayyid Naseer-ud-Deen sahab.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Why do some 12r Shia have to Pretend They are Sunnis When They Debate ? Taqiyah ?
A lot of times I come across some 12rs who want to debate, and while debating they claim they are Sunnis. While claiming they are Sunnis they insult the Sahaba indirectly, and still say they are Sunnis. Today I was watching some clips on youtube, and I discovered that they have some stories and narrations in their books which encourage this degraded behavior.
Okay, fine Bibi Fatima (as) was correct, but Abi Bakr (ra) was wrong. However, why did the Shia shaykh lie in the first place that he was a Sunni ? From his deception the Sunni also discredited his views.
The Shia Mufti gives a narration where the Imam's sons said his older brother is shia, but he was Sunni so he can convert Abu Hanifa(ra) ? This is just ridiculous. Of course if Imam Ali (as) couldn't even protect his wife in the 12r Shia beliefs, how can I expect them to straight forward.
Okay, fine Bibi Fatima (as) was correct, but Abi Bakr (ra) was wrong. However, why did the Shia shaykh lie in the first place that he was a Sunni ? From his deception the Sunni also discredited his views.
The Shia Mufti gives a narration where the Imam's sons said his older brother is shia, but he was Sunni so he can convert Abu Hanifa(ra) ? This is just ridiculous. Of course if Imam Ali (as) couldn't even protect his wife in the 12r Shia beliefs, how can I expect them to straight forward.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Shia Scholar Says "Namaz is not counted if you don't Khums"
The 12r shia pay 20% of their saving to their scholars every year. The Scholar then takes that money and decides how to divide it. Most of the money is spent toward religious services. Here is a shia scholar who says that that its a big sin to not pay khumms. He gives an example saying that even if you don't pay khumms for the turbah that you purchase from Iran/Iraq then your namaz becomes invalid.
One of the main reasons the 12r shias sect is powerful is because of khums. Just listen to lecture from the 5:00 min mark.
The only problem I have this is its made compulsory on 12r shia fiqh, and according to them it invalidates the namaz. I know many shias who refuse to pay khums. In fact one of my shia friends just died and he left a wife and his kids behind. The local majalis is asking the family to pay khums from his inheritance. Instead the shia family adopted the sunni belief when it comes this case. I can understand 2.5 for Zakat but 22.5% ? Now that's too much.
One of the main reasons the 12r shias sect is powerful is because of khums. Just listen to lecture from the 5:00 min mark.
The only problem I have this is its made compulsory on 12r shia fiqh, and according to them it invalidates the namaz. I know many shias who refuse to pay khums. In fact one of my shia friends just died and he left a wife and his kids behind. The local majalis is asking the family to pay khums from his inheritance. Instead the shia family adopted the sunni belief when it comes this case. I can understand 2.5 for Zakat but 22.5% ? Now that's too much.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Mistakes of A Sahaba
There are many examples where the sahaba made mistakes during their lifetime. However, the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jamaat do not believe in the infallibility of the sahaba. Since the sahaba made mistakes does this mean we should stop following them ? The correct answer to this question is the sahaba should be only followed when they are correct. For example Abi Bakr (ra) himself is believed to have said "Follow me until I lead you on the path of Allah." He said: "Help me, if I be the right; set me right, if I be the wrong. The weak among you shall be strong to me until his rights have been vindicated. The strong among you shall be weak with me until, if God wills, I have taken what is due to him. Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and his Prophet, obey me not.""
Therefore, when a sahaba commits a mistake it is not compulsory for us to follow him. Now when one debates against the shia they point out these mistakes of the sahaba and force a sunni to curse them. For example in Tijani's book "Then I Guided" he cites a quote where Umar (ra) gives an incorrect rule regarding Tayamum. He cites from Bukhari:
Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, "What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?" Abdullah answered, "He should not pray until he finds water." Abu Musa then asked, "What do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar [regarding the issue of impurity] when Ammar asked him?" Abdullah said, "For that reason Umar was not satisfied with [that]." Abu Musa said, "Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur'anic verse?" Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, "If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand. I said to Shaqiq, "Abdullah is most certainly hated for that." He said, "Yes".
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54
Over here it is clear that Umar (ra) made a mistake. However, does this mean accepting the shia sect will make a prevent a person from making mistakes or committing sins? Are the scholars which the 12rs follow also not capable of making mistakes ? Are they infallible ?
Below is a pictures of Al Tijani where he is using his left hand to drink coffee.
It is reported in Suyuti book regarding the Calipate Imam Hassan ibn Ali (as), that Imam Hassan (as) gave a ruling in fiqh to only use one's left hand when dealing with impure acts such as cleaning the nose, or any other form of cleansing.
In fact, Marwan bin Hakam used to abuse to Imam Hassan (as) on many occasions, and the only time Imam Hassan (as) reprimanded him was when he saw that Marwaan using his right hand to clean his nose.
Ibn Saád reports from Zurayq ibn Suwār: Marwān and al-Ĥasan had an argument. and Marwān began to speak rough; al-Ĥasan kept silent. And then Marwān began picking his nose with his right hand. Al-Ĥasan said: 'Woe unto you. Do you not know to use the right hand for clean things, and the left for the unclean? Shame on you.' This silenced Marwān. (Tareek e Khulufa, Suyuti)
Anyway, this is just example. On top of that there are examples when there were mistakes by Imam Khomeini when he took a temporal position to rule over Iran. I'm still in process of researching the details of those events. However, my purpose of this research is not ask shias or sunnis to curse Imam Khomeini, but it is point out that we are all human who don't have a status to be infallible. If shias think I am impressed by the way they quote our sunni sources to prove the mistakes of the sahaba, they are wrong. In fact, I have seen fiqhi mistakes made by the 12r marja too made big mistakes. So in this case who are we suppose to follow ? We are only suppose to follow our fallible leadership when their teachings are parallel to Quran, Sunnah and the Ahlul Bayt.
May Allah Forgive us for our Sins which we commit day and night !
Therefore, when a sahaba commits a mistake it is not compulsory for us to follow him. Now when one debates against the shia they point out these mistakes of the sahaba and force a sunni to curse them. For example in Tijani's book "Then I Guided" he cites a quote where Umar (ra) gives an incorrect rule regarding Tayamum. He cites from Bukhari:
Al-Bukhari stated in his book, in a chapter which deals with ritual impurity: I heard Shaqiq ibn Salmah saying: I was with Abdullah and Abu Musa, and Abu Musa asked, "What do you say about a man who is unclean but cannot find water?" Abdullah answered, "He should not pray until he finds water." Abu Musa then asked, "What do you think about what the Prophet said to Ammar [regarding the issue of impurity] when Ammar asked him?" Abdullah said, "For that reason Umar was not satisfied with [that]." Abu Musa said, "Forget about what Ammar said, but what do you say about the Qur'anic verse?" Abdullah did not know what to say, but he justified his stance by saying, "If we let them do that, then whenever the water becomes cold, they avoid using it to clean themselves, and instead they use sand. I said to Shaqiq, "Abdullah is most certainly hated for that." He said, "Yes".
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 1 p 54
Over here it is clear that Umar (ra) made a mistake. However, does this mean accepting the shia sect will make a prevent a person from making mistakes or committing sins? Are the scholars which the 12rs follow also not capable of making mistakes ? Are they infallible ?
Below is a pictures of Al Tijani where he is using his left hand to drink coffee.
It is reported in Suyuti book regarding the Calipate Imam Hassan ibn Ali (as), that Imam Hassan (as) gave a ruling in fiqh to only use one's left hand when dealing with impure acts such as cleaning the nose, or any other form of cleansing.
In fact, Marwan bin Hakam used to abuse to Imam Hassan (as) on many occasions, and the only time Imam Hassan (as) reprimanded him was when he saw that Marwaan using his right hand to clean his nose.
Ibn Saád reports from Zurayq ibn Suwār: Marwān and al-Ĥasan had an argument. and Marwān began to speak rough; al-Ĥasan kept silent. And then Marwān began picking his nose with his right hand. Al-Ĥasan said: 'Woe unto you. Do you not know to use the right hand for clean things, and the left for the unclean? Shame on you.' This silenced Marwān. (Tareek e Khulufa, Suyuti)
Anyway, this is just example. On top of that there are examples when there were mistakes by Imam Khomeini when he took a temporal position to rule over Iran. I'm still in process of researching the details of those events. However, my purpose of this research is not ask shias or sunnis to curse Imam Khomeini, but it is point out that we are all human who don't have a status to be infallible. If shias think I am impressed by the way they quote our sunni sources to prove the mistakes of the sahaba, they are wrong. In fact, I have seen fiqhi mistakes made by the 12r marja too made big mistakes. So in this case who are we suppose to follow ? We are only suppose to follow our fallible leadership when their teachings are parallel to Quran, Sunnah and the Ahlul Bayt.
May Allah Forgive us for our Sins which we commit day and night !
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Have Sunnis Failed to Recognize the Imam of the Time ?
Before coming to the question the first thought that comes to our mind is what is an Imam ? For the 12r shias an imam is one who is divinely appointed to handle both spiritual affairs and political affairs of the ummah. On top of that, the number of the imams who are given this responsibility accounts to a dozen men. Today, the imam of the time according to 12rs is the Mahdi who gone into a spiritual realm, and he is waiting for Allah's (swt) permission to return. This concept is a shia belief, and it doesn't apply for any sunni. On the contrary, the conflict arises when the 12r shia claims to bring proof from the sunni sources or books. For the recognition of the imam the 12r shia usually quotes the following hadiths.
Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)
Also in Musnad Ahmad, volume 4, page 96.
16271
حدثنا أسود بن عامر، أخبرنا أبو بكر، عن عاصم، عن أبي صالح، عن معاوية، قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية.
He who dies without recognizing the Imam, dies the death of Jahiliyyah
Now I have even seem some shias even add Mahdi in parentheses after the word imam, just to prove their point. The problem with this quotation is that the 12r shias use these hadith, but they are unable to prove how the Mahdi is the imam of the time, and top of that they are unable to prove the Mahdi existence through mutawir hadith. When you ask the 12rs shias to provide proof they will quote some sufi books where the sufis acknowledge that they have met the 12th imam or where they accepted that he is alive.
Among the renown sufis who are quoted are Sheikh Abdul Wahab Sheikh Sharani (ra) and Ibn Arabi (ra). However, what the 12r shias fail to realize is that the majority of the sunnis are not sufis. On top of that the sufis beliefs are not binding on the sunni madhab. Therefore, to provide proof the 12rs need mutawir hadith. Apart from this there are some other questions which the 12rs have failed to answer as well. They are unable to prove that the 12th imam exist or how he is actually the imam of the time. When you ask them to prove he exist they quote Quran saying that Prophet Nuh (as) lived for 1350 years so how it is not possible for Mahdi to exist? As sunnis nobody is denying that this is possible. However, how do we actually know if the Mahdi is physically alive and guiding us at the same time ? If I have a question regarding Islam how come the imam of the time isn't there to answer me ?
I've went to a couple sites and here is how the 12r shia responded.
Now here its tells us that we should follow shia scholars while the Mahdi is in gaib. On the contrary, shia scholars are fallible and they are not part of the ahlul bayt according to shia standards. In reality while the Mahdi is gone into gaib its not really possible to follow except through a philosophical belief.
Also, what surprises me is the sunni believe that the imam of the time are the scholars, but 12rs say this is wrong. However, at the same time they encourage sunnis to follow their scholars while their imams are in gaib. Among the shia narrations I also came across this hadith from the 12r imami books.
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn 'Isa from Yunus ibn Muskan from abu Basir from one of them (Imams (a.s.), who has said the following
"Allah does not leave the earth without a 'Alim (scholar). Without this the truth would not be distinguished from falsehood." (Al-Kafi H 431, Ch. 5, h 4)
The shia can say that the alim is the imam. However, while the 12th Imam is gaib, their alims are the majra who collect khums from the 12rs to teach them about deen and provide other religious services. The duty of an Imam is to provide us with affair regarding deen. The below hadith from the shia books states this.
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Rabi' ibn Muhammad al-Musalliy from 'Abdallah ibn Sulayman al- 'Amiriy from abu 'Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.
"The earth has never been without a person with Divine authority who would teach people about the lawful and unlawful matters and call them to the path of Allah." (Al-Kafi H 430, Ch. 5, h 3 )
From the above hadith a few questions should be answered.
How is 12th Imam is guiding us right now? How can you recognize an Imam without even meeting him ? How is the 12th Imam teaching us what is lawful and what is unlawful ?
Since, the Sunni has failed to recognize the Imam is alive then he/she is automatically a kaffir ? If this is case then what about the existence of Prophet Isa (as). Why did the 12rs most esteemed shia scholar Shaykh Saduq deny that Prophe Isa (as) was alive ? Isn't this a type of a double standard ?
Shaykh Saduq's book of I`tiqad writes:
"Our opponents (the Sunnites) have related that when the Mahdi, on whom be peace, will appear, Jesus, son of Mary, on whom he peace, will descend upon the earth and pray behind the Mahdi. Now the descent of Jesus to the earth is his return to the world after death, because Allah the Glorious and Mighty says: "Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself" [3, 48]."
http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk18
Proof From The Qur'aan On The Descent Of 'Eesa ('Alaihi Salaam)
There are two verses of the Qur'aan on this matter. One in which Allah Most High says “There is
none of the People of the Book except who must believe in him before his death.”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) On this IbnAbbaas (radiallahu anhu) has said: “Before the death of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam).” As related by
Ibn Jareer with a authentic chain. Al Haakim related in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) regarding this verse that he said, “The appearance of 'Eesa ibn Maryam.” Al-Haakim has said this report is authentic according to the criterion of the two shaykhs (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and supported by Adh-Dhahabi in At-Talkhees.
Abu Bakr Al-Aajurri relates in his book Ash-Sharee'ah from Ibn Abbaas on this verse as having said: “It means that a group from the People of the Book will recognize ‘Eesa upon his appearance and by that believe in him.” Ibn Mardawiyyah reports that Abu Hurairah (radiallahu anhu) has made statements similar to that of Ibn Abbaas about this verse and this statement is the correct explanation of the verse. It was considered so by Ibn Jareer (At-Tabaree) as well as Ibn Katheer. It is also supported by Abu Maalik, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zaid ibn Aslam and others. Al-Hasan said: “By Allah he is alive now in the presence of Allah, but when he descends they will all believe in him.” Narrated by Ibn Jareer.
As far as what else has been said by the commentators that the pronoun in the verse "...before his death”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) is in reference to the person Jew or Christian - there is no contradiction of what has been presented before in that though they may believe at their time of passing that 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, his belief will be at that time of no use. Whereas those who believe in him after his descent at the end of time their belief shall in fact benefit them and Allah knows best.
In the second verse Allah Most High says “wa innahu la 'ilmun lis-saa'ah”,(Q. Az-Zukhruf 43:61) and in the recitation of Ibn Abbaas, Abu Hurairah, Qataadah and Al-A'maash “wa innahu la 'alamun lis-saa'ah”, that is, an indication and a sign of the nearness of the Final Hour. Ibn Abbaas, in explaining this verse said “It is the coming of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the day of Resurrection” as related by Imaam Ahmad, Sa’eed ibn Mansour, ‘Abd ibn Hameed, Ibn Abi Haatim, At-Tabaraani, Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrak; he and Adh- Dhahabi both call it authentic.
Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh and Al-Haakim relate in a hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) on this verse "And verily he is a sign of the Hour” that he said “The descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the Day of Resurrection”. Reported as authentic by AI-Haakim and Adh-Dhahabi. Similar sayings to that of 'Ibn Abbaas’ have also been related by Abu Hurairah, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abu 'Aaliyyah, Abu Malik, 'Ikrimah, and Ad-Dahhaak. With all that has been presented through Qur'aanic verses and confirmed ahadeeth from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) concerning the descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam) at the end of time; along with the statements of Ibn 'Abbaas, Abu Hurairah and others from amongst the salaf on the tafseer of the verses from Soorah An-Nisaa and Az-Zukhruf; one must know that the descent of 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is true and the truth is never incompatible with Islam. Whoever claims that his ('alaihi salaam) descent is incompatible with Islam is of those whose Islam is doubtful because he has not fulfilled his declaration that Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is the Messenger of Allah. It is
necessary for its fulfillment to absolutely affirm all that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) has informed us about regarding matters of the unseen that have passed and that shall occur in the
future.
Now 12rs can say that Shaykh Saduq isn't infallible and that he is capable of making a mistake. If this is the case which shia scholar is infallible ? Also, why are sunnis in fault for denying the existence of the Mahdi, which Shaykh Saduq denied the correct interpretation of the Quran regarding Prophet Isa (as) life ? Personally, I don't have a problem with the 12r shia belief of the Mahdi because many sufi have declared that he is alive. However, what I hate about all this is the way 12rs attack sunnis for not agreeing with them. Also the attitude from sunnis toward shias is likewise. Why can't we Muslims just focus on how we can get closer to Allah (swt) ? After all this is main goal of deen. Also, in my older posts I quoted Ayatollah Fadlallah for a certain point. A 12rs shia responded by saying Fadlallah is heretic. What give a shia a right to say this ? Does he have ilm-e-gaib ? The issue the 12rs have with Fadlallah is that he substantiates proof from text and derives what he believes in authentic. Sometimes this proof goes against what many 12rs believe in. Therefore, the 12r shias lash out at Ayatollah Fadlallah for being a heretic. From I can conclude about this substantiating proof from text is better than depending on dream narrations. I've listened to a few shia scholars on youtube and many times while they are lecturing they mention a few dream narrations.
Here is an example below.
With these example the 12rs are encouraged that the marjas they are following are the representatives of the Mahdi or Ahlul Bayt, and to follow them is equal to following the Ahlul Bayt. However, for me using dream narration is fluid. To prove a point one must use authentication narrations. I have seen many dream narrations coming out of sufis too. However, those narrations are also not binding on my belief. Therefore, if I disagree with a dream narration, there is no effect on my level of imaan (faith). Another case is there are other shia scholars who have given there experiences of meeting the Mahdi. Again this is not solid evidence. If one denies such evidence he/she does not go outside the fold of Islam or even become deviant.
May Allah Guide us Toward the Correct Path !!
Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)
Also in Musnad Ahmad, volume 4, page 96.
16271
حدثنا أسود بن عامر، أخبرنا أبو بكر، عن عاصم، عن أبي صالح، عن معاوية، قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية.
He who dies without recognizing the Imam, dies the death of Jahiliyyah
Now I have even seem some shias even add Mahdi in parentheses after the word imam, just to prove their point. The problem with this quotation is that the 12r shias use these hadith, but they are unable to prove how the Mahdi is the imam of the time, and top of that they are unable to prove the Mahdi existence through mutawir hadith. When you ask the 12rs shias to provide proof they will quote some sufi books where the sufis acknowledge that they have met the 12th imam or where they accepted that he is alive.
Among the renown sufis who are quoted are Sheikh Abdul Wahab Sheikh Sharani (ra) and Ibn Arabi (ra). However, what the 12r shias fail to realize is that the majority of the sunnis are not sufis. On top of that the sufis beliefs are not binding on the sunni madhab. Therefore, to provide proof the 12rs need mutawir hadith. Apart from this there are some other questions which the 12rs have failed to answer as well. They are unable to prove that the 12th imam exist or how he is actually the imam of the time. When you ask them to prove he exist they quote Quran saying that Prophet Nuh (as) lived for 1350 years so how it is not possible for Mahdi to exist? As sunnis nobody is denying that this is possible. However, how do we actually know if the Mahdi is physically alive and guiding us at the same time ? If I have a question regarding Islam how come the imam of the time isn't there to answer me ?
I've went to a couple sites and here is how the 12r shia responded.
Where is he now and what should we do in his absence?
He is alive and in occultation and will reappear whenever Allah wants.We should obey those scholars who obey 12 Imams, teach their knowledge and follow their instructions.
Is is ok if we don't obey the IMAM of our time and live according to some other leaders?
No,It is not ok. If we don't accept IMAM Mahdi (pbuh) as Imam of our time, our submission to God wont be accepted.Our deeds wont be acceped by God.Because those who don't accept the Imams are like those who don't accept God or the Prophet.
http://shiatime.tripod.com/
He is alive and in occultation and will reappear whenever Allah wants.We should obey those scholars who obey 12 Imams, teach their knowledge and follow their instructions.
Is is ok if we don't obey the IMAM of our time and live according to some other leaders?
No,It is not ok. If we don't accept IMAM Mahdi (pbuh) as Imam of our time, our submission to God wont be accepted.Our deeds wont be acceped by God.Because those who don't accept the Imams are like those who don't accept God or the Prophet.
http://shiatime.tripod.com/
Now here its tells us that we should follow shia scholars while the Mahdi is in gaib. On the contrary, shia scholars are fallible and they are not part of the ahlul bayt according to shia standards. In reality while the Mahdi is gone into gaib its not really possible to follow except through a philosophical belief.
Also, what surprises me is the sunni believe that the imam of the time are the scholars, but 12rs say this is wrong. However, at the same time they encourage sunnis to follow their scholars while their imams are in gaib. Among the shia narrations I also came across this hadith from the 12r imami books.
Ali ibn Ibrahim has narrated from Muhammad ibn 'Isa from Yunus ibn Muskan from abu Basir from one of them (Imams (a.s.), who has said the following
"Allah does not leave the earth without a 'Alim (scholar). Without this the truth would not be distinguished from falsehood." (Al-Kafi H 431, Ch. 5, h 4)
The shia can say that the alim is the imam. However, while the 12th Imam is gaib, their alims are the majra who collect khums from the 12rs to teach them about deen and provide other religious services. The duty of an Imam is to provide us with affair regarding deen. The below hadith from the shia books states this.
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Rabi' ibn Muhammad al-Musalliy from 'Abdallah ibn Sulayman al- 'Amiriy from abu 'Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following.
"The earth has never been without a person with Divine authority who would teach people about the lawful and unlawful matters and call them to the path of Allah." (Al-Kafi H 430, Ch. 5, h 3 )
From the above hadith a few questions should be answered.
How is 12th Imam is guiding us right now? How can you recognize an Imam without even meeting him ? How is the 12th Imam teaching us what is lawful and what is unlawful ?
Since, the Sunni has failed to recognize the Imam is alive then he/she is automatically a kaffir ? If this is case then what about the existence of Prophet Isa (as). Why did the 12rs most esteemed shia scholar Shaykh Saduq deny that Prophe Isa (as) was alive ? Isn't this a type of a double standard ?
Shaykh Saduq's book of I`tiqad writes:
"Our opponents (the Sunnites) have related that when the Mahdi, on whom be peace, will appear, Jesus, son of Mary, on whom he peace, will descend upon the earth and pray behind the Mahdi. Now the descent of Jesus to the earth is his return to the world after death, because Allah the Glorious and Mighty says: "Verily I will cause thee to die, and will take thee up to myself" [3, 48]."
http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk18
Proof From The Qur'aan On The Descent Of 'Eesa ('Alaihi Salaam)
There are two verses of the Qur'aan on this matter. One in which Allah Most High says “There is
none of the People of the Book except who must believe in him before his death.”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) On this IbnAbbaas (radiallahu anhu) has said: “Before the death of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam).” As related by
Ibn Jareer with a authentic chain. Al Haakim related in Al-Mustadrak from Ibn Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) regarding this verse that he said, “The appearance of 'Eesa ibn Maryam.” Al-Haakim has said this report is authentic according to the criterion of the two shaykhs (Al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and supported by Adh-Dhahabi in At-Talkhees.
Abu Bakr Al-Aajurri relates in his book Ash-Sharee'ah from Ibn Abbaas on this verse as having said: “It means that a group from the People of the Book will recognize ‘Eesa upon his appearance and by that believe in him.” Ibn Mardawiyyah reports that Abu Hurairah (radiallahu anhu) has made statements similar to that of Ibn Abbaas about this verse and this statement is the correct explanation of the verse. It was considered so by Ibn Jareer (At-Tabaree) as well as Ibn Katheer. It is also supported by Abu Maalik, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Zaid ibn Aslam and others. Al-Hasan said: “By Allah he is alive now in the presence of Allah, but when he descends they will all believe in him.” Narrated by Ibn Jareer.
As far as what else has been said by the commentators that the pronoun in the verse "...before his death”(Q. An-Nisaa 4:159) is in reference to the person Jew or Christian - there is no contradiction of what has been presented before in that though they may believe at their time of passing that 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is a slave of Allah and His Messenger, his belief will be at that time of no use. Whereas those who believe in him after his descent at the end of time their belief shall in fact benefit them and Allah knows best.
In the second verse Allah Most High says “wa innahu la 'ilmun lis-saa'ah”,(Q. Az-Zukhruf 43:61) and in the recitation of Ibn Abbaas, Abu Hurairah, Qataadah and Al-A'maash “wa innahu la 'alamun lis-saa'ah”, that is, an indication and a sign of the nearness of the Final Hour. Ibn Abbaas, in explaining this verse said “It is the coming of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the day of Resurrection” as related by Imaam Ahmad, Sa’eed ibn Mansour, ‘Abd ibn Hameed, Ibn Abi Haatim, At-Tabaraani, Al-Haakim in Al-Mustadrak; he and Adh- Dhahabi both call it authentic.
Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh and Al-Haakim relate in a hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas (radiallahu anhu) from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) on this verse "And verily he is a sign of the Hour” that he said “The descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam before the Day of Resurrection”. Reported as authentic by AI-Haakim and Adh-Dhahabi. Similar sayings to that of 'Ibn Abbaas’ have also been related by Abu Hurairah, Mujaahid, Al-Hasan, Qataadah, Abu 'Aaliyyah, Abu Malik, 'Ikrimah, and Ad-Dahhaak. With all that has been presented through Qur'aanic verses and confirmed ahadeeth from the Prophet (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) concerning the descent of 'Eesa ibn Maryam ('alaihi salaam) at the end of time; along with the statements of Ibn 'Abbaas, Abu Hurairah and others from amongst the salaf on the tafseer of the verses from Soorah An-Nisaa and Az-Zukhruf; one must know that the descent of 'Eesa ('alaihi salaam) is true and the truth is never incompatible with Islam. Whoever claims that his ('alaihi salaam) descent is incompatible with Islam is of those whose Islam is doubtful because he has not fulfilled his declaration that Muhammad (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) is the Messenger of Allah. It is
necessary for its fulfillment to absolutely affirm all that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alaihi wa sallam) has informed us about regarding matters of the unseen that have passed and that shall occur in the
future.
Now 12rs can say that Shaykh Saduq isn't infallible and that he is capable of making a mistake. If this is the case which shia scholar is infallible ? Also, why are sunnis in fault for denying the existence of the Mahdi, which Shaykh Saduq denied the correct interpretation of the Quran regarding Prophet Isa (as) life ? Personally, I don't have a problem with the 12r shia belief of the Mahdi because many sufi have declared that he is alive. However, what I hate about all this is the way 12rs attack sunnis for not agreeing with them. Also the attitude from sunnis toward shias is likewise. Why can't we Muslims just focus on how we can get closer to Allah (swt) ? After all this is main goal of deen. Also, in my older posts I quoted Ayatollah Fadlallah for a certain point. A 12rs shia responded by saying Fadlallah is heretic. What give a shia a right to say this ? Does he have ilm-e-gaib ? The issue the 12rs have with Fadlallah is that he substantiates proof from text and derives what he believes in authentic. Sometimes this proof goes against what many 12rs believe in. Therefore, the 12r shias lash out at Ayatollah Fadlallah for being a heretic. From I can conclude about this substantiating proof from text is better than depending on dream narrations. I've listened to a few shia scholars on youtube and many times while they are lecturing they mention a few dream narrations.
Here is an example below.
With these example the 12rs are encouraged that the marjas they are following are the representatives of the Mahdi or Ahlul Bayt, and to follow them is equal to following the Ahlul Bayt. However, for me using dream narration is fluid. To prove a point one must use authentication narrations. I have seen many dream narrations coming out of sufis too. However, those narrations are also not binding on my belief. Therefore, if I disagree with a dream narration, there is no effect on my level of imaan (faith). Another case is there are other shia scholars who have given there experiences of meeting the Mahdi. Again this is not solid evidence. If one denies such evidence he/she does not go outside the fold of Islam or even become deviant.
May Allah Guide us Toward the Correct Path !!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Did Bibi Ayesha (ra) Repent For Opposing Imam Ali (as) And Is Cursing Her Legitimate ?
A lot of 12r shias always ask me for evidence regarding Bibi Ayesha's (ra) repentance after the battle of Jaml. Well I looked into the 12r books and sources, and I got different information. Anyway here is one source which says she repented.
The 12r say that since she fought against the Imam of the time, its legitmate for them to curse her. Are the 12rs not aware of what Imam Ali (as) said regarding the people who fought against him ? In the Battle of Siffin, there were people who cursed the opposite camp. When Imam Ali (as) came to know this is how he responded.
I dislike for you to be damning people. If only you were to describe what they do and mention their condition that would have been a more accurate statement and it would have served the purpose of rationality and instead of you using, saying or vocalizing this cursing, cussing, damning, defaming and blaspheming language say O Allah save our blood and their blood and reconcile what is between us and what is between them, i.e. have this difference that we have among us reconciled; and guide them out of their waywardness so that he who is ignorant of the truth and the fact will become familiar and knowledgeable of it and he will be withheld from transgression and aggression. (Nahaj Al Balagha SERMON NO.206(or in some editions,no.202))
Imam Ali (as) openly condemns his supporters from cursing. Why is it so hard for the 12rs Shia to apply these rules for Bibi Ayesha (ra)
? This rule Imam Ali (as) gave was openly for those who fought against him. Are you 12r shia going to follow Imam Ali (as) here or your marjas to whom you blindly give your khumms to ?
As for critisizm, a proper Sunni would never say Bibi Ayesha (ra) was correct in her stand against Imam Ali (as). Let me post some Sunnis views on what our view is.
Those who fought against Imam Ali (as) they are regarded as transgressors.
أقوال أئمة أهل السنة والجماعة رضي الله عنهم وتسميتهم البغاة بغاة :
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه تلخيص الحبير ج4\44:
"ثبت أن أهل الجمل وصفين والنهروان بغاة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book “Talkhis AlHabir”, Vol.4 page 44:
“It is established that the people of Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan, are transgressors”.
The battel of Siffin was between Ali and Mu’awiya.
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في شرح صحيح البخاري ج13ص67:
" وقد ثبت أن من قاتل علياً كانوا بغاة". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book : Shar’h Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 13, page 67, said: “It is an established fact that all those who fought against Ali were Transgressors”.
- قال ابن خزيمة فيما روي في" الإعتقاد والهداية" ص248:
" وكل من نازع أميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب في إمارته فهو باغ , على هذا عهدت مشايخنا وبه قال ابن ادريس-يعني الشافعي-رحمه الله". اهـ.
- Hafeth Ibn Khuzaymah said in his Book “ Al-I’tiqaad”, page 248:
“Everyone who fought Amirul’Muminin Ali bin Abi Taleb during his Khalafah, is a transgressor. On this belief were all our Mashayekh, and this is what ibn Idris (Imam Shafi’iy) said”.
- قال الإمام الحافظ البيهقي رحمه الله تعالى في كتاب مناقب الشافعي ج1ص451:
" قال يحيى: إني نظرت في كتابه –يعني الشافعي- في قتال أهل البغي فإذا به قد احتج من أوله إلى آخره بعلي بن ابي طالب". اهـ. أي بقتال عليّ لأهل البغي.
- Imam Bayhaqi said in his book “manaqeb Al-Shafi’iy”, Vol. 1, page 451:
“ I looked in his book ( Imam Shafi’iy’s book) about fighting Transgressors, and found that he substantiated it all the rules based on Ali bin Abi Taleb”. i.e. Based on his dealings with them.
- قال الإمام الحافظ ابن حجر الهيتمي المكي في فتح الجواد بشرح الإرشاد , باب البغاة وأحكامهم 2\295:
" وقد قال الشافعي رضي الله عنه: أخذت أحكام البغاة من قتال علي لمعاوية". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Haytami in his book “Fat’h Al-Jawad” Vol.2/295:
“ –Imam- Shafi’iy radiya’Allahu anhu said: I took all the rules of transgressors from Ali fighting Mu’awiyah”.
- قال الامام الحافظ ابن حجر في "الاصابة في تمييز الصحابة" ج3ص508:
"وظهر بقتل عمّار أن الصواب كان مع عليّ واتفق على ذلك أهل السنة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar in his book “Al-Isabah”, vol.3, page 508, said:
“By killing Ammar, it appeared clearly that the truth was with Ali, and Ahlus Sunnah consent on that”.
- قال الامام العلامة شيخ أهل السنة أبومنصور عبد القاهر البغدادي (تـ429) رحمه الله تعالى وهو من أعلام السلف الصالح في كتابه القيم " الفرق بين الفِرَق" ص302 ناقلاً اجماع أهل السنة والجماعة:
" وقالوا –أي علماء أهل السنة في ذلك الوقت- في صفين: ان الصواب كان مع عليّ رضي الله عنه؛ وان معاوية وأصحابه بغوا عليه" ثم أردف قائلاً: "ولم يكفروا بخطئهم". اهـ.
- Imam Of Ahlus Sunnah, Abu Mansur Abdul Qaher Al-Baghdadi (429 H.) said in his infamous book “Al-Farq baynal Firaq” stating the CONSENSUS ( IJMA) of the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’a:
“They declared in Siffin: that Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, was right, and Mua’wiya and his people transgressed upon him” “ but did not commit Kufr by this mistake”.
- قال شيخنا الحافظ العارف بالله سيدي أبا الفضل عبد الله بن الصدّيق الغماري الحسني –أعلى الله في الفردوس الأعلى درجته- في كتابه خواطر دينية ج 2\17:
" أجمع العلماء على أن معاوية كان باغياً".
- Shaykh Al-Hafeth Abdullah bin Assiddiqq Al-Ghumari, said in his book “ Khawater Diniya”, vol.2 page 17:
“The scholars have a consensus that Mu’awiyah was a transgressor”.
- قال الامام ابن حزم الأندلسي (تـ456) في كتابه "الفِصَل في الملل والأهواء والنِحَل" ج3ص87:
" فإذا قد بطل هذا الأمر وصح أن علياً هو صاحب الحق فالأحاديث التي فيها التزام البيوت وترك القتال إنما هي بلا شك فيمن لم يلح له يقين الحق أين هو؛ وهكذا نقول فإذا تبين الحق فقتال الفئة الباغية فرض بنص القرآن". اهـ. (أي على جميع المسلمين ومن تخلف فهو مخالف لأوامر الله ورسوله).
- Imam Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (456H.) in his infamous book “Al-Fisal” Vol.3, page 87:
“Once it became clear that Ali is the one with the truth, then the Ahadith that orders to avoid fighting are for him who has not yet found truth. Hence, once the truth is apparent –to any person- then fighting the Transgressor group is obligatory as commanded by the Qu’ran”.
- قال الامام لسان أهل السنة الناطق العلامة السعد التفتازاني (793هـ) رحمه الله تعالى في كتابه المقاصد –في شرح عقائد أهل السنة والجماعة- الجزء 3\534:
"وأما في حرب الجمل وحرب صفين وحرب الخوارج، فالمصيب عليّ، لما ثبت له من الامامة وظهر من التفاوت، لا كلتا الطائفتين على ماهو رأي المصوبة ولا احداهما من غير تعيين".
- The speaking power of Ahlus Sunnah, Imam Sadduddin At-Taftazani ( 793H.) in his infamous book “ Al-Maqased” in elucidation of the Aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah, Vol. 3, page 534, said:
“ as for the battles of Jam’al, Siffin, and Khawarej, the one on the truth is Ali, as the khilafah was already established for him, and the difference between –him and the other side- appeared. It is not that both are right, and not that neither is right”. i.e. the Sahaba with the leadership of Ali are the ones who are right.
ثم قال شارحاً لحديث النبي عليه وآله السلام لسيدنا عليّ :"إنك تقاتل الناكثين والمارقين والقاسطين".، قال رحمه الله:
"والقاسطون –أي البغاة الظالمون- معاوية وأتباعه الذين اجتمعوا عليه، وعدلوا عن طريق الحق الذي هو بيعة عليّ رضي الله عنه والدخول تحت طاعته".
- In the same book, same page, Allama Sa’d Taftazani said:
“ The Transgressors are Mua’wiyah and his followers who gathered with him, and deviated from the true path which is giving Bay’ah to Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, and obeying him”.
ثم قال رحمه الله عرضاً لما أجمع عليه أهل الحق واستحسنوه 3\534:
"والذي اتفق عليه أهل الحق أن المصيب في جميع ذلك عليّ رضي الله عنه لما ثبت من امامته ببيعة أهل الحل والعقد وظهر من تفاوت إما بينه وبين المخالفين سيما معاوية وأحزابه، وتكاثر الأخبار في كون الحق معه، وما وقع عليه الاتفاق حتى من الأعداء إلى أنه أفضل أهل زمانه، وأنه لا أحق بالامامة منه، والمخالفون له بغاة لخروجهم على الامام الحق".
- Then he concluded Vol. 3, page 534:
“ That what the people of Truth (Ahlul Haqq) have agreed upon that Ali radiya Allahu anhu was righteous in all these events, as is established by his superiority, and differences between him and his opponents, especially Mu’awiyah and his parties. Also due to the large number of narrations pointing that Ali is righteous, so that even his enemies gave in that he is the best of his time, and no one is worthy of Khilafat more than him. And that his opponents are Transgressors, as they opposed the righteous Khalifah”.
ثم انتهى الى القول 3\535: ما نصه:
"ولهذا ذهب الأكثرون إلى أن أول من بغى في الإسلام معاوية".
- Then he finalized the chapter by saying:
“ Therefore most people went to the belief that the first Transgressor in Islam is Mu’awiyah”.
- قال العلامة الفاخوري رحمه الله في كتابه تحفة الأنام في تاريخ الاسلام ص67:
"على أن معشر اهل الحق من اهل السنة والجماعة يعتقدون أن معاوية كان مخطئاً، بغى على الإمام الحق علي بن أبي طالب لسبق البيعة والخلافة له رضي الله عنه، وهو مصيب بمحاربة معاوية وأصحابه بحكم قتال أهل البغي من المسلمين، ولذا لم يعاملهم معاملة المرتدين ولاالكافرين، وأن عائشة وطلحة والزبير رضي الله عنهم قد رجعوا عن خطئهم بخروجهم في وقعة الجمل على أمير المؤمنين، وقد ندموا على خروجهم متأسفين، والندم توبة من الخطيئة، فاتبع الحق ولاتتبع الهوى فيضلك عن سبيل الله والله أعلم". اهـ.
- Allama Al-Fakhouri, the grand Shafi’iy Mufti of Beirut ( rahmatullahi alayhi) said in his book “ Tarikh al-islam” ( History of Islam), page 67:
“ The people of righteousness ( Ahlul Haqq) of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam’a believe that Mu’awiyah was mistaken, transgressed on the righteous Khalifah Ali bin Abi Taleb. As he had the Bay’ah and Khilafah, radiya’Allahu anhu. And that he –Ali- is righteous in fighting Mu’awiyah and his companions based on the rules of Transgressors of Muslims, hence, he did not treat them as Kuffar (blasphemers) nor rejectors. And that Aisha, Talha and Zubair, radiya’Allahu anhum, all repented for their mistake to go to the battle of Jamal, and they regretted it sorrowfully. Regret is a sign of –sincere- repentance, so follow the truth not your desires, otherwise you will deviate from the path of Allah, and Allah knows best”.
As history shows Bibi Ayesha (ra), Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra) repented after they transgressed. Also, there is a verse in the Quran which asks for sinners to be forgiven.
40:7. Those (angels) who bear the Throne (of Allah) and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah) (saying): "Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! (al Quran)
When I showed this evidence to a 12r shia he reponsded by saying that Imam Ali (as) was under Taqiyah, and this is why he didn't curse anyone. Well if that's the case then why did the Imam Ali (as) curse Muawiyah in the Du'a of Qunut ? The Du'a of Qunoot is found in Tabari, ibn Athir's and other references. Also its found in Musnad Zayd which is a Zaydi reference. Imam Ali (as) responded to Muawiyah differently. However, for Bibi Ayesha (ra) he gave her full respect till the end. He did this with sincerity and not taqiyah as the 12rs like to assume.
Also there are some 12r scholars who condemn any form of character assissination against Bibi Ayesha (ra). Here is what Ayatollah Fadhlallah says.
Sayed Fadhlallah says :
"Some people curse some of the Messenger's wives who might have committed some mistakes, but this does not mean that we should curse them, for we should, as one of our old scholar, Sayyed Mohammed Baqir Hujatulislam, says , treat them well, in honour of the one they are linked to."
Friday Sermon- 04/05/2007
Also, Syed Jan Ali Kazmi clip is below where he points our how the extreme 12rs do open tabarra against Bibi Aisyah (ra).
The battle of Jamal was fought, Ali 's army was victorious, both Talha and Zubair were killed by their own men and bibi Ayesha was sent back to Madina under the escort of her brother Muhammad ibne Abibakr. She always repented this venture and asked forgiveness from God. When with the connivance of Moawiya her brother Muhammad ibne abi bakr was killed and his body was put into the body of a dead camel and burnt, she cursed Moawiya five times a day after every prayer, throughout her life..
http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/4.htm
As for other sources there are many in the Sunni books.
"When Hadhrath Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Quran 33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used to get wet with tears".(Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 commentary of Surah Ahzab, Hilayat al Awliya Volume 2 page 48, Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" and Tabaqat al Kabeer Volume 8 page 81 under the Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha")
http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/4.htm
As for other sources there are many in the Sunni books.
"When Hadhrath Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Quran 33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used to get wet with tears".(Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 commentary of Surah Ahzab, Hilayat al Awliya Volume 2 page 48, Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" and Tabaqat al Kabeer Volume 8 page 81 under the Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha")
I dislike for you to be damning people. If only you were to describe what they do and mention their condition that would have been a more accurate statement and it would have served the purpose of rationality and instead of you using, saying or vocalizing this cursing, cussing, damning, defaming and blaspheming language say O Allah save our blood and their blood and reconcile what is between us and what is between them, i.e. have this difference that we have among us reconciled; and guide them out of their waywardness so that he who is ignorant of the truth and the fact will become familiar and knowledgeable of it and he will be withheld from transgression and aggression. (Nahaj Al Balagha SERMON NO.206(or in some editions,no.202))
Imam Ali (as) openly condemns his supporters from cursing. Why is it so hard for the 12rs Shia to apply these rules for Bibi Ayesha (ra)
? This rule Imam Ali (as) gave was openly for those who fought against him. Are you 12r shia going to follow Imam Ali (as) here or your marjas to whom you blindly give your khumms to ?
As for critisizm, a proper Sunni would never say Bibi Ayesha (ra) was correct in her stand against Imam Ali (as). Let me post some Sunnis views on what our view is.
Those who fought against Imam Ali (as) they are regarded as transgressors.
أقوال أئمة أهل السنة والجماعة رضي الله عنهم وتسميتهم البغاة بغاة :
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في كتابه تلخيص الحبير ج4\44:
"ثبت أن أهل الجمل وصفين والنهروان بغاة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book “Talkhis AlHabir”, Vol.4 page 44:
“It is established that the people of Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan, are transgressors”.
The battel of Siffin was between Ali and Mu’awiya.
- قال الإمام الحافظ أحمد بن حجر العسقلاني في شرح صحيح البخاري ج13ص67:
" وقد ثبت أن من قاتل علياً كانوا بغاة". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Asqalani in his book : Shar’h Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 13, page 67, said: “It is an established fact that all those who fought against Ali were Transgressors”.
- قال ابن خزيمة فيما روي في" الإعتقاد والهداية" ص248:
" وكل من نازع أميرالمؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب في إمارته فهو باغ , على هذا عهدت مشايخنا وبه قال ابن ادريس-يعني الشافعي-رحمه الله". اهـ.
- Hafeth Ibn Khuzaymah said in his Book “ Al-I’tiqaad”, page 248:
“Everyone who fought Amirul’Muminin Ali bin Abi Taleb during his Khalafah, is a transgressor. On this belief were all our Mashayekh, and this is what ibn Idris (Imam Shafi’iy) said”.
- قال الإمام الحافظ البيهقي رحمه الله تعالى في كتاب مناقب الشافعي ج1ص451:
" قال يحيى: إني نظرت في كتابه –يعني الشافعي- في قتال أهل البغي فإذا به قد احتج من أوله إلى آخره بعلي بن ابي طالب". اهـ. أي بقتال عليّ لأهل البغي.
- Imam Bayhaqi said in his book “manaqeb Al-Shafi’iy”, Vol. 1, page 451:
“ I looked in his book ( Imam Shafi’iy’s book) about fighting Transgressors, and found that he substantiated it all the rules based on Ali bin Abi Taleb”. i.e. Based on his dealings with them.
- قال الإمام الحافظ ابن حجر الهيتمي المكي في فتح الجواد بشرح الإرشاد , باب البغاة وأحكامهم 2\295:
" وقد قال الشافعي رضي الله عنه: أخذت أحكام البغاة من قتال علي لمعاوية". اهـ.
- Imam Ibn Haj’ar Al-Haytami in his book “Fat’h Al-Jawad” Vol.2/295:
“ –Imam- Shafi’iy radiya’Allahu anhu said: I took all the rules of transgressors from Ali fighting Mu’awiyah”.
- قال الامام الحافظ ابن حجر في "الاصابة في تمييز الصحابة" ج3ص508:
"وظهر بقتل عمّار أن الصواب كان مع عليّ واتفق على ذلك أهل السنة". اهـ.
-Imam Ibn Haj’ar in his book “Al-Isabah”, vol.3, page 508, said:
“By killing Ammar, it appeared clearly that the truth was with Ali, and Ahlus Sunnah consent on that”.
- قال الامام العلامة شيخ أهل السنة أبومنصور عبد القاهر البغدادي (تـ429) رحمه الله تعالى وهو من أعلام السلف الصالح في كتابه القيم " الفرق بين الفِرَق" ص302 ناقلاً اجماع أهل السنة والجماعة:
" وقالوا –أي علماء أهل السنة في ذلك الوقت- في صفين: ان الصواب كان مع عليّ رضي الله عنه؛ وان معاوية وأصحابه بغوا عليه" ثم أردف قائلاً: "ولم يكفروا بخطئهم". اهـ.
- Imam Of Ahlus Sunnah, Abu Mansur Abdul Qaher Al-Baghdadi (429 H.) said in his infamous book “Al-Farq baynal Firaq” stating the CONSENSUS ( IJMA) of the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’a:
“They declared in Siffin: that Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, was right, and Mua’wiya and his people transgressed upon him” “ but did not commit Kufr by this mistake”.
- قال شيخنا الحافظ العارف بالله سيدي أبا الفضل عبد الله بن الصدّيق الغماري الحسني –أعلى الله في الفردوس الأعلى درجته- في كتابه خواطر دينية ج 2\17:
" أجمع العلماء على أن معاوية كان باغياً".
- Shaykh Al-Hafeth Abdullah bin Assiddiqq Al-Ghumari, said in his book “ Khawater Diniya”, vol.2 page 17:
“The scholars have a consensus that Mu’awiyah was a transgressor”.
- قال الامام ابن حزم الأندلسي (تـ456) في كتابه "الفِصَل في الملل والأهواء والنِحَل" ج3ص87:
" فإذا قد بطل هذا الأمر وصح أن علياً هو صاحب الحق فالأحاديث التي فيها التزام البيوت وترك القتال إنما هي بلا شك فيمن لم يلح له يقين الحق أين هو؛ وهكذا نقول فإذا تبين الحق فقتال الفئة الباغية فرض بنص القرآن". اهـ. (أي على جميع المسلمين ومن تخلف فهو مخالف لأوامر الله ورسوله).
- Imam Ibn Hazm Al-Andalusi (456H.) in his infamous book “Al-Fisal” Vol.3, page 87:
“Once it became clear that Ali is the one with the truth, then the Ahadith that orders to avoid fighting are for him who has not yet found truth. Hence, once the truth is apparent –to any person- then fighting the Transgressor group is obligatory as commanded by the Qu’ran”.
- قال الامام لسان أهل السنة الناطق العلامة السعد التفتازاني (793هـ) رحمه الله تعالى في كتابه المقاصد –في شرح عقائد أهل السنة والجماعة- الجزء 3\534:
"وأما في حرب الجمل وحرب صفين وحرب الخوارج، فالمصيب عليّ، لما ثبت له من الامامة وظهر من التفاوت، لا كلتا الطائفتين على ماهو رأي المصوبة ولا احداهما من غير تعيين".
- The speaking power of Ahlus Sunnah, Imam Sadduddin At-Taftazani ( 793H.) in his infamous book “ Al-Maqased” in elucidation of the Aqidah of Ahlus Sunnah, Vol. 3, page 534, said:
“ as for the battles of Jam’al, Siffin, and Khawarej, the one on the truth is Ali, as the khilafah was already established for him, and the difference between –him and the other side- appeared. It is not that both are right, and not that neither is right”. i.e. the Sahaba with the leadership of Ali are the ones who are right.
ثم قال شارحاً لحديث النبي عليه وآله السلام لسيدنا عليّ :"إنك تقاتل الناكثين والمارقين والقاسطين".، قال رحمه الله:
"والقاسطون –أي البغاة الظالمون- معاوية وأتباعه الذين اجتمعوا عليه، وعدلوا عن طريق الحق الذي هو بيعة عليّ رضي الله عنه والدخول تحت طاعته".
- In the same book, same page, Allama Sa’d Taftazani said:
“ The Transgressors are Mua’wiyah and his followers who gathered with him, and deviated from the true path which is giving Bay’ah to Ali radiya’Allahu anhu, and obeying him”.
ثم قال رحمه الله عرضاً لما أجمع عليه أهل الحق واستحسنوه 3\534:
"والذي اتفق عليه أهل الحق أن المصيب في جميع ذلك عليّ رضي الله عنه لما ثبت من امامته ببيعة أهل الحل والعقد وظهر من تفاوت إما بينه وبين المخالفين سيما معاوية وأحزابه، وتكاثر الأخبار في كون الحق معه، وما وقع عليه الاتفاق حتى من الأعداء إلى أنه أفضل أهل زمانه، وأنه لا أحق بالامامة منه، والمخالفون له بغاة لخروجهم على الامام الحق".
- Then he concluded Vol. 3, page 534:
“ That what the people of Truth (Ahlul Haqq) have agreed upon that Ali radiya Allahu anhu was righteous in all these events, as is established by his superiority, and differences between him and his opponents, especially Mu’awiyah and his parties. Also due to the large number of narrations pointing that Ali is righteous, so that even his enemies gave in that he is the best of his time, and no one is worthy of Khilafat more than him. And that his opponents are Transgressors, as they opposed the righteous Khalifah”.
ثم انتهى الى القول 3\535: ما نصه:
"ولهذا ذهب الأكثرون إلى أن أول من بغى في الإسلام معاوية".
- Then he finalized the chapter by saying:
“ Therefore most people went to the belief that the first Transgressor in Islam is Mu’awiyah”.
- قال العلامة الفاخوري رحمه الله في كتابه تحفة الأنام في تاريخ الاسلام ص67:
"على أن معشر اهل الحق من اهل السنة والجماعة يعتقدون أن معاوية كان مخطئاً، بغى على الإمام الحق علي بن أبي طالب لسبق البيعة والخلافة له رضي الله عنه، وهو مصيب بمحاربة معاوية وأصحابه بحكم قتال أهل البغي من المسلمين، ولذا لم يعاملهم معاملة المرتدين ولاالكافرين، وأن عائشة وطلحة والزبير رضي الله عنهم قد رجعوا عن خطئهم بخروجهم في وقعة الجمل على أمير المؤمنين، وقد ندموا على خروجهم متأسفين، والندم توبة من الخطيئة، فاتبع الحق ولاتتبع الهوى فيضلك عن سبيل الله والله أعلم". اهـ.
- Allama Al-Fakhouri, the grand Shafi’iy Mufti of Beirut ( rahmatullahi alayhi) said in his book “ Tarikh al-islam” ( History of Islam), page 67:
“ The people of righteousness ( Ahlul Haqq) of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jam’a believe that Mu’awiyah was mistaken, transgressed on the righteous Khalifah Ali bin Abi Taleb. As he had the Bay’ah and Khilafah, radiya’Allahu anhu. And that he –Ali- is righteous in fighting Mu’awiyah and his companions based on the rules of Transgressors of Muslims, hence, he did not treat them as Kuffar (blasphemers) nor rejectors. And that Aisha, Talha and Zubair, radiya’Allahu anhum, all repented for their mistake to go to the battle of Jamal, and they regretted it sorrowfully. Regret is a sign of –sincere- repentance, so follow the truth not your desires, otherwise you will deviate from the path of Allah, and Allah knows best”.
As history shows Bibi Ayesha (ra), Talha (ra) and Zubair (ra) repented after they transgressed. Also, there is a verse in the Quran which asks for sinners to be forgiven.
40:7. Those (angels) who bear the Throne (of Allah) and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah) (saying): "Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! (al Quran)
When I showed this evidence to a 12r shia he reponsded by saying that Imam Ali (as) was under Taqiyah, and this is why he didn't curse anyone. Well if that's the case then why did the Imam Ali (as) curse Muawiyah in the Du'a of Qunut ? The Du'a of Qunoot is found in Tabari, ibn Athir's and other references. Also its found in Musnad Zayd which is a Zaydi reference. Imam Ali (as) responded to Muawiyah differently. However, for Bibi Ayesha (ra) he gave her full respect till the end. He did this with sincerity and not taqiyah as the 12rs like to assume.
Also there are some 12r scholars who condemn any form of character assissination against Bibi Ayesha (ra). Here is what Ayatollah Fadhlallah says.
Sayed Fadhlallah says :
"Some people curse some of the Messenger's wives who might have committed some mistakes, but this does not mean that we should curse them, for we should, as one of our old scholar, Sayyed Mohammed Baqir Hujatulislam, says , treat them well, in honour of the one they are linked to."
Friday Sermon- 04/05/2007
Also, Syed Jan Ali Kazmi clip is below where he points our how the extreme 12rs do open tabarra against Bibi Aisyah (ra).
Friday, August 28, 2009
A Moderate Shia Scholar says Tabarra To The Level of Character Assassination is Forbidden
The Shia Scholar quotes Imam Jafar as Sadiq (as) who forbade shias from the level of Tabarra where its forms into character assassination. Those who do extreme Tabaara are the open enemies of Ahlul Bayt. In fact if a shia curses the opponents Imam and the opponent curses the Imams back the shia will get the sinned and not the opponent. We all are aware of how the shia attack the sahaba, and retaliation the 12th imam is attacked by some sunnis. Therefore in the end only the shias are getting sinned and proving themselves to be the enemies of Ahlul bayt.
This is what the shia scholar stated above in the youtube clip.
A Moderate Shia Scholar Opposes The Slandering and Cursing of Bibi Ayesha (ra)
Okay in my previous blogs I posted the extremes views found within the shia sects. To be fair, I have decided to post the moderate views from them too. The shia scholar in the clip above oppose extreme opinions against Bibi Ayesha. He further says Imam Ali (as) gave Bibi Ayesha (ra) full respect even after the battle of Siffin. After the battle Imam Ali (as) ordered women from his side to take Bibi Ayesha (ra) and return her to a safe area. The Imam did this with full respect. This is unlike the emotional shia today who slander and curse Bibi Ayesha (ra). Also, the scholars says its even forbiden for a Muslim to curse a kaffir. However, the other extreme shia scholar attacked Bibi Ayesha (ra) by comparing her to Abu Lahab and his wife. If we do our research its possible to find good people from all the schools of thought. Its just that today people with extreme views tend to get more attention.
Shia Scholar Says Its a Pillar in Deen To Curse Bibi Ayesha
Question: It is permissible to slander, degrade and disrepect Ayesha ? Is there any sin in sharia for this form of character assissination ?
Answer: The Quran has exposed the evil personality of Abu Lahab and his wife. Since Bibi Ayesha opposed Imam Ali (as) it our duty to expose and curse her.
Now whenever you ask a 12r shia if slander the Bibi Ayesha (ra) they reply by saying "we only state facts about her and nothing else." Above the shia scholar was asked if one can slander the wife of Prophet (sawas) and the scholar didn't oppose it. In fact he supports this form of character assassination against Bibi Ayesha, and says on top of it that its a pillar in the 12r madhab.
Further if you read Mullah Baqir Majalis books they are filled with the character assassination of Bibi Ayesha (ra) and Bibi Hafsa (ra).
12'er alledged-Shi'ite devious Sect Beliefs with Regards to Ayesha - the Wife of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi wa aalihi Wasallam)
Mullah Baqir Majlisi writes:
'When Imam Mahdi arrives, Ayesha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.' (Haqqul Yaqeen: 347)
The same author writes about Ayesha that "She was a traitor." (Tadhkiratul Aimmah: 66)
Again, Mullah Baqir Majilisi comments about Ayesha (R.A.) and Hafsa (R.A.) that: "They were both hypocrites." (Hayatul Quloob: 2:745)
Imam Khomeini writes about the prestige and worth of the oft-quoted Mullah Baqir:
'Keep on reading the Persian books written by Majlisi so that you do not fall into any other such stupidity.' (Kashful Asrar: 121)
Maqbool Dehlavi, a Shi'ite translator of the Quran, quotes Imam Baqir as saying:
'Two women poisoned the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) before his death. These are the same two women (Ayesha and Hafsa). May Allah curse them and their fathers (Abu Bakr and Omar respectively). (His translation of Surah Ale Imraan: 134)
From the quotes above I've seen answering ansaar refute the quote about 12th Imam taking revenge against the sahaba and wives. Also, the source about poisoning is only believed by Shia scholar Yasir Habib and his followers. However, the rest of the beliefs are unanimous the mainstream Imami 12r shias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
