Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Does he?
    How do you know?
    Common sense

    I am following Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammah.

    More info:- http://www.islaamnet.com/aqeedah.html
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    Because anyone who has the basic knowledge if Islamic Theology (obviously not yourself) is aware of the difference.
    Still doesn't mean that he knows what someone else is thinking.

    Kraixo stated that he took the verses that describe Allah, at face value, without interpretation. Tawheed then told that Kraixo didn't mean what he said. That has nothing to do with Islamic Theology. That has to do with mind reading.

    So, this is an element of Basic Islamic Theology that I'm not entirely clear of...
    Which verses mean what they say, and which verses don't? And how do you tell which is which?
    From observation, is seems to be down to convenience, because every time I ask the question, I am fobbed of with some vague excuse, usually involving knowledge and scholars.

    Every single verse that I have ever used to illustrate a point, I have been told that I cannot take the Quran at face vale. I have been told recently (by the chief ISOC scholar) that every verse must be viewed in the light of "classical understanding", and such understanding only comes with study.

    Now people appear to be telling me that some verses can be taken at face value. But I am prepared to wager a tidy sum that still no one will be able to provide a list of verses that can be taken at face value, and the ones that need interpretation. Yet if I (or another sceptic) cites a verse, we will very quickly be told whether or not it needs an interpretation, depending on what our position is.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Still doesn't mean that he knows what someone else is thinking.

    Kraixo stated that he took the verses that describe Allah, at face value, without interpretation. Tawheed then told that Kraixo didn't mean what he said. That has nothing to do with Islamic Theology. That has to do with mind reading.

    So, this is an element of Basic Islamic Theology that I'm not entirely clear of...
    Which verses mean what they say, and which verses don't? And how do you tell which is which?
    From observation, is seems to be down to convenience, because every time I ask the question, I am fobbed of with some vague excuse, usually involving knowledge and scholars.

    Every single verse that I have ever used to illustrate a point, I have been told that I cannot take the Quran at face vale. I have been told recently (by the chief ISOC scholar) that every verse must be viewed in the light of "classical understanding", and such understanding only comes with study.

    Now people appear to be telling me that some verses can be taken at face value. But I am prepared to wager a tidy sum that still no one will be able to provide a list of verses that can be taken at face value, and the ones that need interpretation. Yet if I (or another sceptic) cites a verse, we will very quickly be told whether or not it needs an interpretation, depending on what our position is.
    I'm going to avoid wasting my time with you, it is not difficult to find what someone means from context and I don't intend to spend my time explaining to one such as yourself.

    Enjoy the rest of your evening.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kraixo)
    Common sense

    I am following Ahle Sunnah Wal Jammah.

    More info:- http://www.islaamnet.com/aqeedah.html
    So, to clarify, do you take the verses describing Allah's physical attributes at face value, or do you believe that they are require interpretation?

    (I appreciate that Tawheed knows what you think, but I thought that it would be nice to ask you as well)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    I'm going to avoid wasting my time with you, it is not difficult to find what someone means from context and I don't intend to spend my time explaining to one such as yourself.
    I'll take that as an "I don't know", or an "I do know, but I have a suspicion that my answer won't stand up to scrutiny".

    I will always take the time to explain my position and, if required, highlight the flaws in anothers argument, regardless of how offensive or intellectually lacking it may be.

    Still, if you consider the "I know, but I'm not telling the likes of you" approach to be valid and appropriate, then I guess that's up to you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    catholics and protestants differ on their holy books.
    What do you mean by this?

    Sunni's and shia's are also much much closer to each other than catholics and protestants.
    It depends what protestant Church you are comparing to the Catholic Church.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    Then surely if she wasn't needed for the dua, but still part of ahlulbayt then why didn't the Prophet make the dua, and then ask her to come in when he said these are my ahlulbayt?

    I personally don't see how she can be part of Ahlulbayt when the hadith you even showed says :

    Umm Salamah said, “Am I one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You have your separate place.

    If she was part of the ahlulbayt, then surely the Prophet would have said yes to this question?

    Another issue arises at Mubahillah, if this was a one off, then why didn't the Prophet take any of his wives when the Quran says : Bring your women, but he only bought the same very 5: Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Fatima and himself, and made the claim of ahlulbayt?

    But I guess, you are indeed entitled to your opinion on this issue.
    Asalaamu Alaikum brother/sister (peace be upon you)

    I believe that the because the prophet's s.a.w wives were already included in the ahlul bayt due to the verse 33:33 then they did not need dua. Hence those sayings of the prophet s.a.w and that prophet s.a.w wanted the 5 to be also included. Alhamdulillah I love them all.

    I am no scholar but I still look into things well before making a statement and would refrain from saying out of my own head without the context in detail if the interpretations and narrations are there. Basically I try to make conclusions after looking at all sides, not before. And to me the shias interpretations of the cloak event honestly appeared very vague and somehow like as if links were missing.

    Now I know brother/sister that majority of the Muslims do hold the view that I have accepted too. But then again I still did not play bias and looked into it before accepting.

    Moreover, I would rather focus on myself on how to be a better Muslim than judging the first Ummah for their actions etc let alone the family of the prophet S.A.W whom he loved or his close and loved companions who stood beside with him in difficult times.

    I always remember the prophecy of how the last Ummah will curse the first.

    May Allah guide us all and forgive us for saying anything wrong. Ameen
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Asalaamu Alaikum brother/sister (peace be upon you)

    I believe that the because the prophet's s.a.w wives were already included in the ahlul bayt due to the verse 33:33 then they did not need dua. Hence those sayings of the prophet s.a.w and that prophet s.a.w wanted the 5 to be also included. Alhamdulillah I love them all.

    I am no scholar but I still look into things well before making a statement and would refrain from saying out of my own head without the context in detail if the interpretations and narrations are there. Basically I try to make conclusions after looking at all sides, not before. And to me the shias interpretations of the cloak event honestly appeared very vague and somehow like as if links were missing.

    Now I know brother/sister that majority of the Muslims do hold the view that I have accepted too. But then again I still did not play bias and looked into it before accepting.

    Moreover, I would rather focus on myself on how to be a better Muslim than judging the first Ummah for their actions etc let alone the family of the prophet S.A.W whom he loved or his close and loved companions who stood beside with him in difficult times.

    I always remember the prophecy of how the last Ummah will curse the first.

    May Allah guide us all and forgive us for saying anything wrong. Ameen
    Salam brother/sister

    I don't want to have a massive debate on this but what do you mean by the shia interpretation being vague? Our, and your own hadiths confirm many of our beliefs, including Quran and Ahlulbayt, Ahlulbayt being pure and even the fact that there are 12 successors after the Prophet (yes, check your hadiths, I believe Bukhari and Muslim mention this and others). If the hadiths say that Um Salama asked if she was part of ahlulbayt and Prophet refused, then that's what we believe.

    Remember, simply because the 'majority follow x, thus x is correct' isn't a valid argument. In fact, one could say that majority are Christians, does that make Christianity somehow correct?

    Who is the last ummah? And are you saying others previously haven't cursed anyone? Please also note, cursing is forbidden in Islam, what I believe you mean, is asking Allah for the removal of his mercy on someone. Please also note, how the act of cursing hazrat Ali carried on for many years before the Friday prayer, and yet no-one ever comments on that.

    Final point, I mean this sincerely, can you please elaborate further on what difficult times were. For instance, the Battle of Ohod, is this a difficult time?

    Nonetheless, I agree with the notion of focusing on our selves, to improve our faith and actions in this world, however following the truth, in my humble opinion, has equal importance.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    Salam brother/sister

    I don't want to have a massive debate on this but what do you mean by the shia interpretation being vague? Our, and your own hadiths confirm many of our beliefs, including Quran and Ahlulbayt, Ahlulbayt being pure and even the fact that there are 12 successors after the Prophet (yes, check your hadiths, I believe Bukhari and Muslim mention this and others). If the hadiths say that Um Salama asked if she was part of ahlulbayt and Prophet refused, then that's what we believe.

    Remember, simply because the 'majority follow x, thus x is correct' isn't a valid argument. In fact, one could say that majority are Christians, does that make Christianity somehow correct?

    Who is the last ummah? And are you saying others previously haven't cursed anyone? Please also note, cursing is forbidden in Islam, what I believe you mean, is asking Allah for the removal of his mercy on someone. Please also note, how the act of cursing hazrat Ali carried on for many years before the Friday prayer, and yet no-one ever comments on that.

    Final point, I mean this sincerely, can you please elaborate further on what difficult times were. For instance, the Battle of Ohod, is this a difficult time?

    Nonetheless, I agree with the notion of focusing on our selves, to improve our faith and actions in this world, however following the truth, in my humble opinion, has equal importance.
    Wa'alaikum Asalaam brother/sister.

    Yes same I don't want debate just general discussion would be good as I feel I am not capable on these issues through typing. I would like to hear your views etc.

    And yes I know why shias believe that. I have shia friends and I looked into the issue of ahlul bayt from them and also my sunni friends. I don't like using the word 'yours' and 'mines' when refering to hadiths. I just to stick authenticity.

    By 'vague' I don't know actually how to explain hence I used that word. But I really do feel that shias interpretation was like somehow like when someone spots a specific words and revolve all their belief on that. I think I am making this even more complex for you to understand, wish it was in person. Let me try again. I honestly felt that the interpretations did not include the whole picture but focuses on a particular part that makes them seem right. Whereas, the sunnis did give the whole picture like in more detail that made more sense to me. Now please don't ask me how ahah I can't express it on here.

    Trust me I have shia and sunni friends and have seen them debate on these issues infront of me ahah. And I always end up feeling more content with the sunni side.

    One thing I have noticed shias always end up saying it is your hadiths etc and then the sunnis saying if it ours then how come you read it ahaha. And I am just there like in the middle ok. There has been times where I stepped in to defend my shia friends as my sunni friends do really get passionate about it. Not a bad thing though in debates.

    And I know that majority does not necessary mean correct that is why I said I looked at both sides to not be bias on the matter of ahlul bayt.

    Whenever I present that prophecy about the Ummah, shias have said the exact same thing to me as if I hate or not care for Ali r.a or they do same to sunnis. But to me I reflect upon that not because of that reason is beacuse I do not want to part of cursing. And you said that cursing is not permissable Alhamdulillah for that. Because my shias friends have spent hours telling me it is because Allah does. And still I have denied obviously.

    About the companions of prophet s.a.w being with him during battles and supporting him is what I meant. How can a Muslim not know that? Or maybe I don't know that shias don't accept it at all.

    http://sunnahonline.com/library/hist...ed-caliphs-the
    I just read this would recommend for you to read just for an overview.

    And this about Abu Bakar r.a. if you have time in shaa Allah.
    http://sunnahonline.com/library/hist...bakr-as-siddiq

    Wish you All well brother/sister in shaa Allah. Peace.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)

    Wish you All well brother/sister in shaa Allah. Peace.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    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.
    Jazak Allah khair brother/sister. You are understanding and sensible in your response masha'Allah.

    Oh yes, one of my shia friend actually mentioned the Honayn during a debate lol. But I will actually have to look into it tbh. And I will read this post more carefully once I get a better understanding in shaa Allah.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)

    As seen, unfortunately many of the Holy Prophet's companions left him and ran. Hope I have cleared up what I previously said.
    Read the verses after that verse. Allah accepts the repentance of those who sincerely repent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Thanks brother/sister.

    The hadith does not state that Umm Salama is not part of the ahlul bayt. I think one should understand the context as to when and why it happened. I believe her to be included as the rest of the prophet's s.a.w wives part of the ahlul bayt.
    In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the merciful.

    Salamunalaykum dear sister, and thank you for the response. May Allah swt guide us all in following the true way and in intepretation, and illuminate for us haq, and truth.

    I have to stress here, Umm Salama, r.a, was one of the most noble wives of Rasullah s.a.w. She is part of his family. However , the term 'ahlulbayt' in this verse is referred to a specific and select group of people. I will analyse the points you have made in this recent post.

    I also believe, the context of the hadith and verse proves this is for the five.

    Narration 1:

    al-Tirmidhi records:
    حدثنا قتيبة حدثنا محمد بن سليمان الأصبهاني عن يحيى بن عبيد عن عطاء بن أبي رباح عن عمر بن أبي سلمة ربيب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لما نزلت هذه الآية على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيرا } في بيت أم سلمة فدعا فاطمة وحسنا وحسينا فجللهم بكساء وعلي خلف ظهره فجللهم بكساء ثم قال اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي فأذهب عنهم الرجس وطهرهم تطهيرا قالت أم سلمة وأنا معهم يا نبي الله قال أنت على مكانك وأنت على خير

    Narrated Umar ibn Abi Salamah who was brought up by the Prophet, peace be upon him: When the verse, Allah only desires to keep away from you all blemishes (al-rijz), O Ahl al-Bayt, and to purify you absolutely (Qur’an 33:33), was revealed to the Prophet at the home of Umm Salamah he called Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn and covered them with a cloak. Ali was behind him, the Prophet also covered him under the same cloak and then said, “O Allah! these are my Ahl al-Bayt, so keep away from them all blemishes (al-rijz) and purify them absolutely.” Umm Salamah said, “Am I one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?” He replied, “You have your separate place. But, you are unto a good ending.”
    al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi) [annotators: Ahmad Muhammad Shakir and others] vol. 5, p. 351, Number 3205
    Shaykh al-Albani says:
    صحيح
    Sahih
    According to this narration the verse of tatheer was revealed before prophet(Saw) made the supplication for Hz ali(ra), fatima(ra), hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) under the cloak. If we keep this in mind, then it is illogical for the Prophet(saw) to make supplication for the Ahle kisa to be purified AFTER the verse was revealed, because the verse states that Allah had ALREADY intended to purify Ahlebayt.
    Point number one:

    There are a few very important points to make regarding the context of the verse, and ayah. Notice dear sister, that as soon as the ayah is revealed, the first thing Rasullah s.a.w does is gather Ali a.s, Fatima a.s, Hasan a.s and Hussain a.s. As soon as the ayah is revealed, this is the first thing he has chosen to do, which is essential to its context.

    Umm Salama r.a was at his house. He does not even mention her prior, or affirm she is purified, or say anything at all to her at all. This is something one should ponder over. If she was already purified, or Allah swt intended to do so, why has Rasullah s.a.w not mentioned anything to her when the ayah is revealed? Why has he not said, Umm Salama, Allah has revealed to me that he intends to keep from you all uncleanliness , or ward away from you all uncleanliness? Surely, if the ayah was primarily referring to the wives, the first thing Rasullah s.a.w should have done, is looked over at Umm Salama r.a and told her 'Allah swt has revealed this to me about you'. Surely, the very first thing Rasullah s.a.w would have done is informed the wife whose house he is in the very moment the ayah was revealed that a verse had been revealed in her honour? But he does not tell her any such thing at all.

    But we find in the hadith, he does no such thing. Rather, the first thing he does , and this is absolutely pertinent as soon as Allah swt reveals the verse, is call for Fatima a.s, Hasan a.s, Husain a.s, and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.



    Point number two:

    In the ayah, it states Allah swt intends to keep impurity away from the ahlulbayt a.s - meaning, they are not impure, but he wishes to continue to ward of all uncleanliness. What Rasullah s.a.w is doing is showing to the entire Ummah and proclaiming and reaffirming before Allah swt, that it is Ali a.s, Hasan a.s, Hussain a.s and Fatima a.s who this verse is intended for.

    So in a sense, it is not just Rasullah s.a.w asking Allah swt to add them to the list of those he wishes to keep impurity from and thoroughly purify. Rather, Rasullah s.a.w is making a very clear statement , and is reaffirming as to who Allah swt has bestowed such an enormous blessing on.

    He does not say "Also purify them", or "O Allah, these are from among my ahlulbayt, so also purify them".

    From the hadith, rather than Rasullah s.a.w trying to make an additional prayer, it seems as though what he is doing is making a clear statement about who is being purified, and he is reaffirming what Allah swt has said, and he is utterly passionate about what has been revealed, so much so, he has gathered the ones referred to in the ayah, and has reaffirmed the great bounty and distinction Allah swt has bestowed upon them.


    It would only make sense when we say that 33:33 is for the wives since he(saw) tells his wife, “Inti ala khair.” The Prophet(saw) knew that this verse was originally revealed about the wives and he is the one who placed the verses 33:33 in context with the other verses in Surat al Ahzab, So he knew that she was already purified that’s why he told her to not worry since she is already on goodness, but He now wanted Allah to purify Ali(ra) And Fatima(ra), hz hassan(ra) and hz hussain(ra) whom he loved and considered from his ahlul-bayt, So he invited them under the cloak and made Dua for all of them so that Allah may purify them also.

    Regarding this narration where hz umm salama(ra) was asked not to enter, then this falls under the narration of the hadith according to the meaning: Al-riwaya bil ma’ana. Without even filtering out the weak from the authentic in those narrations, we can assume that they all mean the same thing, which is that Um Salama(ra) was always from Ahlul Bayt(that 33:33 refers to the wives) and that she is not in need of the dua’a of the Prophet(saw) while the other four are in need of it.
    There are a few important points to make here:

    1. If this ayah was revealed to Umm Salama r.a, he was with her himself at her house. Surely, if Allah swt revealed an ayah about umm Salama r.a and she is present herself, would it not make sense for Rasullah s.a.w to atleast inform Umm Salama r.a that Allah swt intends to keep all impurities away from her, and purify her ? Surely, if a verse is revealed about someone, who is right there when it is done so, Rasullah s.a.w would inform and tell them about this enormus blessing and bountry?

    2. Umm Salama r.a asks to enter the cloak, and she is told she has her own position, or she has her position, and she has a good ending. It is really important here to ask in addition to point 1, as to why Umm Salama r.a has not been told Allah swt has already purified you? Why does she herself, not understand this verse is for her? Why has Rasullah s.a.w not told her she is already among the purified, or she is his ahlulbayt? Clearly, she is being told she her her own special position, and tha she is a good and pious wife, but the ones who have been singled out for the honour are not the wives.

    3. Why does Rasullah s.a.w use a cloak? This is a very symbolic thing. A cloak implies seperation, distinction, in that Rasullah s.a.w is trying to make it clear that only the ones in the cloak are those whom this verse has been revealed for.

    4. It is also extremely important to the context that the first group of people Rasullah s.a.w informs of this great bountry and blessing is not Umm Salama r.a who was right next to him when it was revealed, but rather, Hasan , Hussain, Ali and Fatima a.s.

    (Original post by mil88)
    x
    I've added you to this inshAllah to share my post with you too
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    x
    (Original post by h333)
    x


    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.”
    1. Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 6 page 228 Tradition 25956
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps in PM's, people will take my pure academic discussion out of context, and try to, behind my back , discuss how bad i am for simply bringing up Quran and Sunnah, while maintaining respect.

    Umm Aisha must be respected , not insulted, and so on. But this does not mean one can not question what she has done, especially as it is in the Quran itself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Jazak Allah khair brother/sister. You are understanding and sensible in your response masha'Allah.

    Oh yes, one of my shia friend actually mentioned the Honayn during a debate lol. But I will actually have to look into it tbh. And I will read this post more carefully once I get a better understanding in shaa Allah.
    That's completely fine, inshallah all of us can increase not only our knowledge, but also our faith here.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    That's completely fine, inshallah all of us can increase not only our knowledge, but also our faith here.
    Ilahiameen
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Read the verses after that verse. Allah accepts the repentance of those who sincerely repent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then Allah will accept repentance after that for whom He wills; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    Quran 9:27

    Do you mean this verse brother/sister?

    Indeed, we all hope Allah does, but the verse says 'whom He wills' and therefore none of us know who has been forgiven.

    Nonetheless, forgiven or not, I was raising the point because this really showed the Holy Prophet who was willing to sacrifice his life for the Prophet, and indeed shows who loved him the most at that time, in my humble opinion anyway.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    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?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 6, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.