Questions about shia-ism

He wouldn't be Shia because there's nothing on the imams in the Quran
He wouldn't be Sunni because again, there's nothing on the caliphate and ahadith that differ between Sunni and Shia
He wouldn't be able to pray properly because again, not looking at ahadith and description of prayer is vague in the Quran
I guess he would be Quranist? Because they don't use ahadith at all and only use the Quran right?

Respectfully, I believe you're trying to simplify a more complex issue.

The notion of 'imams' is indeed in the Quran, likewise with Ahlulbayt. There's also verses about loving the Prophet's kin, and the fact that there must be a living leader or imam today (present tense) is mentioned in the Quran. (Obey Allah, the Prophet, and those vested with authority among you, this verse is in the present tense, the verse itself uses 'minkum')

You're probably right
I know ahlul bayt are mentioned in ayat al tatheer in the Quran
I know that as well, but they wouldn't know about all 12 a'immah

x

Just ponder over this for a second. Imagine, Muhammed s.a.w telling Um Aisha, that you have just uttered a statement, if you had mixed it in with the water of the sea, it would pollute it. Meaning, the statement is vile. This is not me slandering Umulmimineen Aisha, i'm just point blank stating what Rasullah s.a.w himself has stated.

Just ponder over this an hour - most of the ahadith you quoted that shows Aisha (rali) in a negative light are in fact narrated by Aisha herself. What does that suggest about Aisha (rali)?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Just ponder over this an hour - most of the ahadith you quoted that shows Aisha (rali) in a negative light are in fact narrated by Aisha herself. What does that suggest about Aisha (rali)?


Posted from TSR Mobile

There is no doubt in my mind and i believe many sunni brothers will absolutely concurr, that the most beloved woman to him was Fatima a.s.

One could argue however, many of these were publicly known and we recite over the verses.

Such as:

This time, even Allah swt has decided to reveal ayah's in the Quran about another event.

In Saheeh Bukhari, a hadith deemed authentic by our sunni brothers and sisters, it is narrated:
" Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he (Umar) replied, "They were `Aisha and Hafsa."

Allah swt himself reveals ayahs about this event:

Noble Quran: "If you two [wives] repent to Allah , [it is best],for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him - then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistants."

"Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you - submitting [to Allah], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling - [ones] previously married and virgins."

Salam brother/sister

I pretty much understand and agree with basically all of your points, and it's fair enough. After all, it's your faith and therefore you decide what you belief and not, and so I completely understand. In fact, the whole reason for starting this discussion was because I was defending the notion of the Prophet's family being pure.

Thank you for the links. In return, I would advise you to research the battle of Honayn, and how the Quran states the unfortunate event of the Holy Prophet's friends and soliders leaving him and running away.

Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great number pleased you, but it did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with its vastness; then you turned back, fleeingQuran 9:25

Hadith from Bukhari:

We set out in the company of Allah's Apostle on the day (of the battle) of Hunain. When we faced the enemy, the Muslims retreated and I saw a pagan throwing himself over a Muslim. I turned around and came upon him from behind and hit him on the shoulder with the sword He (i.e. the pagan) came towards me and seized me so violently that I felt as if it were death itself, but death overtook him and he released me.

I followed 'Umar bin Al Khattab and asked (him), "What is wrong with the people (fleeing)?" He replied, "This is the Will of Allah," After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will possess his spoils." I got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and then sat down. The Prophet again said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils." I (again) got up and said, "Who will be a witness for me?" and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, "O Abu Qatada! What is your story?" Then I narrated the whole story to him. A man (got up and) said, "O Allah's Apostle! He is speaking the truth, and the spoils of the killed man are with me. So please compensate him on my behalf." On that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, "No, by Allah, he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) will not agree to give you the spoils gained by one of Allah's Lions who fights on the behalf of Allah and His Apostle." The Prophet said, "Abu Bakr has spoken the truth." So, Allah's Apostle gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam.

Sahih al Bukhari, 4:53:370


As seen, unfortunately many of the Holy Prophet's companions left him and ran. Hope I have cleared up what I previously said.

Apologie for the delayed reply, you had asked me about the shia position on Umulmimineen Aisha. We believe she is the mother of the believers, as are all the other wives of the prophet muhammed s.a.w. This means we can not marry them after the prophet s.a.w's death, as well as the fact they are required to hold higher standards, if they do good twice is their reward, if they do evil, twice is their punishment. The Quran is clear in this. Being in the very house of the prophet s.a.w, living with him, they have no excuse of going towards ill or wrong. If they did so, it would be twice as bad as anyone else doing so.

However, having said this, we do not slander Umulmimineen Aisha. It is forbidden for shia's to do so. It is forbidden to throw insults at her. We do not believe she commited adultery, nor did she kill Rasullah s.a.w. These views are held by zealouts who do not represent the consensus in shia imami madhab.

Having said that, we believe the idea that she was among the greatest of woman, or , the title she is often given as 'siddiqah' meaning the truthful, is called into question by verses in the Quran itself, and hadiths considered authentic by our brothers and sisters in the sunni school of thought.

This is not designed to slander Umulmimineen Aisha - only to engage in a proper and academic discussion using evidences.

Some may claim, well she isn't infallible'. But neither are a lot of people who would not have acted in the following ways and manners:

Example one

Ayesha said: “Safiyya, the wife of the Prophet (a), sent a dish she had made for him when he was with me. When I saw the maidservant, I trembled with rage and fury, and I took the bowl and hurled it away. The Prophet of Allah (a) then looked at me; I saw the anger in his face and I said to him: ‘I seek refuge from Allah’s Apostle cursing me today.’ The Prophet said: ‘Undo it’. I said: ‘What is its compensation, O Prophet of Allah?’ He said: ‘The food like her food, and a bowl like her bowl.’”
1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 227 Tradition 26409
2. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 148
3. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692

The reviser of Musnad Ahmed namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut declared the tradition to be ‘Hasan’ while Al-Haythami said: ‘The narrators are Thiqah’.


Can you imagine if another noble wife of Rasullah s.a.w, Umm Safiyya r.a , out of care and love has sent the prophet s.a.w food, and Um Aisha , instead of recognizing the time, care and effort this wife has taken into preparing this food, out of anger, takes the food and hurls it into the ground, which is not only an insult to Allah swt, as it is a waste of food, but now you have a smashed bowl, an act commited out of extreme jealousy, and Rasullah s.a.w , a man so patient, even at this point being angered. If you took the name Aisha out of the equation and asked any muslim about this sort of behaviour, they would consider it completely out of order.


Example two:

This time, even Allah swt has decided to reveal ayah's in the Quran about another event.

In Saheeh Bukhari, a hadith deemed authentic by our sunni brothers and sisters, it is narrated:
" Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he (Umar) replied, "They were `Aisha and Hafsa."

Allah swt himself reveals ayahs about this event:

Noble Quran: "If you two [wives] repent to Allah , [it is best], for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him - then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistants."

"Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you - submitting [to Allah], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling - [ones] previously married and virgins."


The event, accepted by both sunni's and shia's, is another one where Umm Aisha out of jealousy of another wife of the prophet s.a.w, makes a plan for him to be lied to, with another wife, so she could spark disunity between him and another wife, and to upset that other wife.

I only have to ask, is it right and just to lie to the prophet, and not just make any lie, make a lie whereby you make him feel ahamed of his breath, and cause disunity between and another wife - so much so Allah swt reveals in the Quran that your hearts have deviated, and if you continue the way you are, there is a possibility of Allah swt divorcing you altogether with better wives?

How can anyone play something like this down?


Example three:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 168:

Narrated ‘Aisha: Once Hala bint Khuwailid, Khadija’s sister, asked the permission of the Prophet to enter. On that, the Prophet remembered the way Khadija used to ask permission, and that upset him. He said, “O Allah! Hala!” So I became jealous and said, “What makes you remember an old woman amongst the old women of Quraish an old woman (with a teethless mouth) of red gums who died long ago, and in whose place Allah has given you somebody better than her?”

Lady Khadija was the closes and most honoured of the wives of Rasullah s.a.w, for her immense sacrifice to Islamand devotion to Rasullah s.a.w. Aisha here, refers to her as a teethless old woman who Allah swt has replaced with someone better than her - meaning herself. In some narrations, this angered Rasullah s.a.w Again, can you see a pattern between her behaviour with those she is , with the utmost and highest respect, she by her own admission is jealous of?


Example four:

We not only find examples of jealousy towards other wives, arguably the one we find her most in opposition to is Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s

Abdah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman from ‘Amro b. Muhammad from Yunes b. Abi Ishaq from al-‘Izar b. Hurayth from al-Nu’man b. Basheer, he said: One day Abu Bakr excused himself from the Prophet (saw) to leave him until he heard ‘Aisha saying in a loud voice; “By Allah, I have learned that ‘Ali (as) is more beloved to you than my father!”. Abu Bakr then came to hit her and said, “O daughter of so-and-so! I see that you raise your voice towards the Messenger of Allah?!”. Then the Prophet (saw) grabbed him and Abu Bakr left while furious. Then the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O ‘Aisha! Have you seen how I saved you from the man?”. Then Abu Bakr excused himself and the Messenger of Allah (saw) made peace between Abu Bakr and ‘Aisha. [Khasa’is Amir al-Mu’mineen, al-Nasa’i, page 126, Hadeeth 110]

Grading: Isnad Saheeh (Authentic chain)

Points to consider: Why is she raising her voice at the messenger of Allah swt, in such a tone even her father is angered? Secondly, why do we find even the mere supicion that Rasullah s.a.w loves someone more than her father, , namely Ali a.s, anger her to such an extent she takes the name of Allah swt and raises her voice at the messenger of Allah swt?



When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said “In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha’s) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person”, then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: “Do you know who this ‘other man’ was?” Ibn Utbah replied: “No.” Then Ibn Abbas said: “He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context.”The margin writer of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal namely Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut stated:
“The chain is Sahih according to the standards of the two Sheiks (Bukhari & Muslim)”


This was also in Bukhari:


Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3 hadith 761:

Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah told me that ‘Aisha had said, “When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-’Abbas and another man.” ‘Ubaidullah said, “When I informed Ibn ‘Abbas of what ‘Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom ‘Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, ‘He was ‘Ali bin Abi Talib.”



Point number five:


She raised an army against Ali ibn abi talib a.s. Some claim she was trying to avenge Uthman, but the consensus among all people is she made an error and repented. Rather than allowing the caliph of the time, Ali ibn abi talib a.s to sort things out, she brought dissent and took matters into her own hands, claiming the man in charge i.e Ali a.s, was not doing his duty.

Now, some sunni brothers and sisters mention the khawarij, and how it was really them that caused the battle.

But the heart of the issue is that she should not have roused armies to try to avenge Uthman, against the orders of Ali a.s and against him, and not caused fitnah and left the matter to be dealt with by the caliph of the time, and not opposed him.



Sahih Muslim, Book 01, Number 141 :
Zirr reported:
'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.

A question for both Sunni and Shia on here.

If a man isolated on a desert island, space station, whatever, finds just a Quran (no hadith, histories, etc), reads it, and converts - is he Sunni, Shia, Quranist, or just plain Muslim?

And what do you think the implications of this are?

I don't believe i made a dichotomy, i'll explain why.

Here are a few points i would like you to explain, if possible inshAllah:

If you believe Allah, the exalted, can not be divided, in the normal sense of the word and term divided, then i believe this it at odds with the belief that:

1. Allah swt has a shin, feet, fingers, a face (possibly), two hands (two right hands). Either one believes these are metaphorical, or, they are literal and part of his essence, or a creation of his, or an attribute not part of his essence (i.e a reflection such as the all powerfull, for forgiving).

To the best of my understanding, if someone believes Allah swt , by his essence, has a shin, two feet, fingers, two hands (right), by his essence, but they do not try to imagine how the hands are, or how the feet are, they only take the literal meaning, accept he has these parts, and leave the howness to Allah swt, this is the same as dividing him.

If possible, i would like you to explain how a belief in Allah swt not being divisible, is consistent with the belief, by his essence, he has constituent parts, the shin, the two feet , the two hands, the fingers?

In summary, i reject the belief Allah swt has constituent sub-units, by his essence. He is Allah swt, he is ahad, one in his absoluteness, and can not be divided by his essence into constituent subunits.

I am also of the firm belief that one should not ponder over the essence of Allah swt. How Allah is, his reality, is outside of the grasp of the human mind, But we can affirm what Allah swt is not. Allah is not material - therefore is immaterial. He is one,absolute, indivisible by his essence, which is the reality of Tawheed, and hence is not composed of constituent subunits - i.e the shin, the two feet, the hands, the face.

Several of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from his father from ibn Abi `Umayr from Muhammad b. Humran from Abu `Ubayda al-Hadha’.
He said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: O Ziyad, beware of disputes, for they create doubt, invalidate deeds, and apostatize their participants – for one may say a thing that is not forgiven from him. There was once a community who left the required knowledge and sought unrequired knowledge, until they spoke of Allah [and His essence] and became perplexed by it; [so much so] that if a man were to call in front of them they would reply to the back, and to the front if called from the back.
In another narration: Until they vanished in the Earth. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 247)

(majhool kal-sahih) (مجهول كالصحيح)

It is a belief within the shia-school of thought, two inteprete the Quran and use the sunnah as a guide.We too, believe there are verses that are unclear, and to refer to the Prophet, and his ahlulbayt a.s in terms of obtaining the true meanings of these verses, rather than in uncertianity, bringing our own meanings and perversions in the unclear verses.

The issue is, it is clear in almost a universal understanding, that the term 'right hand' or 'my hands' are used to denote power, or ownership.

I'll give examples:

Al Quran: "The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth."

Al Quran: They have not appraised Allah with true appraisal, while the earth entirely will be [within] His grip on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be folded in His right hand.

When reading this verse, is it not clear that in the first instance, the Jews are claiming Allah swt's hands are tied up - in a metaphorical way. Allah swt, refutes this, and uses metaphor, clearly, but stating actually no, not only are they not 'tied' they are widely outstretched.

Is it not the wrong approach to take such a clear allegorical verse, and affirm actually, Allah has two widely outstretched hands, but not like our hands and we leave this unclear verse to him?

Similarly, when Allah swt says the entire earth will be within his grip on the day of judgement, does it not mean it will be within his control? When Allah swt states the heavens will be folded in his right hand, does it mean he has a left? Clearly, folded in his righthand means it will be within his ownership, power, control and judgement.

The Quran uses the term 'right' hand in other places: "O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses"

The term 'right hand' has been well known to be allegorically used to mean control, possession, power over.

Do you believe Allah by his essence, has two feet, fingers, a shin, a face, and two right hands, but these are not like ours, and you leave the howness of these attributes and he meaning to him?

As per the shia-madhab, Allah swt can not, and will never be see. The reasons are among many as follows:

1. Allah swt does not have a confine, or form, or is proportioned into a contingent reality, which humans can then gaze at and look at.
2. If states we will see Allah, like our own two eyes see the moon, it means we will actually be able to comprehend him, and Allah swt is beyond all comprehension, in his life, or the next.

You see, our belief is that Allah swt by his nature, is beyond comprehension. It is not that he is only beyond comprehension in the dunya, and then in the akhirah, we will be able to comprehend him. The minds , can not grasp the reality of Allah swt, and if the mind can not grasp Allah swt, how can the eyes grasp him?

We don't believe Allah has two hands, fingers, a shin, two feet, - but even if we assume - as i beleive- he is one in absolute oneness, he is not composed of consitutent parts, even then we will never be able to 'see' him. He is nothing that can be 'seen'. The Quran contains clear verses, and unclear verses.

The shia school of thought, as per hadiths we deem authentic believe the unclear verse is the one which states believers will be looking at their lord/ or looking to their lord.

The clear verse is : "No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."

And as you quoted earlier, the Quran clearly states there are clear and unclear verses.

We affirm the verse of looking at / to their lord, is one of the unclear verses, intepreted by sunnah as:

The Arabic participial form nadhira, cognate with nadhra, connotes a particular kind of happiness which is consequent to affluence and welfare and is accompanied by felicity, beauty, and splendor. In other words, their appearance reflects their great happiness consequent to being endowed with Divine Bounties.

The same theme is to found elsewhere in the Holy Qur’an:
"You shall recognise in their faces [those of the people of Paradise] the splendor of delight"19.
The blessed Verses 22 and 23 reflect the material and spiritual Bounties respectively. The blessed Verse 23 says that they only look at the Pure Essence of their Lord with their eye of heart and through inward intuition.

Such glance makes them absorbed in the Unique Essence and the Absolute Perfection and Beauty, such that one single moment of their exalted state is far superior to what exists in this world. In this vein, it is narrated from Imam Ridha (as) that they await their Lord’s Rewards.20

It is noteworthy that the precedence of
"at their Lord"
over
"happy"
restricts the meaning, namely they solely look at Him not at anyone else.

http://www.al-islam.org/enlightening-commentary-light-holy-quran-vol-18/surah-al-qiyama-chapter-75#surah-al-qiyama-verses-22-23



محمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن أبي هاشم الجعفري، عن أبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام قال: سألته عن الله هل يوصف؟ فقال: أما تقرء القرآن؟ قلت: بلى قال: أما تقرء قوله تعالى: " لا تدركه الابصار وهو يدرك الابصار "؟ قلت: بلى، قال: فتعرفون الابصار؟ قلت: بلى، قال: ماهي؟ قلت: أبصار العيون، فقال إن أوهام القلوب أكبر من أبصار العيون فهو لا تدركه الاوهام وهو يدرك الاوهام.

Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from Abi Hisham al-Ja`fari from Abu’l Hasan ar-Rida عليه السلام.
He said: I asked him about Allah – can He be described? So he said: Have you not read the Qur’an? So I said: Of course. He said: Have you not read His تعالى saying, “Sight does not comprehend Him, and He comprehends all sight” (6:103)? I said: Of course. He said: Do they know [the meaning of] sight? So I said: Of course. He said: What is it? I said: The sight of eyes. So he said: The thoughts of the hearts are greater than the sight of eyes. He is not comprehended by thoughts, and He comprehends all thoughts. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 263)

(sahih) (صحيح)



[video="youtube;aLgrx7XC2tM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLgrx7XC2tM[/video]

X

Asalamu Alaikum brother. No need to apologise you are busy with exams.

Thanks for the post. I have seen some of the points before and some are new to me.

Can I ask you brother if shias believe that Aisha r.a ever repented and if so can you provide me proof and if not can you provide proof? Thanks in advance.

Also what is the difference between rafidis and twelver shias if this is a thing in terms of shia sect? I would like to know from you as you are a shia. And I was just wondering with the twelver shias they believe in 12 imams, where does it state in the Qu'ran about them in words using imams? I mean it is very important to state the word atleast imam I guess if it something in Islam. For example, salah(prayer) is not stated in the Qu'ran in terms of how to do it in detail but the word itself is mentioned. Same with prophets not all are named but atleast the word is etc.

It was only until like last year anyways I ever came across hearing such thing about 12 imams and its importance in Islam. But til today it does not make sense to me, especially the emphasises on needing them even though we have the Qu'ran and the prophet s.a.w fulfilling his message completely. With Al-mahdi I know we await for him as he will be born when time is right but that is clear to us due to prophecy.

Sorry for too many questions.

Wa alaykum Salaam

I apologize for late response firstly.

I never pointed to the first 2 caliphs, rather it was in response to your statement about how companions stayed with the Prophet during difficult times, when evidently, this battle and others, many didn't.

It may also be my mistake because in my initial post I wrote 'Ohod' but I changed it to 'honayn' and thus I also apologize for the confusion.

I will research both battles in more depth and inshallah will get back to you.

Brother Tawheed can inshallah give a more indepth answer, but I will try to answer some points raised here.

I think rafidis is a term attributed to shias in general, but could be incorrect here. Twelver shias or 'ithna ashari' follow the main and ubiquitous hadith of the Holy Prophet saying there will be 12 leaders after me (Bukahri mentions this, Muslim says this but also includes 'This religion will last to the end of time' and then says the above statement, perhaps indicating there will only be 12 until the end of time).

Note, this hadith is used along with 'I leave behind 2 things, Quran and my Ahlulbayt (X3), if you follow these two then you will never go astray (Sahih Muslim). Therefore, the 12 must be from ahlulbayt.

The wording 'imam' is used in the Quran, out of many verses, one is 2:124, in fact, even the term 'shia' is used in the Quran.

The most obvious appearance of 12 successors is with Prophet Musa (People of Israel) in the Quran (5:12)

The importance of imams, in my opinion, is crucial because after the death of the Prophet, the role of imams are to ensure that the correct and true Islamic beliefs are kept true. With any religion, after the main leader leaves, different opinions will inevitably arise and thus so will deviation from the true religion. Thus, pure imams were appointed so that any misconceptions were cleared and everyone followed one belief, however many rejected the notion of imams, and formed their own leaders, thus inevitably leading to errors.

This is in direct agreement when the Prophet says ' I leave behind 2 things, Quran and my Ahlulbayt, if you follow them you will never go astray'.

Of course, this is in stark contrast to one companion who when the Prophet was on his death bed, and the Prophet called for pen and paper and said 'Bring me pen and paper, and I will write something that if you follow it, you will never go astray'. This was met with the reply ' You have gone delirious, the Quran is enough for us'. (Narrated in Bukhari I believe)

Notice how Quran was included in the final statement, but not the Ahlulbayt, when the Prophet said clearly that you need both to stay on right path. I wonder what the Prophet was going to write, or shall I say, whose names was he going to write.

Hope this helps.