Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Al-farhan
The simplest and quickest answer for this:
Both sahabis performed ijtihad and both gain their reward. This is furthered by the fact that uthman never rebuked or answer back Ali for his disagreement bearing in mind that uthman was the imam at the time.
The simplest and quickest answer for this:
Both sahabis performed ijtihad and both gain their reward. This is furthered by the fact that uthman never rebuked or answer back Ali for his disagreement bearing in mind that uthman was the imam at the time.
Jazakallah Khayr for the answer.
However, i personally believe that , and i say this with respect, this only waters down the seriousness of the situation. Let's analyse the hadith:
Saheeh Al Bukhari: I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umra together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for `Umra and Hajj,"
and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody."
Sunan an Nisai[Saheeh]: "I heard 'Ali binHusain narrating from Marwan, that 'Uthman forbade Mut'ah and joining Hajj and "Umrah. 'Ali said; 'Labbaika bi Hajjatin wa 'Umratin ma'an Here I am, (O Allah) for Hajj and "Umrah together. 'Uthman said: 'Are you doing this when I have forbidden it?' 'Ali said; 'I will not give up the Summah of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people.''
Points of contention
1.Whose Sunnah do you follow - that which Uthman intepreted, or that which Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was absolutely sure of? (on this issue)
2. According to the authentic hadith, Uthman questions Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and clearly admonishes him, telling him that why is he doing something that (Uthman) has forbidden. This is a clear rebuke. It is not a gentle amicable discussion in ijtihad. Uthman rebukes Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s for disobeying him.
3. Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s does not respond to Uthman in an amicable way, by asking Uthman where his Daleel is, or by politely saying, Uthman, i believe you are mistaken in this issue, for i saw the Messenger of Allah azwj do...". Rather, Ali ibn abi Talib a.s in both these ahadith is very, stern, and very bold in his language. Responding to being rebuked by Uthman he says: "'I will not give up the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people." / "on the sayings of somebody".
When i read that, i was personally taken aback. Ali ibn abi Talib a.s does not say, Uthman, you are the third best in our Ummah, perhaps one of the most knowledgable, i respect your ijtihad, however, i differ with you on this issue.
Rather, he defiantly tells uthman he won't abandon the sunnah of the prophet on the sayings of a man. Meaning, he believes , defiantly, uthman is ordering him and others to do what was contrary to the sunnah, and he defiantly going against that.
Original post by Al-farhan
No we both don't knowledge that Fatim r.a.a died angry at Abubakar r.a.a.
.
No we both don't knowledge that Fatim r.a.a died angry at Abubakar r.a.a.
.
Let's have a look at the evidence inshAllah.
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger"
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/2
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278
Points of contention:
1. Fatima a.s did not give her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, if Muhammed s.a.w had truly spoken about the virtues of the first caliph, about the need to follow him after his demise, about his superiority over the ummah, how, even according to authentic ahadith, his daughter, Aisha, was more beloved to him than any other woman (including Fatima a.s herself), surely, she would have given him her oath of allegiance ? Instead, we know she died without giving Bayah to the first caliph. For over six months while Abu Bakr was caliph and Fatima a.s was still alive, she never pledged her allegiance nor recognized him as the legitimate caliph.
2. She stopped speaking to him, and forsook him until she died. Indeed, even the narrator has good reasons as to why he believes Fatima a.s was angry. Clearly, the verdict of Abu Bakr had hurt her, and had angered her, and she left, angered, and did not talk to him until she died. The very fact she refused to give her allegiance to him fortifies the fact she remained angry with him. The very fact she did not give her allegiance to him anyway is evidence she did not recognize him to be the legitimate caliph, Fadak, or not.
3. What is the state of someone who does not pledge the oath of allegiance to the caliph of their time, nor recognizes the imam of their time?
4. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s not inform Abu Bakr of the death of Fatima a.s ? Fatima a.s was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, and her name and her respect was for all to behold. Her death, especially her premature death, should have been something that was told right away, especially to people apparently most beloved to Muhammed s.a.w , namely, Abu Bakr, and Ummulmimineen Aisha. Instead, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s secrelty buries Fatima a.s himself, at night, without even telling Abu Bakr about the funeral. Even till today, we dispute where her grave is.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tawheed
Let's have a look at the evidence inshAllah.
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger"
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/2
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278
Points of contention:
1. Fatima a.s did not give her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, if Muhammed s.a.w had truly spoken about the virtues of the first caliph, about the need to follow him after his demise, about his superiority over the ummah, how, even according to authentic ahadith, his daughter, Aisha, was more beloved to him than any other woman (including Fatima a.s herself), surely, she would have given him her oath of allegiance ? Instead, we know she died without giving Bayah to the first caliph. For over six months while Abu Bakr was caliph and Fatima a.s was still alive, she never pledged her allegiance nor recognized him as the legitimate caliph.
2. She stopped speaking to him, and forsook him until she died. Indeed, even the narrator has good reasons as to why he believes Fatim a.s was angry. Clearly, the verdict of Abu Bakr had hurt her, and had angered her, and she left, angered, and did not talk to him until she died. The very fact she refused to give her allegiance to him fortifies the fact she remained angry with him.
3. What is the state of someone who does not pledge the oath of allegiance to the caliph of their time, nor recognizes the imam of their time?
4. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s not inform Abu Bakr of the death of Fatima a.s ? Fatima a.s was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, and her name and her respect was for all to behold. Her death, especially her premature death, should have been something that was told right away, especially to people apparently most beloved to Muhammed s.a.w , namely, Abu Bakr, and Ummulmimineen Aisha. Instead, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s secrelty buries Fatima a.s himself, at night, without even telling Abu Bakr about the funeral. Even till today, we dispute where her grave is.
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger"
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/2
Saheeh Al Bukhari: " So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278
Points of contention:
1. Fatima a.s did not give her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, if Muhammed s.a.w had truly spoken about the virtues of the first caliph, about the need to follow him after his demise, about his superiority over the ummah, how, even according to authentic ahadith, his daughter, Aisha, was more beloved to him than any other woman (including Fatima a.s herself), surely, she would have given him her oath of allegiance ? Instead, we know she died without giving Bayah to the first caliph. For over six months while Abu Bakr was caliph and Fatima a.s was still alive, she never pledged her allegiance nor recognized him as the legitimate caliph.
2. She stopped speaking to him, and forsook him until she died. Indeed, even the narrator has good reasons as to why he believes Fatim a.s was angry. Clearly, the verdict of Abu Bakr had hurt her, and had angered her, and she left, angered, and did not talk to him until she died. The very fact she refused to give her allegiance to him fortifies the fact she remained angry with him.
3. What is the state of someone who does not pledge the oath of allegiance to the caliph of their time, nor recognizes the imam of their time?
4. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s not inform Abu Bakr of the death of Fatima a.s ? Fatima a.s was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, and her name and her respect was for all to behold. Her death, especially her premature death, should have been something that was told right away, especially to people apparently most beloved to Muhammed s.a.w , namely, Abu Bakr, and Ummulmimineen Aisha. Instead, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s secrelty buries Fatima a.s himself, at night, without even telling Abu Bakr about the funeral. Even till today, we dispute where her grave is.
I will answer these questions soon.
I'd like you to answer my earlier question:
Original post by Tawheed
Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet s.a.w
"...Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his master (Mawla), ‘Ali is his master (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him..."
(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,4 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371 (5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators) (6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572 (7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters) (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
Points of contention:
Before i address common points of contention, if anyone is unfamiliar with Ghadeer, i recommend they watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSd2nGnKUa8
Contention: "Ghadeer had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed s.a.w appointing Ali ibn abi talib a.s, but a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute Ali ibn abi talib a.s had with some soldiers, Khalid bin waleed, among others due to war booty, and khums, and his actions with a slave girl (yemen event).
Reply to contention:
"...Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his master (Mawla), ‘Ali is his master (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him..."
(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,4 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371 (5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators) (6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572 (7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters) (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
Points of contention:
Before i address common points of contention, if anyone is unfamiliar with Ghadeer, i recommend they watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSd2nGnKUa8
Contention: "Ghadeer had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed s.a.w appointing Ali ibn abi talib a.s, but a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute Ali ibn abi talib a.s had with some soldiers, Khalid bin waleed, among others due to war booty, and khums, and his actions with a slave girl (yemen event).
Reply to contention:
Spoiler
One thing I don't fully understand is:
Is the sacred/ god given wilayah a spiritual only wilayah over the people, is it a political wilayah that carries the rule/khilafah of Ali.
Or is it both types?
Original post by Al-farhan
x
I will have to leave for now, inshAllah i will return to continue my work on the questions. I would like to know a few things, when you get time, inshalLAH:
1. Do you believe Muawiyah , the son of Abu Sufiyan, from the clan of Banu Ummayah, is a man worthy of respect, love, and admiration?
2. (I don't know if you have already answered it) but are you refusing to answer whether or not islamQa representative of the sunni aqeedah or not, based on your personal preference, or do you believe it is against the sunnah to affirm what you believe to be in the sunnah itself, without delving deeper?
If it is a personal preference, then i respect that. If it is a religious reason - could you explain to me religiously, why it is forbidden to affirm whether a hadith is authentic to you, or whether an article written on islamqa, by ulema in the ahlus-sunnah is representative of your belief or not?
Original post by Tawheed
Salamunalaykum, I do remember your post yes brother.
I want to also affirm as a shia muslim, our belief in Allah azwj and his attributes is only what we believe Allah azwj affirms for himself, and only what we deem to be from the authentic Sunnah.
I'll try to rephrase my question again. Note, i am not asking you to delve any deeper , or speculate, i merely want to know[as i asked brother farhan]:
1. IslamQA states Allah azwj has two feet, but those two feet have no likeness to ours (this is what they say). They furthermore say, according to authentic ahadith, those two feet of Allah azwj are above his kursi, which itself is below the waters, which itself, is below the throne. They also affirm that Allah azwj is above his throne, above the seven heavens, and his feet are below the throne, below the waters, but above the qursi.
Do you agree and affirm what IslamQA says? In doing so, i am not asking you to delve any deeper into the topics, merely i wish to know if you agree or disagree with IslamQa?
I want to also affirm as a shia muslim, our belief in Allah azwj and his attributes is only what we believe Allah azwj affirms for himself, and only what we deem to be from the authentic Sunnah.
I'll try to rephrase my question again. Note, i am not asking you to delve any deeper , or speculate, i merely want to know[as i asked brother farhan]:
1. IslamQA states Allah azwj has two feet, but those two feet have no likeness to ours (this is what they say). They furthermore say, according to authentic ahadith, those two feet of Allah azwj are above his kursi, which itself is below the waters, which itself, is below the throne. They also affirm that Allah azwj is above his throne, above the seven heavens, and his feet are below the throne, below the waters, but above the qursi.
Do you agree and affirm what IslamQA says? In doing so, i am not asking you to delve any deeper into the topics, merely i wish to know if you agree or disagree with IslamQa?
By stating that Allah's hands are metaphorical representations of other attributes, it is arguable that one could denying an attribute of Allah, and as far as I am aware, Asharis and Shia both believe that Allah's hands are metaphorical, therefore I would say that perhaps that Shia/Ashari belief is possibly not affirming what Allah affirms of himself - what I said errs on the side of caution, whereas the metaphorical interpretation is absolute.
I don't mean to say this to dodge the question, but all I can state is that my personal belief is that Allah's feet/hands etc are either metaphorical or literal (affirming IslamQAs interpretation that they are unlike our own), but I sit neither side of the fence since it is an obscure matter only known by Allah. My main problem that I have encountered is that if one says that Allah has literal hands and feet which are unlike our own and unlike anything created, then surely describing this attribute as 'feet' or 'hands' becomes a metaphor since there is nothing like them and thus one is using a word to describe an indescribable thing; then again the feet of the elephant is extremely different to the foot of the ant or bird, so perhaps it is not metaphorical - this is just a random point but it I guess it just show another element of obscurity in my mind in this discussion.
In summary, I neither agree nor disagree with IslamQA - it is indeed a complex issue.
(edited 7 years ago)
@Tawheed I do not wish to pressure you, but I would like answers to these questions please; I do appreciate you are managing many topics, but just a reminder 
Irrespective of your personal beliefs (which you might have perhaps explained on ShiaChat), could you tell me if:
(1) Asking Muhammad (SAW) or the Ahlul Bayt *directly* to ask Allah for something on your behalf is shirk? This is different to asking Allah to accept the dua by His love for these people.
(2) The Shia ullema said this is permissible or haram?
(3) The Shia ullema clasify those who engage in this method of dua as Mushrikoon?
(4) Believing that the Prophet (SAW) or any of the Ahlul Bayt can answer duas by the permission of Allah is a part of Shia belief; what has the Shia ullema/classical books said about this?
I understand these questions might perhaps be sensitive due to the implications of some answers, but I ask out of genuine interest to understand Shi'ism from the eyes of those who follow it.
(1) Asking Muhammad (SAW) or the Ahlul Bayt *directly* to ask Allah for something on your behalf is shirk? This is different to asking Allah to accept the dua by His love for these people.
(2) The Shia ullema said this is permissible or haram?
(3) The Shia ullema clasify those who engage in this method of dua as Mushrikoon?
(4) Believing that the Prophet (SAW) or any of the Ahlul Bayt can answer duas by the permission of Allah is a part of Shia belief; what has the Shia ullema/classical books said about this?
I understand these questions might perhaps be sensitive due to the implications of some answers, but I ask out of genuine interest to understand Shi'ism from the eyes of those who follow it.
Q. Is it original Shia belief that the Quran has been changed; is the Quran we have today agreed by Shia to be the revelations which Muhammad (SAW) finalised (in the exact number and arrangement of verses and the arrangement of Surahs)?
Q. Is anyone who believes that the Quran has been altered in number of verses, arrangement of verses and arrangement of Surahs a kafir?
Q. How can Shia hadith even be trusted when Shia rijjal studies started so late and is only a shadow compared to its Sunnis rijjali counterpart, and also parts of Shia rijjal comes from Sunni rijjal?
Q. Is anyone who believes that the Quran has been altered in number of verses, arrangement of verses and arrangement of Surahs a kafir?
Q. How can Shia hadith even be trusted when Shia rijjal studies started so late and is only a shadow compared to its Sunnis rijjali counterpart, and also parts of Shia rijjal comes from Sunni rijjal?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tawheed
I will have to leave for now, inshAllah i will return to continue my work on the questions. I would like to know a few things, when you get time, inshalLAH:
1. Do you believe Muawiyah , the son of Abu Sufiyan, from the clan of Banu Ummayah, is a man worthy of respect, love, and admiration?
1. Do you believe Muawiyah , the son of Abu Sufiyan, from the clan of Banu Ummayah, is a man worthy of respect, love, and admiration?
All the companions have my unreserved respect and all of them are a redline to me. That lowly individuals like us cannot appoint ourselves to be their judges.
2. (I don't know if you have already answered it) but are you refusing to answer whether or not islamQa representative of the sunni aqeedah or not, based on your personal preference, or do you believe it is against the sunnah to affirm what you believe to be in the sunnah itself, without delving deeper?
If it is a personal preference, then i respect that. If it is a religious reason - could you explain to me religiously, why it is forbidden to affirm whether a hadith is authentic to you, or whether an article written on islamqa, by ulema in the ahlus-sunnah is representative of your belief or not?
If it is a personal preference, then i respect that. If it is a religious reason - could you explain to me religiously, why it is forbidden to affirm whether a hadith is authentic to you, or whether an article written on islamqa, by ulema in the ahlus-sunnah is representative of your belief or not?
Personal preference.
Original post by Zamestaneh
I don't mean to say this to dodge the question, but all I can state is that my personal belief is that Allah's feet/hands etc are either metaphorical or literal (affirming IslamQAs interpretation that they are unlike our own), but I sit neither side of the fence since it is an obscure matter only known by Allah. My main problem that I have encountered is that if one says that Allah has literal hands and feet which are unlike our own and unlike anything created, then surely describing this attribute as 'feet' or 'hands' becomes a metaphor since there is nothing like them and thus one is using a word to describe an indescribable thing; then again the feet of the elephant is extremely different to the foot of the ant or bird, so perhaps it is not metaphorical - this is just a random point but it I guess it just show another element of obscurity in my mind in this discussion.
In summary, I neither agree nor disagree with IslamQA - it is indeed a complex issue.
I don't mean to say this to dodge the question, but all I can state is that my personal belief is that Allah's feet/hands etc are either metaphorical or literal (affirming IslamQAs interpretation that they are unlike our own), but I sit neither side of the fence since it is an obscure matter only known by Allah. My main problem that I have encountered is that if one says that Allah has literal hands and feet which are unlike our own and unlike anything created, then surely describing this attribute as 'feet' or 'hands' becomes a metaphor since there is nothing like them and thus one is using a word to describe an indescribable thing; then again the feet of the elephant is extremely different to the foot of the ant or bird, so perhaps it is not metaphorical - this is just a random point but it I guess it just show another element of obscurity in my mind in this discussion.
In summary, I neither agree nor disagree with IslamQA - it is indeed a complex issue.
JazakAllah Khayr for the answer,
I will answer the questions you have raised, inshAllah, as well as the other ones you previously asked (about rijal, ahadith, Quran, Tahreef etc).
Spoiler
According to the islamQa article, as per authentic sunnah , the two feet of Allah azwj are above the qursi, but below the waters. Clearly, the waters as well as the qursi are creations of Allah azwj. How Allah azwj's two feet be between his creations ?
Now, it seems you are being cautious about this issue, which is somewhat wise, although it does raise some pertinent questions:
1. If you are a sunni muslim, and your ulema, past and present, have graded a hadith as saheeh, and that hadith states the two feet of Allah azwj are above the qursi, (which 'creaks as a saddle creaks' and your sunnah is obtained from these ulema and scholars, such as al-albani et al, and the books you take from, how can you remain consistent if you do not also take the ahadith? If you are consistent, you would take from their gradings, accept it as authentic, and the hadiths are not ambigous, it's pretty clear what they mean. Although you can not question 'how', if you take the hadith is authentic, you can not question 'what' it is saying.
2. And if you do take the hadith(which you ought to, if you are consistent), you are forced to believe that Allah azwj has two feet - which are above the qursi, but below the waters. Therefore, if you believe Allah azwj can not be contained in a place, or atleast, can not be contained within his creation, how can you reconcile that belief, with the ahadith?
3. Even if one chooses to put aside logic, and rationality, we know Allah azt existed, before a 'where' and before 'place'.Would it be a wise choice to stakes oness Aqeedah by virtue of relying on whether or not the narrators of these hadiths were truthful, even though rationality and reason tells you otherwise?
Even i believe one can never truly apply rationality to Allah azwj, because he himself is above all comprehension. However, we can rule out what Allah azwj is not. He is not a created being, he is not a body, he has no place, he is not in a location, he does not change, he does not move etc.
Here are the ahadith, for reference:
Abu Moosaal-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Kursiy is the place for the two feet, and it creaks as a saddle creaks.
Narrated by‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; Ibn Abu Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 60; and by Ibn Jareer, al-Bayhaqi and others. Its isnaad wasclassed as saheeh in al-Fath, 8/47 and by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw, p. 123-124
Ibn ‘Abbaas (mayAllah be pleased with him) said: “The Kursiy (foot stool) is the place of the two feet, and the size of Throne cannot be known.”
This was narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah in at-Tawheed, 1/248, no. 154; Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 61; ad-Daarimi in ar-Radd ‘ala al-Muraysi; ‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; and al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, 2/282 – he classed it as saheeh according to the conditions of the twoshaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw,p. 102; and by Ahmad Shaakir in ‘Umdat at-Tafseer, 2/163.
As you can see, graded saheeh by some of the most well respected muhaddiths in the ahlus-sunnah. Most of these names are heavy weights. Is it thus possible to remain consistent with ones belief in the ahlus-sunnah, and reject saheeh hadith on this issue?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Al-farhan
All the companions have my unreserved respect and all of them are a redline to me. That lowly individuals like us cannot appoint ourselves to be their judges.
I respect your point of view brother. If i can ask, do you not believe this is a little bit too idealistic? Considering the fact that, in any large body of muslims, not all of them are virtuous. There are many different shades of imaan, from the very pious, the good, the ones who have mixture, the ones who never truly believed, the ones who did wrong, did evil, the ones who never truly believed?
In any society, of all the prophets of God, their followers and those who lived among them were not all one homogenous, righteous group. Rather, as is in all societies, there were people of different grades of belief.
If you consider the fact that, in the first decade or so of the Prophet s.a.w's mission, only a hundred or two hundred joined islam, followed by a ten year period in Medina, where the Meccans were hostile to him and fought many wars, coupled with the fact that the majority of arabia, as well as Mecca, only really converted to Islam in the last 1-2 years of the life of the Prophet s.a.w , is it really a wise choice to consider them all trustworthy and upright ?
As for Muawiyah, if he deserves your unreserved respect, why is that so? Do you not believe he cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, had hatred towards him, and his children, threatened Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s thereafter, and placed his evil son, Yazid in power, who was not even fit to lead cattle, let alone the Ummah? Putting aside the wars he fought against Ali ibn abi Talib a.s ?
Personal preference.
Then i respect your wish.
Part of what i had written earlier about Ghadeer:
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]
As you can clearly see, companions went to a group and complained of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The Prophet s.a.w would not have allowed his companions to merely have growing resent against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. He , by his wisdom, would have (and did) address the issue, to allow it to be sorted immediately, and for the muslims to subsequently focus on the hajj. In the above hadith is an instance where Muhammed s.a.w clearly admonishes those who came and complained to him individually/perhaps in groups.
There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
There and then, the matter should have been finished. Not only did Prophet Muhammed s.a.w admonish the companions individually, he felt the need to stand up and give a short speech, whereby he addressed them and clearly told them in unequivocal words about the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and not to blame him.
Thus, the matter should have been finished. And we find that, to Muhammed s.a.w, he also deemed his words sufficient, and "..Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” If this was not sufficient, then surely, during his farewell sermon, they should have paid heed to the call of needing to foster brotherhood and love among themselves: The Prophet s.a.w , in his farewell sermon is reported to have said:]“Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]
As you can clearly see, companions went to a group and complained of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The Prophet s.a.w would not have allowed his companions to merely have growing resent against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. He , by his wisdom, would have (and did) address the issue, to allow it to be sorted immediately, and for the muslims to subsequently focus on the hajj. In the above hadith is an instance where Muhammed s.a.w clearly admonishes those who came and complained to him individually/perhaps in groups.
There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
There and then, the matter should have been finished. Not only did Prophet Muhammed s.a.w admonish the companions individually, he felt the need to stand up and give a short speech, whereby he addressed them and clearly told them in unequivocal words about the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and not to blame him.
Thus, the matter should have been finished. And we find that, to Muhammed s.a.w, he also deemed his words sufficient, and "..Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” If this was not sufficient, then surely, during his farewell sermon, they should have paid heed to the call of needing to foster brotherhood and love among themselves: The Prophet s.a.w , in his farewell sermon is reported to have said:]“Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”
Original post by Tawheed
x
Salaam.
You are still to answer my question about wilayah and what it is brother.
(edited 7 years ago)
The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s were well known. In the famous hadith in saheeh muslim, we find Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s reporting:
"The Prophet [SAW] made a covenant with me that none would love me but a believer, and none would hate me but a hypocrite." [Saheeh, contained in Muslim among others]
If one were to go through the sihah al sitta, and musnad ahmed, the praises for Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s are so numerous, that there is no excuse for any of the companions not to have known the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
The issue with yemen, the booty, the khums, the slave girl, if my brothers in the ahlus-sunnah were to be consistent, ought not to have been about the sahabah hating Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather, it is to do with a fraction of the 300 having disagreements with Ali a.s as to his judgement on the booty.
Therefore, Muhammed s.a.w would have achieved absolutely nothing by telling people, if i am your friend, than Ali is my friend, They knew that. Infact, Muhammed s.a.w during his life had given Ali a.s far, far stronger praise than merely this.
Rather, what a fraction /group had with regards to their issue with Ali a.s is how he handled the khums. They wanted to know if the way he had handled it was truly in the way of Allah azwj, or if he was just favouring himself first? (due to alleged intercourse with a slave girl).
That's what they wanted to know. They knew of his virtues, and praising him many times would make no difference, if Rasullah s.a.w did not directly address this issue.
By calling him a friend to the believers, it does not address that issue.
However, we do find in Ibn ishaq, and Ibn Hishams works (some of the earliest biographies on Muhammed s.a.w,) we find that not only does Muhammed s.a.w admonish individual companions like Abu Huraida specifically on the issue of Khums, he directly addresses the issue, infront of a crowd, whereby he reminds them that what Ali a.s did was equitable, fair, and that he is far too scrupulous in the way of Allah azwj to be favouring himself. There and then, the matter ought to have been totally finished. Many had heard it, and those that did, conveyed it to others. During the Hajj, amny were gathered, and so, the very powerful statement Muhammed s.a.w made should have spread.
There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
"The Prophet [SAW] made a covenant with me that none would love me but a believer, and none would hate me but a hypocrite." [Saheeh, contained in Muslim among others]
If one were to go through the sihah al sitta, and musnad ahmed, the praises for Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s are so numerous, that there is no excuse for any of the companions not to have known the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.
The issue with yemen, the booty, the khums, the slave girl, if my brothers in the ahlus-sunnah were to be consistent, ought not to have been about the sahabah hating Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather, it is to do with a fraction of the 300 having disagreements with Ali a.s as to his judgement on the booty.
Therefore, Muhammed s.a.w would have achieved absolutely nothing by telling people, if i am your friend, than Ali is my friend, They knew that. Infact, Muhammed s.a.w during his life had given Ali a.s far, far stronger praise than merely this.
Rather, what a fraction /group had with regards to their issue with Ali a.s is how he handled the khums. They wanted to know if the way he had handled it was truly in the way of Allah azwj, or if he was just favouring himself first? (due to alleged intercourse with a slave girl).
That's what they wanted to know. They knew of his virtues, and praising him many times would make no difference, if Rasullah s.a.w did not directly address this issue.
By calling him a friend to the believers, it does not address that issue.
However, we do find in Ibn ishaq, and Ibn Hishams works (some of the earliest biographies on Muhammed s.a.w,) we find that not only does Muhammed s.a.w admonish individual companions like Abu Huraida specifically on the issue of Khums, he directly addresses the issue, infront of a crowd, whereby he reminds them that what Ali a.s did was equitable, fair, and that he is far too scrupulous in the way of Allah azwj to be favouring himself. There and then, the matter ought to have been totally finished. Many had heard it, and those that did, conveyed it to others. During the Hajj, amny were gathered, and so, the very powerful statement Muhammed s.a.w made should have spread.
There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
Original post by Al-farhan
Salaam.
You are still to answer my question about wilayah and what it is brother.
You are still to answer my question about wilayah and what it is brother.
Walaykum salam,
I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
Original post by Tawheed
Walaykum salam,
I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
I think you misunderstood my question.
My question is simply what waliayh is.
Is it political leadership, or religious/spiritual one?
Or both?
Ps are notifications not working for you too? or is it just my end?
Salam Tawheed
Hope you're good.
I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?
Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.
JZK
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hope you're good.
I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?
Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.
JZK
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by HAnwar
Salam Tawheed
Hope you're good.
I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?
Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.
JZK
Posted from TSR Mobile
Hope you're good.
I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?
Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.
JZK
Posted from TSR Mobile
Walaykumsalam sister, brother Zamestaneh has asked this question as well. I will address it after answering some of the other questions as well, inshAllah in more detail.
Suffice to say, the ijma with regards to the ulema is that Allah azwj has protected the Quran , and there is no tahreef in it.
Any hadith , in shia books, or sunni books, which implies tahrif is either dae'f , graded wrongly (as was the case with majlisi) or is intepreted wrongly.[and some take hadiths from shia books, and use it to claim that shia's believe in tahreef). The same thing is done by non-muslims, such as the answeringislam website, inwhich they use ahadith from bukhari etc, and twist the hadith, or they use hadith from other books that may be dai'f, and try to make it look like muslims believe in tahreef.
If any shia scholar in the past had doubt regarding if it was possible small parts of the Quran were missing, that individual has made an error, without any shadow of doubt. But it is not the ijma if our ulema - for the collective ijma is that falsehood has not touched the Quran, nor has any truth been ommited from the Quran, for Allah, azwj, the most high has protected it.
I'll go into more detail with regards to this soon inshAllah, where i answer brother zamestanehs questions.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Tawheed
Frequently asked Questions:
Highly recommended video - misconceptions of Shia Islam:[video="youtube;cjLXvqqfIpY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjLXvqqfIpY[/video]1. Do shia's believe in a different Quran?2. Do shia's follow Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather than Prophet Muhammed s.a.w3. What is the shia view of the Companions?3. What is the shia view of the wives of Muhammed s.a.w?3. What is the shia view of Umm Aisha? Did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s name his son Abu Bakr?...... .
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Original post by Tawheed
Walaykumsalam sister, brother Zamestaneh has asked this question as well. I will address it after answering some of the other questions as well, inshAllah in more detail.
Suffice to say, the ijma with regards to the ulema is that Allah azwj has protected the Quran , and there is no tahreef in it.
Any hadith , in shia books, or sunni books, which implies tahrif is either dae'f , graded wrongly (as was the case with majlisi) or is intepreted wrongly.[and some take hadiths from shia books, and use it to claim that shia's believe in tahreef). The same thing is done by non-muslims, such as the answeringislam website, inwhich they use ahadith from bukhari etc, and twist the hadith, or they use hadith from other books that may be dai'f, and try to make it look like muslims believe in tahreef.
If any shia scholar in the past had doubt regarding if it was possible small parts of the Quran were missing, that individual has made an error, without any shadow of doubt. But it is not the ijma if our ulema - for the collective ijma is that falsehood has not touched the Quran, nor has any truth been ommited from the Quran, for Allah, azwj, the most high has protected it.
I'll go into more detail with regards to this soon inshAllah, where i answer brother zamestanehs questions.
Suffice to say, the ijma with regards to the ulema is that Allah azwj has protected the Quran , and there is no tahreef in it.
Any hadith , in shia books, or sunni books, which implies tahrif is either dae'f , graded wrongly (as was the case with majlisi) or is intepreted wrongly.[and some take hadiths from shia books, and use it to claim that shia's believe in tahreef). The same thing is done by non-muslims, such as the answeringislam website, inwhich they use ahadith from bukhari etc, and twist the hadith, or they use hadith from other books that may be dai'f, and try to make it look like muslims believe in tahreef.
If any shia scholar in the past had doubt regarding if it was possible small parts of the Quran were missing, that individual has made an error, without any shadow of doubt. But it is not the ijma if our ulema - for the collective ijma is that falsehood has not touched the Quran, nor has any truth been ommited from the Quran, for Allah, azwj, the most high has protected it.
I'll go into more detail with regards to this soon inshAllah, where i answer brother zamestanehs questions.
Ok JZK for that.
You can tag me in when you respond to him.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Tawheed
I respect your point of view brother. If i can ask, do you not believe this is a little bit too idealistic? Considering the fact that, in any large body of muslims, not all of them are virtuous. There are many different shades of imaan, from the very pious, the good, the ones who have mixture, the ones who never truly believed, the ones who did wrong, did evil, the ones who never truly believed?
In any society, of all the prophets of God, their followers and those who lived among them were not all one homogenous, righteous group. Rather, as is in all societies, there were people of different grades of belief.
If you consider the fact that, in the first decade or so of the Prophet s.a.w's mission, only a hundred or two hundred joined islam, followed by a ten year period in Medina, where the Meccans were hostile to him and fought many wars, coupled with the fact that the majority of arabia, as well as Mecca, only really converted to Islam in the last 1-2 years of the life of the Prophet s.a.w , is it really a wise choice to consider them all trustworthy and upright ?
As for Muawiyah, if he deserves your unreserved respect, why is that so? Do you not believe he cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, had hatred towards him, and his children, threatened Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s thereafter, and placed his evil son, Yazid in power, who was not even fit to lead cattle, let alone the Ummah? Putting aside the wars he fought against Ali ibn abi Talib a.s ?
Then i respect your wish.
In any society, of all the prophets of God, their followers and those who lived among them were not all one homogenous, righteous group. Rather, as is in all societies, there were people of different grades of belief.
If you consider the fact that, in the first decade or so of the Prophet s.a.w's mission, only a hundred or two hundred joined islam, followed by a ten year period in Medina, where the Meccans were hostile to him and fought many wars, coupled with the fact that the majority of arabia, as well as Mecca, only really converted to Islam in the last 1-2 years of the life of the Prophet s.a.w , is it really a wise choice to consider them all trustworthy and upright ?
As for Muawiyah, if he deserves your unreserved respect, why is that so? Do you not believe he cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, had hatred towards him, and his children, threatened Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s thereafter, and placed his evil son, Yazid in power, who was not even fit to lead cattle, let alone the Ummah? Putting aside the wars he fought against Ali ibn abi Talib a.s ?
Then i respect your wish.
I think we should leave the issue of the sahaba to a later stage.
I'm just going to go back and see where our discussion is going and see if we have anything outstanding to each other.
And please answer my wilayah questions as through your posts you make it seem a religious spiritual one, and elsewhere I read that it is a political/leadership one
Original post by Tawheed
Walaykum salam,
I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
Salaam.
I was looking at the other thread and this is something that we were discussing:
Original post by Al-farhan
Salam, just a quick response.
So the claim here is either:
1-the quran is unclear/a puzzle in its mother tongue Arabic, despite Allah swt say:
بِلِسَاٍن عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ
Revealed in a clear Arabic tongue.
And the above statement alludes that since it is in a human language it is a cloudy murky quran.
Do you believe in that?
2-Allah swt is the creator of humans and their language, and the above statement alludes that Allah swt the creator couldn't find a way to clearly use the language he chose and created the spiritual theme he the almighty decreed for his subjects (god forbid)
Of course the quran explains itself by itself but not in the way alluded to above which is the claim that the quran is murky cloudy mess.
Im sorry bro but such a claim is not just an insult to the Arabic langue but also an insult to the quran, That Allah swt could use the plethora of expressions and words to mean heart.
Plus the verse says Faces and is talking about faces where is the heart in all of this?!
That verse is about the state in dunya, and not in jannah. So any possible contradiction would stem from misuse and misunderstanding.
Just my quick bare-boned response.
Will go into details if need be later.
Ps: lets defer the discussion till after ramadan bro.
I only asked the question as a placeholder so as to not forget it later on.
So the claim here is either:
1-the quran is unclear/a puzzle in its mother tongue Arabic, despite Allah swt say:
بِلِسَاٍن عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ
Revealed in a clear Arabic tongue.
And the above statement alludes that since it is in a human language it is a cloudy murky quran.
Do you believe in that?
2-Allah swt is the creator of humans and their language, and the above statement alludes that Allah swt the creator couldn't find a way to clearly use the language he chose and created the spiritual theme he the almighty decreed for his subjects (god forbid)
Of course the quran explains itself by itself but not in the way alluded to above which is the claim that the quran is murky cloudy mess.
Im sorry bro but such a claim is not just an insult to the Arabic langue but also an insult to the quran, That Allah swt could use the plethora of expressions and words to mean heart.
Plus the verse says Faces and is talking about faces where is the heart in all of this?!
That verse is about the state in dunya, and not in jannah. So any possible contradiction would stem from misuse and misunderstanding.
Just my quick bare-boned response.
Will go into details if need be later.
Ps: lets defer the discussion till after ramadan bro.
I only asked the question as a placeholder so as to not forget it later on.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
- Official GCSE RS Help Chat
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- Is becoming a nurse allowed in Islam?
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- Biomedical science BSc: Northumbria Uni
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- How to GET REP quick?
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- TSR I-SOC (Islamic Society) Mk. XVII
- GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2022-2023
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Converting to Islam...but I'm white
- .
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- Learning Islam
- Looking to make muslim friends
- Muslims and SFE
- my boyfriend is Muslim and i'm Catholic
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
