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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    He wouldn't be Shia because there's nothing on the imams in the Quran
    He wouldn't be Sunni because again, there's nothing on the caliphate and ahadith that differ between Sunni and Shia
    He wouldn't be able to pray properly because again, not looking at ahadith and description of prayer is vague in the Quran
    I guess he would be Quranist? Because they don't use ahadith at all and only use the Quran right?
    Respectfully, I believe you're trying to simplify a more complex issue.

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    Respectfully, I believe you're trying to simplify a more complex issue.

    The notion of 'imams' is indeed in the Quran, likewise with Ahlulbayt. There's also verses about loving the Prophet's kin, and the fact that there must be a living leader or imam today (present tense) is mentioned in the Quran. (Obey Allah, the Prophet, and those vested with authority among you, this verse is in the present tense, the verse itself uses 'minkum')
    You're probably right
    I know ahlul bayt are mentioned in ayat al tatheer in the Quran
    I know that as well, but they wouldn't know about all 12 a'immah
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by z33)
    You're probably right
    I know ahlul bayt are mentioned in ayat al tatheer in the Quran
    I know that as well, but they wouldn't know about all 12 a'immah
    Well, in fact they may actually realise this. You see, this concept of having 12 successors isn't a new notion made specifically for the Holy Prophet. I've forgotten the verse (perhaps I will comment on this later), but there's a verse referring to the 12 successors of Prophet Musa in the Quran. Using that, along with the verses about Ahlulbayt, and indeed other verses, one of them being the notion of a living imam or one who has received authority from God, perhaps he could put the pieces of the puzzle together.

    Of course, the person will not know much about their lives and a lot of other necessary details.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    x
    I just wanted to hilight another hadith , an authentic one, i forgot to mention the other day. Again, i am only stating point blank almost verbatim what the hadiths say and the obvious points to grasp from them and derive from them. I am not slandering anyone.


    Abu Hudhaifah narrated - and he was one of the companions of 'Abdullãh bin Mas'üd - from'Aishah who said: "I told theProphet (ﷺ) about a man, so hesaid: 'I do not like to talk about aman, even if I were to get this orthat (for doing so)." She said: "Isaid: 'O Messenger of Allah!Safiyyah is a woman who is ..." andshe used her hand as if to indicatethat she is short - "So he said:'You have said a statement which,if it were mixed in with the waterof the sea, it would pollute it."
    Saheeh -Tirmidhi

    I said to the Prophet (ﷺ): It is enough for you in Safiyyah that she is such and such (the other version than Musaddad's has meaning that she was short-statured. He replied; You have said a word which would change the sea if it were mixed in it. She said: I imitated a man before him (out of disgrace). He said: I do not like that I imitate anyone even if I should get such and such.


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

    Essentially , again, we find enimity between her and other wifes. This time, it is back-biting over Safiyyah, insituating to the prophet that she is too short, and that her short stature is a flaw - is Rasullah s.a.w content with such a short woman? - the same wife who she threw a plate of good food onto the ground in the hadith i showed you yesterday, in anger and jealousy:


    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’.

    I fully understand she is not Mas'm. Umulmimineen Aisha is not infallible. But surely, one can not excuse behaviour like this under the pretext one is not infallible. We do not find conduct like this in Khadija r.a, Umm Salama r.a, Umm sauda r.a, etc and they are not infallible either.

    It is truly heart-breaking when i am told i am insulting umm aisha, or i am a kaffir unbeliever, or a 'rafidah', when i am spoken about behind my back, for simply stating that, on account of clear evidence, i hold a different opinion about who is the most truthworthy, who i will follow in terms of the true sunnah, and my opinion on personalities, their histories, and therefore actions they have commited.

    I will never abuse, mock, revile her, it is not my place to do such a thing as a muslim. But surely, i am allowed an academic opinion on such clear proof, without mass hysteria, people misquoting me, and using simple, pure, and cordial academic discussion to provoke secterianism simply because someone has reached a different historical opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)


    Just ponder over this for a second. Imagine, Muhammed s.a.w telling Um Aisha, that you have just uttered a statement, if you had mixed it in with the water of the sea, it would pollute it. Meaning, the statement is vile. This is not me slandering Umulmimineen Aisha, i'm just point blank stating what Rasullah s.a.w himself has stated.
    Just ponder over this an hour - most of the ahadith you quoted that shows Aisha (rali) in a negative light are in fact narrated by Aisha herself. What does that suggest about Aisha (rali)?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We find narrations which state that the most beloved woman to Rasullah s.a.w was Umulmimineen Aisha. The most beloved man were Hadrath Abu Bakr, and hadrath Umar.

    It isn't difficult, with all due respect, to find a serious academic flaw in this.

    It is widely known, that Fatima a.s, was the most beloved woman to Rasullah s.a.w during the life time of Rasullah s.a.w and after khadja r.a had passed away.

    If we argue that it is not about blood relations, but imaan and spiritual superiority, than one can go no further than Fatima a.s - who is one of the four woman who are the leaders of the women in paradise. Fatima binte muhammed a.s is superior in that department.

    If we argue based on obidience, Fatima a.s never disobeyed Rasullah s.a.w, we find no instances where she raised her voice, or lied to Rasullah s.a.w.

    Fatima a.s is the one who was one of the five in the cloak, Allah swt commanded the prophet s.a.w to 'bring his women' - not his daughter, yet, he only brought one woman, that is Fatima a.s.

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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Just ponder over this an hour - most of the ahadith you quoted that shows Aisha (rali) in a negative light are in fact narrated by Aisha herself. What does that suggest about Aisha (rali)?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Salamunalaykum brother,

    It can be argued that it shows one is willing to discuss their flaws and faults, rather than hiding them. I will give you that.

    But still , it does not in any way, answer the question about the seriousness of many of these actions.

    I could commit many indecent and wrongful acts, and then own up to them and say yes, you know i did this wrong and that wrong.

    Perhaps people could say, yes, he is a man who owns up. But what they can't say is, he is an example to all of humanity.

    I have already pondered over this before, many times.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sciatic)
    Just ponder over this an hour - most of the ahadith you quoted that shows Aisha (rali) in a negative light are in fact narrated by Aisha herself. What does that suggest about Aisha (rali)?


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

    Such as:

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

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

    Allah swt himself reveals ayahs about this event:

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

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)

    There is no doubt in my mind and i believe many sunni brothers will absolutely concurr, that the most beloved woman to him was Fatima a.s.
    How can they when there's an authentic hadith clearly suggesting otherwise - that among the woman of that time Aisha (rali) was the most beloved to the Messenger (sal). We do not know in terms of what she is, but it doesn't matter. As for being the better role model in most cases - it is clearly Fatima (as), not many would argue on that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    One could argue however, many of these were publicly known and we recite over the verses.

    Such as:

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

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

    Allah swt himself reveals ayahs about this event:

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

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

    People change and she obviously repented - or why didn't the Prophet (sal) divorce her? The Quran doesn't curse her in anyway and the door was wide open for repentance. I'm sure the Quran would never come to the defense for any perpetual sinner - it did clear her name against the monstrous adultery claims.

    She and Ali (both of whom Allah is pleased with) never did actually get on well - but that doesn't mean we have to chose one over the other. Our love for Ali may be more than for Aisha, but we don't view them negatively in anyway simply because Allah's Messenger loved them both.
    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.
    Asalamu Alaikum brother/sister

    I did some research on this battle and to why shias may think of the companions running away as being bad even today. But found out that their main concern is with Abu Bakar R.A and Umar R.A.

    However, if this is the case then I do not agree with accusing them of running away, or betraying intentionally.

    Hadeeth and Books of Seerah explicitly state that Umar(ra) was among those who did not flee.

    (i). We read the SAHIH Hadith in “Musnad Ahmad” volume 23 page 274 Hadith #14731:
    فَانْطَلَقَ النَّاسُ إِلَّا أَنَّ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّىاللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَهْطًا مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ، وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِغَيْرَ كَثِيرٍ، ثَبَتَ مَعَهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ،وَمِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَالْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ،وَا بْنُهُ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، وَأَبُو سُفْيَانَ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَرَبِيعَةُبْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَأَيْمَنُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ وَهُوَ ابْنُ أُمِّ أَيْمَنَ، وَأُسَامَةُبْنُ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ هَوَازِنَ عَلَى جَمَلٍ لَهُ أَحْمَرَ فِي يَدِهِرَايَةٌ لَهُ سَوْدَاءُ فِي رَأْسِ رُمْحٍ طَوِيلٍ لَهُ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، وَهَوَازِنُخَلْف َهُ

    Ya’qoub narrated from his Father from Ibn Ishaq from ‘Assim ibn ‘Umar bin Qatada from ‘Abdul-Rahman ibn Jabir from Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah: The people retreated but the Prophet(saw) was accompanied by a group from the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and his Ahlul-Bayt, Those who held their ground and stayed with him were Abu Bakr an ‘Umar and from his Ahlul-Bayt ‘Ali ibn abi Talib and al-‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul-Mutallib and his son al-Fadl and Abu Suffiyan bin al-Harith and Raba’iyah bin al-Harith and Ayman bin ‘Ubeid and he is ibn Umm-Ayman and Usamah ibn Zaid, he said: and a Man from Hawzan (until the end of the narration).

    (ii). This is also mentioned in the book “Majma’a al-Zawaed” under “Kitab al-Maghazi wal Siyar” in the chapter “Ghazwat Hunein” Hadith # 10265:

    وعن جابر بن عبد الله قال : لما استقبلنا وادي حنين قال : انحدرنا في واد من أودية تهامة أجوف حطوط إنما ننحدر فيه انحدارا ، قال : وفي عماية الصبح ، وقد كان القوم قد كمنوا لنا في شعابه ، وفي أجنابه ، ومضائقه ، قد أجمعوا وتهيئوا وأعدوا
    قال : فوالله ما راعنا ونحن منحطون إلا الكتائب قد شدت علينا شدة رجل واحد ، وانهزم الناس راجعين فانشمروا لا يلوي أحد على أحد
    وانحاز رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – ذات اليمين ، ثم قال : ” إلي أيها الناس ، إلا أن مع رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم – رهطا من المهاجرين والأنصار ، وأهل بيته غير كثير
    وفي من ثبت معه أبو بكر وعمر ، عليهما السلام ، ومن أهل بيته علي بن أبي طالب ، والعباس بن عبد المطلب ، وابنه الفضل بن عباس ، وأبو سفيان بن الحارث ، وربيعة بن الحارث ، وأيمن بن عبيد وهو ابن أم أيمن ، وأسامة بن زيد ، عليهما السلام
    قال : ورجل من هوازن على جمل له أحمر ، في يده راية له سوداء في رأس رمح له طويل أمام الناس وهوازن خلفه ، فإذا أدرك طعن برمحه ، فإذا فاته الناس رفع لمن وراءه فاتبعوه

    (iii). Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya of Ibn Kathir:
    فلما رأى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أمر الناس ومعه رهط من أهل بيته‏:‏ علي بن أبي طالب، وأبو سفيان ابن الحارث بن عبد المطلب، وأخوه ربيعة بن الحارث بن عبد المطلب، والفضل بن العباس، وقيل الفضيل بن أبي سفيان، وأيمن ابن أم أيمن، وأسامة بن زيد‏.‏
    ومن الناس من يزيد فيهم قثم بن العباس، ورهط من المهاجرين‏:‏ منهم أبو بكر، وعمر، والعباس آخذ بحكمة بغلته البيضاء وهو عليها قد شجرها‏.‏
    It mentions the names of those who stood firm with prophet…(and group of Al-Ansar: Among them Abu Bakr, Umar and Abbas…)

    Similarly, we read in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

    There remained between a hundred and eighty Companions with the Prophet . These included Abu Bakr, `Umar, Al-`Abbas, `Ali, Al-Fadl bin `Abbas, Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith, Ayman the son of Umm Ayman and Usamah bin Zayd. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

    (iv). Al-Seerah Al-Nabawi of ibn Hisham:

    من ثبت معه صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏:‏
    وفيمن ثبت معه من المهاجرين أبو بكر وعمر ، ومن أهل بيته علي بن أبي طالب والعباس بن عبدالمطلب ، وأبو سفيان بن الحارث ، وابنه ، والفضل بن العباس ، وربيعة بن الحارث ، وأسامة بن زيد ، وأيمن بن عبيد ، قتل يومئذ ‏.‏
    Those who stood firm with the Messenger :
    And those who stood firm with him from among the Muhajirin were Abu Bakr and Umar, and from Ahlul Bayt Ali bin Abi Talib and Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib.

    Also I would like to agre with the following:

    Muhammad bin Ishaq, the Imam of Maghazi, narrates from ‘Aasim bin ‘Umar bin Qatadah from Abdur-Rahman bin Jabir bin ‘Abdullah from his father and in it he mentions those who remained with the Prophet (saw):
    Among his family members:
    1. ‘Ali
    2. Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin ‘Abdul Muttalib
    3. Rabi’ah bin Harith bin ‘Abdul Muttalib
    4. Fadhl bin ‘Abbas
    5. ‘Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib
    Among others:
    1. Abu Bakr
    2. ‘Umar
    3. Usamah bin Zaid
    4. Ayman bin ‘Ubaid
    It was recorded by Ibn Hisham in Seerah (2/443), Ahmad bin Hanbal in Musnad (15027) and Al-Bayhaqi in Dalail an-Nubuwwah (5/126-127). Most of the authors on Seerah do mention it.

    Number of sahaba who stood firm with the prophet(saw):

    روى الترمذي
    1739 – حدثنا محمد بن عمر بن علي المقدمي حدثني أبي عن سفيان بن حسين عن عبيد الله بن عمر عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال:
    – (لقد رأيتنا يوم حنين وإن الفئتين لموليتان وما مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مائة رجل) .
    At-Tirmidi narrated: After giving chain of narrator till Ibn Umar who said: I have seen on the day of Hunain two groups turned their backs and there was with the messenger of Allah (saw) 100 men.

    وروى أحمد والحاكم من حديث عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن مسعود عن أبيه قال: ” كنت مع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم حنين فولى عنه الناس؛ وثبت معه ثمانون رجلا من المهاجرين والأنصار،
    Ahmed and Al-Hakim narrated from hadeeths of Abdul Rahman bin Abdullah bin Masud from his father who said: “We were with the messenger of Allah (saw) on the day of Hunain when people deserted him, and those who stood firm where 80 men from Muhajirin and Al-Ansar.

    We say: There is an agreement that a group of companions remained with the Prophet (saw) and they did not flee. In a tradition narrated by Tirmidhi (1689) –Ibn Hajar said it is Hasan and Al-Albani considered it Sahih – through Ibn ‘Umar (ra) that less than hundred people remained with the Prophet (saw) during Hunain. Hence, as long as there is a possibility that a companion could be among those who were steady with the Prophet (saw) one must abstain from speculating that such and such person fled from the battlefield. If Allah wanted to character-assassin someone He would have done so by taking names but rather He forgave them. We know from the above narration that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were steady in the battlefield, but even those who are not mentioned should not be accused directly of fleeing unless if there is a proof that so and so person left the battlefield. This is the best and safe methodology based on Qur’anic principles.

    Also, it is to be mentioned that after fleeing from the battlefield they returned back to the Prophet (saw). Hence, they were forgiven by Allah.

    Another thing is that they did not flee because they were coward. Qur’an never calls them coward. If they were coward then how come they came to face the enemy who was larger in number? Even when they left away they returned back again to fight with the enemy. A coward never endangers his life for someone else. We know the cases of hypocrites who would leave the army before entering the battlefield or rather give excuses to not join the battle. The Hunain incident was in when the army of Hawazin all of a sudden started shooting arrows, so the Muslims were shattered and dispersed to save their life leaving aside the Messenger of Allah(saw). This no doubt was a sin but Allah had forgiven them and they again went for Tabuk to fight for the cause of Allah.

    Lastly, I would like to say I am not a person to make a conclusion before knowing about its context etc and I do not like to be emotional about it. Especially, if an individual has done something in history of Islam that appears negative at first, that does not mean I will stick to it and not look beyond to the reasons etc.

    I have looked into it now on this particular battle and see no need to argue about the companions (who were Muslims).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    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.
    Asalamu Alaikum brother. No need to apologise you are busy with exams.

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

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

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

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

    Sorry for too many questions.
    Offline

    20
    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?
    That depends On what they actively reject, if anything, or what particular positions they hold.

    If they are unaware of hadeeth literature, it does not make them a 'Quranist/hadeeth rejector' as the absence of knowledge does not equate to acknowledging and rejecting a source.
    If he holds no sect specific interpretation of ayaat from the Quran in that he understands it as the vast majority of groups do, he is Sunni by default (hence the term, ahlus-sunnah wal-jama'ah). As for the term 'plain Muslim', this doesn't really mean anything. In terms of fiqh, he would follow his own ijtihad due to the absence of any other option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I don't believe i made a dichotomy, i'll explain why.
    Firstly, I apologise for the delayed reply

    The dichotomy is rather clear, as quoted here, from post 108 of this thread:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Furthermore, by virtue of the essence of Tawheed, Allah is absolute, he can not be divided, he is Allah, and is one of essence. Therefore one can not say, Allah is one, but he has hands, shin, feet, fingers (yes , this is also said ), his hands are different from his shins, his feet are different from his hands, because that would contradict his absolute oneness. The creation are divisible by essence. The angels have wings, and constituent subunits.

    I must make this clear, even if one states, the hands, shin, fingers, feet of Allah swt are not like human hands, shins, feet, this is still dividing Allah swt into constituent sub-units, and therby detracting from his absolute oneness.
    Here are a few points i would like you to explain, if possible inshAllah:

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

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

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

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

    In summary, i reject the belief Allah swt has constituent sub-units, by his essence. He is Allah swt, he is ahad, one in his absoluteness, and can not be divided by his essence into constituent subunits.
    In terms of a metaphorical interpretation, this is what has been aforementioned as ta'weel. But the correct stance is that those being involved in ta'weel do not exclusively ascribe metaphorical interpretations at the denial of all else, keeping in mind that th very subject under discussion is one which mankind is incapable of fully grasping. After all, we are trying to understand the kayfiyyah (modality/details/specifics) and the dhaat (essence) of the Creator whilst we are one among many of His creations!

    As we know, however, your issue is with the stance of tathbeet (accepting what is stated in the Quran and sunnah as it is stated), for you equate it to tashbeeh (anthropomorphism, attributing human features to God). I thought that the quotes in my previous post would perhaps be sufficient to distinguish between these, hoping for minimal input on my own part. I feel the need to repeat a segment of my last post here:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The position which you mention more is tathbeet, perhaps likening it to tashbeeh. This is harmful to one, as it encourages one to see other's as disbelievers based on incorrectly interpreting their views. Tashbeeh is anthropomorphism. Tathbeet is to affirm the words that Allah has used to describe himself, yet to assign its full meaning and details to Allah, as man is incapable of encompassing full knowledge of the Creator through a mere human intellect.


    It is stated in al-Fiqh al-Akbar:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    تاب انرفىيط في انًرشاته يٍ الآياخ في ذىحيذ الله وصفاذه جمّ جلانه يع َفي انكيف عُه سثحاَه: Submitting to Allah [Tafweedh] in the Mutashabihaat of Ayahs1, without a how/modality:

    28 -ٌٚٗ ٠ذ ٚٚجٗ ٚٔفظ وّب روشٖ الله رؼبٌٝ فٟ اٌمشآْ ,فّب روشٖ الله رؼبٌٝ فٟ اٌمشآْ ِٓ روش اٌٛجٗ ٚاٌ١ذ ٚإٌفظ فٙٛ طفبد ٌٗ ثلا و١ف.
    28- He added to Himself meanings of Yad (literal meaning is a Hand), Wajh (literal meaning is Face), and Nafs (literal meaning is Self); as Allah Ta‟ala mentioned in the Qur‟an. Hence, what Allah Ta‟ala mentioned about the Yad, Wajh, and Nafs, are meanings He added to Himself, without a “how” (modality).

    29 -ٚلا٠مبي :ئْ ٠ذٖ لذسرٗ أٚ ٔؼّزٗ ,لأْ ف١ٗ ئثـبي اٌظفخ [ٚ٘زا سد ػٍٝ ِٓ أساد رذذ٠ذ ِؼٕٝ اٌ١ذ ٚرفغ١ش٘ب ػٍٝ أٔٙب اٌمذسح أٚ إٌؼّخ دظشاً ,ٚالإِبَ ٠ش١ش ئٌٝ أْ ا٢٠خ اٌزٟ ٚسد ف١ٙب روشاٌ١ذ ٟ٘ ِٓ ا٢٠بد اٌّزشبثٙخ اٌزٟ لا٠ؼٍُ دم١مزٙب ٚوٕٙٙب ئلا الله ,ٚعج١ً إٌجبح فٟ رٌه ٘ٛ رفٛ٠غ اٌّؼٕٝ ِـٍمبً ئٌٝ الله ِغ رٕض٠ٙٗ جً ٚػلا ػٓ ِشبثٙخ اٌّخٍٛلبد فلا٠مبي ٠ذٌ دم١م١ٌخ ٚلاجبسدخ ِٚٓ لبي ثأٔٙب ػؼٛ ِٓ وً أٚ جضء ِٓ جغُ ِشوت أٚ جبسدخ فمذ وفش , ٚلا٠مبي و١ف] .ٚ٘ٛ لٛي أً٘ اٌمذس ٚالاػزضاي .
    29- It should not be said that His Yad definitively means His power or His bounty (exclusively), because such a definitive (and exclusive) interpretation may negate the meaning (Allah willed). This is the method of the (Qadariyyah) and the Mu'tazilah.

    ىٓ ٠ذٖ طفزٗ ثلا و١ف.30-
    30. Rather, His Yad is a meaning He added to Himself without a “how” [modality], (as there cannot be a how, because it is not similar to the creation, not limbs, organs, parts,...etc., a modality, for or shape can only be applied to the creation and attributes of the creation).

    [Al-Fiqh al-Akbar]

    An article of 'Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah is:
    ولا شيء مثله
    And there is nothing similar to Him

    Imam Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari said:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    If someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)? Our response is:
    The correct approach in our view is to affirm the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah said of Himself in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer” [ash-Shoora 42:11]. … So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports and the Qur’an and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam, which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched, bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven.End quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, [source: https://islamqa.info/en/151794 ]
    The key thing to take home is that the acceptable position of affirming what is stated by way of tathbeet is summarised as:
    a) affirm what Allah and His Messenger have related to us
    b) do not become concerned with the kayfiyyah because this is pointless, given the limits of our intellect and experiences

    The reason why this is acceptable is that, so long as there is no tashbeeh, they are affirming what the Quran and Sunnah have conveyed to us and limiting their own interpretation of this. Remember that this is one of the several approaches among Sunnis. As for any one particular group or individual and how they adhere to one of the stances or a mix between two, this depends on them and where they seek their knowledge from.

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

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

    (majhool kal-sahih) (مجهول كالصحيح)
    This explains nicely why I sought a limited conversation on this matter and advised against pursuing it for long.

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

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

    I'll give examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The term 'right hand' has been well known to be allegorically used to mean control, possession, power over.
    I do not believe that there is any need in exerting yourself to explain this matter to me and justify its meaning as you interpret it. I am, perhaps, much lesser inclined towards those who jump to discuss that Allah has a shin, hands, etc. than you may think.


    Summary points:

    1. Can one claim Allah is indivisible by essence, and then claim he is composed of two feet, fingers, a shin, two hands, and possibly a face - even if they affirm they are not like ours.
    2. True, one must not dwell on the unclear verses and add their own meaning. But surely, when verses are so clearly allegorical, is it not the wrong approach to affirm them to be literal, or affirm them and leave the meaning to Allah swt, which indirectly brings you to the problem set in summary point 1.
    1. Yes, but this has its conditions - such as affirming that Allah is not similar to His creaton, that He is far beyond being made of flesh and the like, that the reason for affirming them is that they are stated in the Quran and Sunnah and that the absolute meaning is left unto Allah for to encompass Allah's essence is beyond our understanding and capability.

    2. To claim that a verse is clearly allegorical is something that cannot be done without due caution. These are the words of Allah that are being subject to interpretation. If the mufassiroon have justified a particular meaning with sufficiently strong evidences, then that is fair enough. But we shouldn't fall into the mu'tazili approach of ignorant rationalism.

    Do you believe Allah by his essence, has two feet, fingers, a shin, a face, and two right hands, but these are not like ours, and you leave the howness of these attributes and he meaning to him?
    Ultimately, Tafweed is the best approach. This is to submit to what Allah has said and to concern oneself with what concerns him; to not delve into matters that are of no benefit or real result. What will you gain from discovering whether me or the next eprson follows the position of ta'weel or thathbeet? Does this make you closer to attaining jannah? Or shall you be in receipt of Allah's rahmah in return for pursuing this investigation?
    As I have already hinted, I follow not the position of those who seek to emphasise statements such as "God has a shin", "God has fingers", and so on. As a layman, I largely don't concern myself with such vain discussions. I seek to reflect on such ayaat and how they concern me personally, and seek to read the opinions related by the mufassireen - which may well mention more than one acceptable stance among Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. I do not assert that one or the other is the only correct interpretation, for Allah knows this best.

    Anyhow, since you ask regarding my belief specifically, I can summarise it below - however, I feel that the best way to do thisis to quote from my older post:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Imam al-Nasafi (Allah have mercy on him) states, "He [Allah] is not a body (jism), nor an atom (jawhar), nor is He something formed (musawwar), nor a thing limited (mahdud), nor a thing numbered (ma'dud), nor a thing portioned or divided, nor a thing compounded (mutarakkab), and nor does He come to end in Himself. He is not described by quiddity (al-mahiyya), or by quality (al-kayfiyya), nor is He placed in a space (al-makan); and time (al-zaman) does not affect Him. Nothing resembles Him; that is to say, nothing is like unto Him."

    Mulla Ali al-Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) states in his commentary of Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, "We are unable to comprehend Allah Most High. Whatever occurs in one's mind [regarding Allah's appearance], Allah is other than that, for Allah says: 'But they shall not encompass Him with their knowledge.'" (Minah al-Rawd al-Azhar fi sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar)

    Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam explains: "As such, this basic and central aqida in Allah's transcendence is the only requirement from a believer (along with general affirmation of all of Allah's attributes), and would be sufficient for one's salvation. Thereafter, there is no need for a simple believer to scrutinize the technical details of Allah's attributes, and there is definitely no need for disputes and arguments. Most Muslims – if not all – deny that Allah resembles His creation, thus argumentation and haste in declaring others as disbelievers must be avoided."
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    As per the shia-madhab, Allah swt can not, and will never be see. The reasons are among many as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.al-islam.org/enlightening...a-verses-22-23



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

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

    (sahih) (صحيح)



    With all due respect, I see no benefit in replying directly to your above post. The reason for this is that my last reply to you described and sought to clarify your misconceptions on the Sunni stances which involve subtle differences. You seem to be trying to jump the gun and go further into the discussion by involving the matter of whether Allah will be seen by the believers in the hereafter. I would like to, with the most polite intentions, make it clear that I am not interested in such manner of discussion. Such topics are beyond the layman's expertise anyway; poor discussion technique only makes things more awkward for us. We should be seeking the end point of the current discussion, not further reaching into other areas prematurely. Of course, our scholars have discussed this at length, with evidences, and their works may be referred to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    X
    Wa alaykum Salaam

    I apologize for late response firstly.

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

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

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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Asalamu Alaikum brother. No need to apologise you are busy with exams.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    Wa alaykum Salaam

    I apologize for late response firstly.

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

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

    I will research both battles in more depth and inshallah will get back to you.
    No problem problem brother/sister.

    The reason I mentioned that is because it did look like to me that the Shias had problems in specific with the Sahabas Umar r.a. and Abu Bakar r.a. during the battle. But it is Ok I got to research more about the battle of Honayn.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)
    Brother Tawheed can inshallah give a more indepth answer, but I will try to answer some points raised here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hope this helps.
    Thanks to the response brother/sister and some did help.

    The word shia as for as I know now just means follower/supporter/helper of another. And I don't in particular agree to using it as an ideology. If you say the word shia like say shia of the prophet s.a.w then that is fine to me as it will be same as follower. But if one is referring to ideology I do not agree as they may differ from one to another.

    The word imam is used but I don't see any relevance to the 12 imams and also the word has been used in bad and good context.

    As for your last point about the statement, honestly I do not agree to the Shia view on this event. This is because I believe completely that our prophet s.a.w completed his prophethood fulfilling the deen Islam and he would have never left us hanging without providing something so important. Also Allah would never had let that happen during his prophethood as he fulfilled Islam and would not leave us in confusion. Hence, I do not want to discuss about that further.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Salamunalaykum to all

    I've read in brief replies, inshAllah after my exams i will get to responding in full!
 
 
 
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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.