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

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I condemn Assad for all his crimes against humanity. There is no apology for the loss of any innocent life. I don't represent him, nor did i even care or know much about him before the conflict. If the syrian people under internationally observed elections vote him out, and elect their own leader, then this is something i absolutely support.
    Yet your argument in the preceding posts is "Had Assad fallen the situation would be worse". Your criticism there is exclusively toward the opposition yet we hear nothing about the death squads on the regime side? Not counting the fact that the majority of deaths are from the regimes bombardment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    Yet your argument in the preceding posts is "Had Assad fallen the situation would be worse". Your criticism there is exclusively toward the opposition yet we hear nothing about the death squads on the regime side?
    But the reality is brother, the oppositions most powerful groups are ahrar asham, jaysh al islam, daesh, jabhat al nusra, and other militant groups who are either alqaeda affiliated, founded, or heavily interwined with them.

    I have the personal belief that, a syrian arab army, composed heavily of sunni's, being in charge of advanced weaponary and protection of minorities as well as sunni's who are part of that group, are far better than having al nusra, ahrar asham, daesh taking over war planes, weaponary, and having impeded access to millions of civilians.

    The slaughter, retribution, destruction of syria would be far worse.

    Do you believe syria would be better under the control of ahrar asham, jaysh al islam, jabhat al nusra, and deash, balconising different parts, and themselves engaging in civil wars?

    Could you tell me your view on:

    1. Ahrar asham
    2. Jaysh al islam
    3. Jabhat Al Nusra

    We both disagree with Daesh, but then does not mean these other powerful alqaeda founded or affiliated groups are freedom fighters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Wa 'alaykum assalaam (and peace be upon you).

    So from the above post, I gather that the dichotomy I referred to in my previous post is not what you hold to be the case?
    I don't believe i made a dichotomy, i'll explain why

    As I mentioned in a previous post, this whole matter has some select differences of approach amongst Sunnis. The point to take home is that A sunni's belief is summarised as follows:

    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)
    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.



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

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

    (majhool kal-sahih) (مجهول كالصحيح)


    Dwelling on the mutashaabihaat (matters of uncertainty) is something that Allah has described of being unbecoming of those with true faith


    هُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
    It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.
    [Surah Aali 'Imraan, ayah 7]
    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.



    - tathbeet is not to be confused with tashbeeh
    * there is no point in delving into a discussion without understanding the subtleties when the subtleties are so imperative to grasp in the subject

    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.

    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))

    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)
    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)



    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    But the reality is brother, the oppositions most powerful groups are ahrar asham, jaysh al islam, daesh, jabhat al nusra, and other militant groups who are either alqaeda affiliated, founded, or heavily interwined with them.

    I have the personal belief that, a syrian arab army, composed heavily of sunni's, being in charge of advanced weaponary and protection of minorities as well as sunni's who are part of that group, are far better than having al nusra, ahrar asham, daesh taking over war planes, weaponary, and having impeded access to millions of civilians.

    The slaughter, retribution, destruction of syria would be far worse.

    Do you believe syria would be better under the control of ahrar asham, jaysh al islam, jabhat al nusra, and deash, balconising different parts, and themselves engaging in civil wars?

    Could you tell me your view on:

    1. Ahrar asham
    2. Jaysh al islam
    3. Jabhat Al Nusra

    We both disagree with Daesh, but then does not mean these other powerful alqaeda founded or affiliated groups are freedom fighters.
    Whats your point? "The mas murdering, butchering raping syrian regime is more diverse than the opposition"?

    Who cares? The reality is all you are doing is peddling apoligies for the SAA and the sectarian death squads who fight with them. Such as liwaa al faatimiyoon, muwawamah al suriya, hizbushaytaan and others.

    I've made clear my positions to you in the past and believe its high time you make your positions clear.

    What do you say about Liwa al fatimiyoon, asaaib ahl al haq, muqaeamah al suriya, hezbulat, barrell bomb, and regime torturing?

    What do you day about shaheed hamza al khateeb?

    Lets keep in mind that my question about lacnat are yet unanswered too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    x
    Am i correct in understanding you would prefer a syria that is controlled by ahrar asham, jaysh al islam jabhat al nusra, and Daesh ? Which are all alqaeda founded, affiliated, and cooperating groups?

    You told brother alifanularab that you were still trying to make up your mind about ahrar asham, which you and i both know were founded by alqaeda members, worked with ISIS, and routinely work with jabat al nusra, an official alqaeda affiliate, and are responsible for crimes against humanity themselves. This is not 'iranian propaganda' , it's a fact, you won't deny it (as you accept that is true), and it's verified by stanford university.

    I condemn crimes against humanity on all sides. But answer my above question.

    I've just read up on Hamzah Al Khateeb, if what i am reading is true, i condemn it as a crime against humanity and those who commited the act should be brought to justice.

    I have wife. I have a mum, dad, for now. I have a brother. I've lost people you know. Whoever intentionally kills an innocent human being, they will be answerable to Allah swt and if possible, need to be punished here too.

    But i am not going to allow syria to be taken over by alqaeda.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Am i correct in understanding you would prefer a syria that is controlled by ahrar asham, jaysh al islam jabhat al nusra, and Daesh ? Which are all alqaeda founded, affiliated, and cooperating groups?

    You told brother alifanularab that you were still trying to make up your mind about ahrar asham, which you and i both know were founded by alqaeda members, worked with ISIS, and routinely work with jabat al nusra, an official alqaeda affiliate, and are responsible for crimes against humanity themselves.

    I condemn crimes against humanity on all sides. But answer my above question.

    I've just read up on Hamzah Al Khateeb, if what i am reading is true, i condemn it as a crime against humanity and those who commited the act should be brought to justice.
    Not before you answer my questions. In every single discussion with you I believe i have answered first.

    Do you prefer a syria run by assad who knowlingly co operated with the russian, and sectarian death squads?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibn Fulaan)
    Not before you answer my questions. In every single discussion with you I believe i have answered first.

    Do you prefer a syria run by assad who knowlingly co operated with the russian, and sectarian death squads?
    I do not prefer a syria run by Assad, but it is a lesser evil to a syria run by alqaeda founded/affiliate,cooperating groups, comprising of people who praise osama bin laden et al.

    I have made it clear, the only way forward is for internationally monitored elections, so the syrian people can choose their fate.

    Under alqaeda, this will forever be impossible.

    If you gave me a choice between Saddam Hussain and ahrar asham, jabhat al nusra, daesh, jaysh al islam and vitroly far worse secterian and alqaeda -type groups, i would have to again say, Saddam is the lesser evil here.

    Saddam was a monster. These groups are frankensteins monsters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This was Irans peace plan in 2012.

    Iran’s Foreign Ministry has offered a six-point plan for solving the Syrian crisis, while Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi continues to emphasize that Iran would not under any circumstances support a “Western project for the overthrow by force of Bashar al-Assad.”

    The plan stresses at the outset that “only the people of Syria have the right in a democratic process to determine their destiny and the political future of their country.”

    The six points are translated below:
    1. The immediate cessation of any kind of violent or armed action under the supervision of the United Nations. At this stage the government and all armed groups must immediately end all their military activities, especially in residential areas and cooperate with the representative of the United Nations and the committee under their supervision for the stabilization of the conditions [of the country] and the return of calm.
    2. After the cessation of conflict the provision of humanitarian aid must immediately begin to [be given to] all conflict-stricken areas and without discrimination. In order to secure this important aid it is necessary that economic sanctions against Syria are lifted [and] the ground prepared for all refugees to return to their place of residence.
    3. At the same time as the establishment of calm, comprehensive national dialogue with the presence of the entire [political] spectrum and different social and political tendencies and the government of Syria, the urgent pursuit of the formation of a committee for national reconciliation. This dialogue must provide the way for the formation of a transitional government on which there is consensus. The main obligation of this government is the holding of free and competitive elections for the formation of a new parliament, the formation of an Assembly of Experts for the formulation of a Constitution and the holding of presidential elections that will be set for a fixed date.
    4. All individuals who have been merely arrested because of peaceful political activities, irrespective of group or sect, must be quickly freed by the government and opposition groups. Individuals who have perpetrated crimes must be fairly investigated in a competent court.
    5. The process of incorrect news transmission regarding changes in Syria must end as soon as possible. All the media and media owners must have the possibility to prepare and send news on the conditions of Syria from a secure place and send all the views of the people of this country for the informing of public opinion, in contrast to malicious and discriminatory approaches.
    6. The formation of a committee for estimating the cost of damages and reconstruction, with attention to the damages to the country’s infrastructure. The obligation of this committee will be for the creation of the appropriate modus operandi for the attraction and guidance of foreign aid, determining priorities for reconstruction and the conditions for the participation of organizations and friendly countries in the process of reconstruction.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by mil88)
    Often hadith kisa is used alongside this.

    Narrated Aisha:

    One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33).

    "Reference:

    Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

    Also note how the masculine and feminine words change from previous aya (s) and this one, which uses ankum (masculine tense). I believe this is some of the arguments for the purity of ahlulbayt.

    However, I disagree with the notion of them being infallible, as that often implies that they didn't have a choice/free will, which they did, so pure is better word, and after all, it's the word God used.
    Hmm so you are saying that the prophet's s.a.w wives are not part of the Ahlul bayt. But why does the verse say "“O wives of the Prophet!" ?

    https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress...-tatheer-3333/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Apologies for the typing errors guys, it's difficult to reply to so many people while balancing exams.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Hmm so you are saying that the prophet's s.a.w wives are not part of the Ahlul bayt. But why does the verse say "“O wives of the Prophet!" ?

    https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress...-tatheer-3333/
    Well according to this hadith, I don't think so:

    The verse "Allah only intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
    Reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

    There are also other incidents where only these 5 are mentioned (event of Mubahillah).

    To answer your question, as we know, the Quran does and can indeed change topics and who it is referring to (it's not chronological). However, we confirm this with hadith as well.

    However, this is not to mention that the wives aren't pious, rather that they are just not pure, but the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet are, if that makes sense. I think there are verses of the Quran which involve wives of Prophet and asking for forgiveness if I remember correctly, so they cannot fulfill this verse.

    Also, brother/sister, I would kindly appreciate it if you wouldn't link to websites that accuse another belief as being 'stupid' and 'illogical'. The irony being the link that attempts to explain Islam and a Quranic verse, is indeed contradicting the Quran and sunnah of the Prophet.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    x
    The wives of the prophet are part of his family. I have a wife, she is part of my family. However, the Quran when using the term 'ahlulbayt' in this verse, and in other cases, is referring to a specific group of the family members, the chosen group, the group referred as 'ahlulbayt'.

    i'll fully expand tommorow inshAllah. But even the sahaba of rasullah s.a.w understood that the term ahlulbayt does not have to include the wives at all times, sometimes, it is contextual for a specific group, i quote saheeh muslim:


    From Saheeh muslim:

    Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.


    And also a portion of another hadith from saheeh muslim


    "One day Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) stood up to deliver a Khutbah at a watering place known as Khumm between Makkah and Al-Madinah. He praised Allah, extolled Him, and exhorted (us) and said, 'Amma Ba'du. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Rubb and I will respond to Allah's Call, but I am leaving with you two weighty things: the first is the Book of Allah, in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it.' He exhorted (us to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said, 'The second is the members of my household, ...." Husain said to Zaid, "Who are the members of his household, O Zaid? Aren't his wives the members of his family?" Thereupon Zaid said, "His wives are the members of his family. (But here) the members of his family are those for whom Zakat is forbidden".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Hmm so you are saying that the prophet's s.a.w wives are not part of the Ahlul bayt. But why does the verse say "“O wives of the Prophet!" ?

    https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress...-tatheer-3333/
    The Quran can not be read strictly like a book, where each sentence, ayah, and following ayah are completel connected. Some verses of the Quran were revealed at entirely different times, for entirely different people, but still juxtaposed with other verses.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mil88)

    There are also other incidents where only these 5 are mentioned (event of Mubahillah).
    Indeed.

    "When this Ayah was revealed: 'Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women... (3:61)' the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called 'Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husain and said: 'O Allah! This is my family.'" - Saheeh, in Tirmidhi.

    Think about it:

    The ayah says bring your women. The ayah does not say, bring your daughter. Rasullah s.a.w was already married to other women and had wives. Yet, the only 'woman' brought here was Fatima a.s, his daughter.

    Again and again, we see Ali a.s , Hasan a.s, Hussain a.s and Fatima a.s granted an elevated status and appearing every time the term ahlulbayt/family is mentioned in the Quran.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's also interesting to mention, before Rasullah s.a.w died, he never stated, i leave behind two things - the Quran and my Sunnah. We all need to follow his sunnah and his way, but he clearly tells us where to go to get his sunnah - his ahlulbayt a.s

    Who are Fatima a.s, Ali a.s , Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s , who upheld his true sunnah, with the loyal sahaba r.a who were loyal to them and Rasullah s.a.w

    This is why we do not believe Allah swt can be not seen, or has constituent parts - such as a shin, two feet, two hands, fingers and a face (with due respect).

    We believe he is above all comprehension, dunya and akhirah. He is not comprehendable by his very nature. He is by the essence of tawheed, not composed of different parts that make up his whole. He is Allah, the one, the absolute, the only.

    Glory be to him, the necessary existence, who we owe our existence to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    Nope.
    Yes. It might be worthwhile perusing what the member in question stated.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by mil88)
    Well according to this hadith, I don't think so:

    The verse "Allah only intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
    Reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

    There are also other incidents where only these 5 are mentioned (event of Mubahillah).

    To answer your question, as we know, the Quran does and can indeed change topics and who it is referring to (it's not chronological). However, we confirm this with hadith as well.

    However, this is not to mention that the wives aren't pious, rather that they are just not pure, but the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet are, if that makes sense. I think there are verses of the Quran which involve wives of Prophet and asking for forgiveness if I remember correctly, so they cannot fulfill this verse.

    Also, brother/sister, I would kindly appreciate it if you wouldn't link to websites that accuse another belief as being 'stupid' and 'illogical'. The irony being the link that attempts to explain Islam and a Quranic verse, is indeed contradicting the Quran and sunnah of the Prophet.
    Sorry if the link was offensive to you brother/sister. But I did not see it accusing another belief as stupid or illogic but it just states the arguments. I don't know how else one would do that?

    But I still stand firm on the ahlul bayt with having the prophet's S.A.W wives included.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Indeed.

    "When this Ayah was revealed: 'Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women... (3:61)' the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called 'Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husain and said: 'O Allah! This is my family.'" - Saheeh, in Tirmidhi.

    Think about it:

    The ayah says bring your women. The ayah does not say, bring your daughter. Rasullah s.a.w was already married to other women and had wives. Yet, the only 'woman' brought here was Fatima a.s, his daughter.

    Again and again, we see Ali a.s , Hasan a.s, Hussain a.s and Fatima a.s granted an elevated status and appearing every time the term ahlulbayt/family is mentioned in the Quran.
    When Allah (swt) commanded the wives of the prophet to observe hijab, He referred to them as "the family" of the Prophet:

    “Allaah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs (evil deeds and sins) from you, O members of the family (of the Prophet), and to purify you with a thorough purification”[al-Ahzaab 33:33]

    But it doesn't apply to his wives only:

    It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) said:
    The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of black camel hair. Al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali came and he enfolded him in the cloak, then al-Husayn came and he enfolded him in it, then Faatimah came and he enfolded her in it, then ‘Ali came and he enfolded him in it, then he said: “Allaah wishes only to remove Ar‑Rijs (evil deeds and sins) from you, O members of the family (of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم), and to purify you with a thorough purification” [al-Ahzaab 33:33]. Narrated by Muslim (2424).


    edit:
    Sorry, didn't realise this has already been discussed. Still, it doesn't make sense to me why anyone would exclude the Prophet's wives from the ahl ul-bayt.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheContrarian)
    Yes. It might be worthwhile perusing what the member in question stated.
    No. I don't think you read it properly or you don't know Islam properly. One of the two.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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