Ask any question about Shia-Islam thread

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    The simplest and quickest answer for this:
    Both sahabis performed ijtihad and both gain their reward. This is furthered by the fact that uthman never rebuked or answer back Ali for his disagreement bearing in mind that uthman was the imam at the time.
    Jazakallah Khayr for the answer.

    However, i personally believe that , and i say this with respect, this only waters down the seriousness of the situation. Let's analyse the hadith:

    Saheeh Al Bukhari: I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umra together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umra together saying, "Lubbaik for `Umra and Hajj,"
    and said, "I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody."

    Sunan an Nisai[Saheeh]: "I heard 'Ali binHusain narrating from Marwan, that 'Uthman forbade Mut'ah and joining Hajj and "Umrah. 'Ali said; 'Labbaika bi Hajjatin wa 'Umratin ma'an Here I am, (O Allah) for Hajj and "Umrah together. 'Uthman said: 'Are you doing this when I have forbidden it?' 'Ali said; 'I will not give up the Summah of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people.''


    Points of contention
    1.Whose Sunnah do you follow - that which Uthman intepreted, or that which Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was absolutely sure of? (on this issue)
    2. According to the authentic hadith, Uthman questions Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and clearly admonishes him, telling him that why is he doing something that (Uthman) has forbidden. This is a clear rebuke. It is not a gentle amicable discussion in ijtihad. Uthman rebukes Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s for disobeying him.
    3. Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s does not respond to Uthman in an amicable way, by asking Uthman where his Daleel is, or by politely saying, Uthman, i believe you are mistaken in this issue, for i saw the Messenger of Allah azwj do...". Rather, Ali ibn abi Talib a.s in both these ahadith is very, stern, and very bold in his language. Responding to being rebuked by Uthman he says: "'I will not give up the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah for any of the people." / "on the sayings of somebody".

    When i read that, i was personally taken aback. Ali ibn abi Talib a.s does not say, Uthman, you are the third best in our Ummah, perhaps one of the most knowledgable, i respect your ijtihad, however, i differ with you on this issue.

    Rather, he defiantly tells uthman he won't abandon the sunnah of the prophet on the sayings of a man. Meaning, he believes , defiantly, uthman is ordering him and others to do what was contrary to the sunnah, and he defiantly going against that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    No we both don't knowledge that Fatim r.a.a died angry at Abubakar r.a.a.
    .
    Let's have a look at the evidence inshAllah.

    Saheeh Al Bukhari: " Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger"
    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/2

    Saheeh Al Bukhari: " So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278


    Points of contention:

    1. Fatima a.s did not give her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, if Muhammed s.a.w had truly spoken about the virtues of the first caliph, about the need to follow him after his demise, about his superiority over the ummah, how, even according to authentic ahadith, his daughter, Aisha, was more beloved to him than any other woman (including Fatima a.s herself), surely, she would have given him her oath of allegiance ? Instead, we know she died without giving Bayah to the first caliph. For over six months while Abu Bakr was caliph and Fatima a.s was still alive, she never pledged her allegiance nor recognized him as the legitimate caliph.

    2. She stopped speaking to him, and forsook him until she died. Indeed, even the narrator has good reasons as to why he believes Fatima a.s was angry. Clearly, the verdict of Abu Bakr had hurt her, and had angered her, and she left, angered, and did not talk to him until she died. The very fact she refused to give her allegiance to him fortifies the fact she remained angry with him. The very fact she did not give her allegiance to him anyway is evidence she did not recognize him to be the legitimate caliph, Fadak, or not.

    3. What is the state of someone who does not pledge the oath of allegiance to the caliph of their time, nor recognizes the imam of their time?

    4. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s not inform Abu Bakr of the death of Fatima a.s ? Fatima a.s was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, and her name and her respect was for all to behold. Her death, especially her premature death, should have been something that was told right away, especially to people apparently most beloved to Muhammed s.a.w , namely, Abu Bakr, and Ummulmimineen Aisha. Instead, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s secrelty buries Fatima a.s himself, at night, without even telling Abu Bakr about the funeral. Even till today, we dispute where her grave is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Let's have a look at the evidence inshAllah.

    Saheeh Al Bukhari: " Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger"
    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/2

    Saheeh Al Bukhari: " So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself."
    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278


    Points of contention:

    1. Fatima a.s did not give her pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, if Muhammed s.a.w had truly spoken about the virtues of the first caliph, about the need to follow him after his demise, about his superiority over the ummah, how, even according to authentic ahadith, his daughter, Aisha, was more beloved to him than any other woman (including Fatima a.s herself), surely, she would have given him her oath of allegiance ? Instead, we know she died without giving Bayah to the first caliph. For over six months while Abu Bakr was caliph and Fatima a.s was still alive, she never pledged her allegiance nor recognized him as the legitimate caliph.

    2. She stopped speaking to him, and forsook him until she died. Indeed, even the narrator has good reasons as to why he believes Fatim a.s was angry. Clearly, the verdict of Abu Bakr had hurt her, and had angered her, and she left, angered, and did not talk to him until she died. The very fact she refused to give her allegiance to him fortifies the fact she remained angry with him.

    3. What is the state of someone who does not pledge the oath of allegiance to the caliph of their time, nor recognizes the imam of their time?

    4. Why did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s not inform Abu Bakr of the death of Fatima a.s ? Fatima a.s was the daughter of Muhammed s.a.w, and her name and her respect was for all to behold. Her death, especially her premature death, should have been something that was told right away, especially to people apparently most beloved to Muhammed s.a.w , namely, Abu Bakr, and Ummulmimineen Aisha. Instead, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s secrelty buries Fatima a.s himself, at night, without even telling Abu Bakr about the funeral. Even till today, we dispute where her grave is.
    I will answer these questions soon.
    I'd like you to answer my earlier question:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet s.a.w





    "...Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his master (Mawla), ‘Ali is his master (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him..."

    (1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63 (2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,4 (3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21 (4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371 (5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators) (6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572 (7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters) (8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50

    Points of contention:

    Before i address common points of contention, if anyone is unfamiliar with Ghadeer, i recommend they watch this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSd2nGnKUa8


    Contention: "Ghadeer had absolutely nothing to do with Muhammed s.a.w appointing Ali ibn abi talib a.s, but a way for Muhammed s.a.w to resolve a dispute Ali ibn abi talib a.s had with some soldiers, Khalid bin waleed, among others due to war booty, and khums, and his actions with a slave girl (yemen event).

    Reply to contention:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Spoiler: Show It is argued by some, that due to the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s admonishing the army which had around 300, with regards to the Khums and wearing the armour, as well his his actions with a slave girl, many had complained to Muhammed s.a.w before hajj. Thus, Muhammed s.a.w waited until after hajj in order to find the correct time to resolve this dispute. It so happened he decided to stop by at Ghadeer khumm, between Mecca and Medina, to announce and proclaim his closeness to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, so those who had enmity in their hearts against him, were made to therefore understand the need to be his friend, love him, and not dislike and hate him.

    There are a number of problems with the above narrative:

    1. Not only did the Prophet s.a.w address companions individually and admonish them, he also rose up and addressed them in general, giving clear words on the matter and issue. Therefore the notion that he had to wait after the hajj in order to deal with the issue is patently false.

    Evidence for above:

    The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.”(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

    Clearly, we can see that a number of men complained about Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The prophet s.a.w as is stated, "arose" to address "them". Therefore, we find that Muhammed s.a.w had already arisen to a group of people, and gave clear instruction not to blame Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. According to our sunni brothers, the problem was due to the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s with regards to how he handled the war booty, and his actions with a slave girl (in relation to the booty), and therefore, it makes perfect sense for the Prophet s.a.w to directly tell the people not to blame Ali a,s, and that he is on truth, is just and fair in the way of Allah azwj, is far too conscious of matters in the way of Allah azwj to be blamed.

    The idea that a few sahaba complained, and this this response was only for the few, may not be accurate. For one, we find that there are two instances whereby Muhammed s.a.w is recorded to respond to this issue:

    1. When individual companions/a handful complain :

    The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]

    As you can clearly see, companions went to a group and complained of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The Prophet s.a.w would not have allowed his companions to merely have growing resent against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. He , by his wisdom, would have (and did) address the issue, to allow it to be sorted immediately, and for the muslims to subsequently focus on the hajj. In the above hadith is an instance where Muhammed s.a.w clearly admonishes those who came and complained to him individually/perhaps in groups.

    There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

    There and then, the matter should have been finished. Not only did Prophet Muhammed s.a.w admonish the companions individually, he felt the need to stand up and give a short speech, whereby he addressed them and clearly told them in unequivocal words about the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and not to blame him.

    Thus, the matter should have been finished. And we find that, to Muhammed s.a.w, he also deemed his words sufficient, and "..Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” If this was not sufficient, then surely, during his farewell sermon, they should have paid heed to the call of needing to foster brotherhood and love among themselves: The Prophet s.a.w , in his farewell sermon is reported to have said:]Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”

    It is alsoimportant to rememberthat the time when the prophet s.a.w rose to address the people[to clearly tell them not to blame Ali ibn abi talib a.s], and the 18th of the holy month of Dhu Al-Hijjah, was about 10 days, and perhaps short of two weeks.

    Additionally, it is also important to remember that this was not an issue where thousands were against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Rather, it was some from among a small force of 300 sent to Yemen. Not everyone in that force would have resented Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s (according to our sunni brothers), afterall, the virtues of Ali a.s, his superiority, were famous and well known. And so, it may have only been part of the small force of 300.

    And furthermore, after being clearly admonished individually, and as a group, and subsequently spoken to about the need for brotherhood in the farewell sermon, the number that should have still resented Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s due to his incident ought to have been even less than a handful - if they had any regard for the words of Muhammed s.a.w

    No doubt there was mass jealousy and hatred towards Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s., but a sunni brother won't accept that.
    One thing I don't fully understand is:
    Is the sacred/ god given wilayah a spiritual only wilayah over the people, is it a political wilayah that carries the rule/khilafah of Ali.
    Or is it both types?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    x
    I will have to leave for now, inshAllah i will return to continue my work on the questions. I would like to know a few things, when you get time, inshalLAH:

    1. Do you believe Muawiyah , the son of Abu Sufiyan, from the clan of Banu Ummayah, is a man worthy of respect, love, and admiration?

    2. (I don't know if you have already answered it) but are you refusing to answer whether or not islamQa representative of the sunni aqeedah or not, based on your personal preference, or do you believe it is against the sunnah to affirm what you believe to be in the sunnah itself, without delving deeper?

    If it is a personal preference, then i respect that. If it is a religious reason - could you explain to me religiously, why it is forbidden to affirm whether a hadith is authentic to you, or whether an article written on islamqa, by ulema in the ahlus-sunnah is representative of your belief or not?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Salamunalaykum, I do remember your post yes brother.

    I want to also affirm as a shia muslim, our belief in Allah azwj and his attributes is only what we believe Allah azwj affirms for himself, and only what we deem to be from the authentic Sunnah.

    I'll try to rephrase my question again. Note, i am not asking you to delve any deeper , or speculate, i merely want to know[as i asked brother farhan]:

    1. IslamQA states Allah azwj has two feet, but those two feet have no likeness to ours (this is what they say). They furthermore say, according to authentic ahadith, those two feet of Allah azwj are above his kursi, which itself is below the waters, which itself, is below the throne. They also affirm that Allah azwj is above his throne, above the seven heavens, and his feet are below the throne, below the waters, but above the qursi.

    Do you agree and affirm what IslamQA says? In doing so, i am not asking you to delve any deeper into the topics, merely i wish to know if you agree or disagree with IslamQa?
    By stating that Allah's hands are metaphorical representations of other attributes, it is arguable that one could denying an attribute of Allah, and as far as I am aware, Asharis and Shia both believe that Allah's hands are metaphorical, therefore I would say that perhaps that Shia/Ashari belief is possibly not affirming what Allah affirms of himself - what I said errs on the side of caution, whereas the metaphorical interpretation is absolute.

    I don't mean to say this to dodge the question, but all I can state is that my personal belief is that Allah's feet/hands etc are either metaphorical or literal (affirming IslamQAs interpretation that they are unlike our own), but I sit neither side of the fence since it is an obscure matter only known by Allah. My main problem that I have encountered is that if one says that Allah has literal hands and feet which are unlike our own and unlike anything created, then surely describing this attribute as 'feet' or 'hands' becomes a metaphor since there is nothing like them and thus one is using a word to describe an indescribable thing; then again the feet of the elephant is extremely different to the foot of the ant or bird, so perhaps it is not metaphorical - this is just a random point but it I guess it just show another element of obscurity in my mind in this discussion.

    In summary, I neither agree nor disagree with IslamQA - it is indeed a complex issue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Tawheed I do not wish to pressure you, but I would like answers to these questions please; I do appreciate you are managing many topics, but just a reminder


    Irrespective of your personal beliefs (which you might have perhaps explained on ShiaChat), could you tell me if:

    (1) Asking Muhammad (SAW) or the Ahlul Bayt *directly* to ask Allah for something on your behalf is shirk? This is different to asking Allah to accept the dua by His love for these people.

    (2) The Shia ullema said this is permissible or haram?
    (3) The Shia ullema clasify those who engage in this method of dua as Mushrikoon?
    (4) Believing that the Prophet (SAW) or any of the Ahlul Bayt can answer duas by the permission of Allah is a part of Shia belief; what has the Shia ullema/classical books said about this?

    I understand these questions might perhaps be sensitive due to the implications of some answers, but I ask out of genuine interest to understand Shi'ism from the eyes of those who follow it.
    Q. Is it original Shia belief that the Quran has been changed; is the Quran we have today agreed by Shia to be the revelations which Muhammad (SAW) finalised (in the exact number and arrangement of verses and the arrangement of Surahs)?
    Q. Is anyone who believes that the Quran has been altered in number of verses, arrangement of verses and arrangement of Surahs a kafir?

    Q. How can Shia hadith even be trusted when Shia rijjal studies started so late and is only a shadow compared to its Sunnis rijjali counterpart, and also parts of Shia rijjal comes from Sunni rijjal?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I will have to leave for now, inshAllah i will return to continue my work on the questions. I would like to know a few things, when you get time, inshalLAH:

    1. Do you believe Muawiyah , the son of Abu Sufiyan, from the clan of Banu Ummayah, is a man worthy of respect, love, and admiration?
    All the companions have my unreserved respect and all of them are a redline to me. That lowly individuals like us cannot appoint ourselves to be their judges.

    2. (I don't know if you have already answered it) but are you refusing to answer whether or not islamQa representative of the sunni aqeedah or not, based on your personal preference, or do you believe it is against the sunnah to affirm what you believe to be in the sunnah itself, without delving deeper?

    If it is a personal preference, then i respect that. If it is a religious reason - could you explain to me religiously, why it is forbidden to affirm whether a hadith is authentic to you, or whether an article written on islamqa, by ulema in the ahlus-sunnah is representative of your belief or not?
    Personal preference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    I don't mean to say this to dodge the question, but all I can state is that my personal belief is that Allah's feet/hands etc are either metaphorical or literal (affirming IslamQAs interpretation that they are unlike our own), but I sit neither side of the fence since it is an obscure matter only known by Allah. My main problem that I have encountered is that if one says that Allah has literal hands and feet which are unlike our own and unlike anything created, then surely describing this attribute as 'feet' or 'hands' becomes a metaphor since there is nothing like them and thus one is using a word to describe an indescribable thing; then again the feet of the elephant is extremely different to the foot of the ant or bird, so perhaps it is not metaphorical - this is just a random point but it I guess it just show another element of obscurity in my mind in this discussion.

    In summary, I neither agree nor disagree with IslamQA - it is indeed a complex issue.
    JazakAllah Khayr for the answer,

    I will answer the questions you have raised, inshAllah, as well as the other ones you previously asked (about rijal, ahadith, Quran, Tahreef etc).
    Spoiler:
    Show
    In terms of this paticular discussion, having been part of debates wherein i have with others who hold the other view, engaged in debate on the matter of the attributes of Allah(azwj), and as to how one can say Allah azwj has a shin, two eyes,two hands, two feet, fingers (even if one affirms they are not like our own) yet still claims Allah azwj is unified in his oneness. My position on this issue is simple: Allah azwj is Ahad. In Surah Ikhlaas, he could have used 'Wahid', but 'Ahad' is used, which denotes, among other things, that Allah azwj is unified in his absolute oneness. He can not be composed of constituent parts.

    My issue when discussing with others is that of consistency. If someone states that Allah azwj is not unified in his absolute oneness, but is divided into the shin, the hands, the fingers, the feet, the eyes (even if they affirm they are not like ours), then atleast they are being consistent.

    The only problem truly arises is when one tries to argue that Allah azwj is not divisible , is not made up of constituent subunits, yet, claims he is actually composed of constituent components.

    Eitherway, i would -for the time being- not like to delve too much on this, and instead, focus solely on the two feet, and the place these two feet are in, according to authentic narrations in the ahlus-sunnah.

    *Bolded to emphasize main point of discussion.
    The main thing i would like to ask you is[and the main point i would like you to directly address if possible], do you believe Allah (azwj) has a place or location, or is located within his creation ?

    According to the islamQa article, as per authentic sunnah , the two feet of Allah azwj are above the qursi, but below the waters. Clearly, the waters as well as the qursi are creations of Allah azwj. How Allah azwj's two feet be between his creations ?

    Now, it seems you are being cautious about this issue, which is somewhat wise, although it does raise some pertinent questions:

    1. If you are a sunni muslim, and your ulema, past and present, have graded a hadith as saheeh, and that hadith states the two feet of Allah azwj are above the qursi, (which 'creaks as a saddle creaks' and your sunnah is obtained from these ulema and scholars, such as al-albani et al, and the books you take from, how can you remain consistent if you do not also take the ahadith? If you are consistent, you would take from their gradings, accept it as authentic, and the hadiths are not ambigous, it's pretty clear what they mean. Although you can not question 'how', if you take the hadith is authentic, you can not question 'what' it is saying.

    2. And if you do take the hadith(which you ought to, if you are consistent), you are forced to believe that Allah azwj has two feet - which are above the qursi, but below the waters. Therefore, if you believe Allah azwj can not be contained in a place, or atleast, can not be contained within his creation, how can you reconcile that belief, with the ahadith?

    3. Even if one chooses to put aside logic, and rationality, we know Allah azt existed, before a 'where' and before 'place'.Would it be a wise choice to stakes oness Aqeedah by virtue of relying on whether or not the narrators of these hadiths were truthful, even though rationality and reason tells you otherwise?

    Even i believe one can never truly apply rationality to Allah azwj, because he himself is above all comprehension. However, we can rule out what Allah azwj is not. He is not a created being, he is not a body, he has no place, he is not in a location, he does not change, he does not move etc.




    Here are the ahadith, for reference:
    Abu Moosaal-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Kursiy is the place for the two feet, and it creaks as a saddle creaks.

    Narrated by‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; Ibn Abu Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 60; and by Ibn Jareer, al-Bayhaqi and others. Its isnaad wasclassed as saheeh in al-Fath, 8/47 and by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw, p. 123-124



    Ibn ‘Abbaas (mayAllah be pleased with him) said: “The Kursiy (foot stool) is the place of the two feet, and the size of Throne cannot be known.”

    This was narrated by Ibn Khuzaymah in at-Tawheed, 1/248, no. 154; Ibn Abi Shaybah in al-‘Arsh, 61; ad-Daarimi in ar-Radd ‘ala al-Muraysi; ‘Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in as-Sunnah; and al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak, 2/282 – he classed it as saheeh according to the conditions of the twoshaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), and adh-Dhahabi agreed with him. It was also classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Mukhtasar al-‘Uluw,p. 102; and by Ahmad Shaakir in ‘Umdat at-Tafseer, 2/163.




    As you can see, graded saheeh by some of the most well respected muhaddiths in the ahlus-sunnah. Most of these names are heavy weights. Is it thus possible to remain consistent with ones belief in the ahlus-sunnah, and reject saheeh hadith on this issue?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    All the companions have my unreserved respect and all of them are a redline to me. That lowly individuals like us cannot appoint ourselves to be their judges.
    I respect your point of view brother. If i can ask, do you not believe this is a little bit too idealistic? Considering the fact that, in any large body of muslims, not all of them are virtuous. There are many different shades of imaan, from the very pious, the good, the ones who have mixture, the ones who never truly believed, the ones who did wrong, did evil, the ones who never truly believed?

    In any society, of all the prophets of God, their followers and those who lived among them were not all one homogenous, righteous group. Rather, as is in all societies, there were people of different grades of belief.

    If you consider the fact that, in the first decade or so of the Prophet s.a.w's mission, only a hundred or two hundred joined islam, followed by a ten year period in Medina, where the Meccans were hostile to him and fought many wars, coupled with the fact that the majority of arabia, as well as Mecca, only really converted to Islam in the last 1-2 years of the life of the Prophet s.a.w , is it really a wise choice to consider them all trustworthy and upright ?

    As for Muawiyah, if he deserves your unreserved respect, why is that so? Do you not believe he cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, had hatred towards him, and his children, threatened Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s thereafter, and placed his evil son, Yazid in power, who was not even fit to lead cattle, let alone the Ummah? Putting aside the wars he fought against Ali ibn abi Talib a.s ?


    Personal preference.
    Then i respect your wish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Part of what i had written earlier about Ghadeer:

    The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]

    As you can clearly see, companions went to a group and complained of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. The Prophet s.a.w would not have allowed his companions to merely have growing resent against Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. He , by his wisdom, would have (and did) address the issue, to allow it to be sorted immediately, and for the muslims to subsequently focus on the hajj. In the above hadith is an instance where Muhammed s.a.w clearly admonishes those who came and complained to him individually/perhaps in groups.

    There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)

    There and then, the matter should have been finished. Not only did Prophet Muhammed s.a.w admonish the companions individually, he felt the need to stand up and give a short speech, whereby he addressed them and clearly told them in unequivocal words about the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, and not to blame him.

    Thus, the matter should have been finished. And we find that, to Muhammed s.a.w, he also deemed his words sufficient, and "..Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” If this was not sufficient, then surely, during his farewell sermon, they should have paid heed to the call of needing to foster brotherhood and love among themselves: The Prophet s.a.w , in his farewell sermon is reported to have said:]Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.”
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    x
    Salaam.
    You are still to answer my question about wilayah and what it is brother.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s were well known. In the famous hadith in saheeh muslim, we find Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s reporting:

    "The Prophet [SAW] made a covenant with me that none would love me but a believer, and none would hate me but a hypocrite." [Saheeh, contained in Muslim among others]

    If one were to go through the sihah al sitta, and musnad ahmed, the praises for Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s are so numerous, that there is no excuse for any of the companions not to have known the virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s.

    The issue with yemen, the booty, the khums, the slave girl, if my brothers in the ahlus-sunnah were to be consistent, ought not to have been about the sahabah hating Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather, it is to do with a fraction of the 300 having disagreements with Ali a.s as to his judgement on the booty.

    Therefore, Muhammed s.a.w would have achieved absolutely nothing by telling people, if i am your friend, than Ali is my friend, They knew that. Infact, Muhammed s.a.w during his life had given Ali a.s far, far stronger praise than merely this.

    Rather, what a fraction /group had with regards to their issue with Ali a.s is how he handled the khums. They wanted to know if the way he had handled it was truly in the way of Allah azwj, or if he was just favouring himself first? (due to alleged intercourse with a slave girl).

    That's what they wanted to know. They knew of his virtues, and praising him many times would make no difference, if Rasullah s.a.w did not directly address this issue.

    By calling him a friend to the believers, it does not address that issue.

    However, we do find in Ibn ishaq, and Ibn Hishams works (some of the earliest biographies on Muhammed s.a.w,) we find that not only does Muhammed s.a.w admonish individual companions like Abu Huraida specifically on the issue of Khums, he directly addresses the issue, infront of a crowd, whereby he reminds them that what Ali a.s did was equitable, fair, and that he is far too scrupulous in the way of Allah azwj to be favouring himself. There and then, the matter ought to have been totally finished. Many had heard it, and those that did, conveyed it to others. During the Hajj, amny were gathered, and so, the very powerful statement Muhammed s.a.w made should have spread.

    There then came a time when Muhammed s.a.w, after having received complaints from individuals/groups, and after having responded to them, arose to make a general statement: “..When the people complained about ‘Ali the Messenger of Allah stood up to address them…” [Al-Bidayah wa an-nihayah vol 5, page 95 ; Seerah Al-Nabawiyyah, ibn Hisham, vol 4, page 259] And he said: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed.” (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Salaam.
    You are still to answer my question about wilayah and what it is brother.
    Walaykum salam,

    I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Walaykum salam,

    I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
    I think you misunderstood my question.
    My question is simply what waliayh is.
    Is it political leadership, or religious/spiritual one?
    Or both?
    Ps are notifications not working for you too? or is it just my end?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Salam Tawheed
    Hope you're good.

    I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
    I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
    Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?

    Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.

    JZK

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HAnwar)
    Salam Tawheed
    Hope you're good.

    I have a question about tahreef (of the Quran).
    I think you briefly touched upon it in your OP, but could you explain it in a bit more detail please?
    Why is this belief associated with shias or is it a misconception?

    Sorry if this question has already been asked, I haven't been following the thread throughout.

    JZK

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Walaykumsalam sister, brother Zamestaneh has asked this question as well. I will address it after answering some of the other questions as well, inshAllah in more detail.

    Suffice to say, the ijma with regards to the ulema is that Allah azwj has protected the Quran , and there is no tahreef in it.
    Any hadith , in shia books, or sunni books, which implies tahrif is either dae'f , graded wrongly (as was the case with majlisi) or is intepreted wrongly.[and some take hadiths from shia books, and use it to claim that shia's believe in tahreef). The same thing is done by non-muslims, such as the answeringislam website, inwhich they use ahadith from bukhari etc, and twist the hadith, or they use hadith from other books that may be dai'f, and try to make it look like muslims believe in tahreef.

    If any shia scholar in the past had doubt regarding if it was possible small parts of the Quran were missing, that individual has made an error, without any shadow of doubt. But it is not the ijma if our ulema - for the collective ijma is that falsehood has not touched the Quran, nor has any truth been ommited from the Quran, for Allah, azwj, the most high has protected it.

    I'll go into more detail with regards to this soon inshAllah, where i answer brother zamestanehs questions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Frequently asked Questions:Highly recommended video - misconceptions of Shia Islam: 1. Do shia's believe in a different Quran?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/belief-shia-in-completeness-quran
    2. Do shia's follow Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, rather than Prophet Muhammed s.a.w
    Spoiler:
    Show
    https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/why-school-ahlul-bayt
    3. What is the shia view of the Companions?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The shia position of the companions is the same as the Qurans position. There are many we love, and revere. Many we do not hold in as high regard, but respect. Many we do not pass comment on, due to lack of knowledge or we leave judgement to Allah swt. And then there are those who we believe disobeyed the noble messenger , Muhammed s.a.w, and Allah swt, and his ahlulbayt a.s and the loyal among the sahaba r.a.We view the Sahaba as human beings, and not just that, we view them as what you naturally would find in any large community of humans, from the previous prophets, to muslims of the latter day. Among them gems, among them good people, among them people of mixed character, among them people who became disloyal, etc.If you look at the top ten hadith narrators in sunni schools of thought, you will find jabir ibn abdillah r.a, abu sai'd al khudri r.a, ibn abbas r.a, abdullad ibn masud r.a, who narrated an enormous bulk of the sunni hadiths we find in existence. These key companions are respected and or revered by shia's. Though we sometimes affirm false things were attributed to them.We love and revere many many more companions, one of them is Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, the son of the caliph, Abu Bakr. Shia's revere and love him for his loyalty to treading on the path and the sunnah , and for his loyalty to Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s. Though we have disagreements with actions commited by his father, we have enormous love and respect for him.Good useful link: https://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-a...anions-prophet
    3. What is the shia view of the wives of Muhammed s.a.w?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Again, shia's do not view the wives of Muhammed s.a.w as one monolithic group. We believe, many of his wives were loyal, and respectful, and we revere them. Among the wives we revere are Lady Khadija r.a (the greatest wife of Muhammed s.a.w), Umm Salama r.a, another pure wife, Umm Sauda, Umm Safiyyah among others). However, there are some wifes of Muhammed s.a.w who even the Quran admonishes, however, it is forbidden in shia islam to insult them.
    3. What is the shia view of Umm Aisha?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    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 oneAyesha 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 264092. Sunan Nasai, Volume 2 page 1483. Majma al-Zawaed, Volume 4 page 372 Tradition 7692The 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.sAbdah 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 Bukhariahih 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.
    Did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s name his son Abu Bakr?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Abu Bakr, son of Ali (r.a)My response:Before formulating any answer, it is necessary to first try to understand what 'Abu Bakr' means, and what the title in a wider sense, denotes. Firstly, Abu Bakr is a Qunya. It is a title given to somebody. Abu Bakr's real name was not actually Abu Bakr. Rather, we hear reports that his name was Abdullah, some say also say Atiq. That is what his father named him, and Abu Bakr was a title given to him after.What does Abu Bakr mean ?"A kunya may also be a nickname expressing the attachment of an individual to a certain thing, as in Abu Bakr, "father of the camel foal", given because of this person's love for camels."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunya_(Arabic)It's not entirely surprising for a Qunya to develop for those living in arabia at that time, where the use of Camels were really widespread and an almost essential part of day to day life arabs, which made reference to love of camels, or being the father of a Camel Foal. We find that there is also another Abu Bakr - a notable one, in books of history, who converted to Islam and later apostates, who was called Abu Bakr bin Sha’oub. According to Ibn Hajar (quoting Ibn Hisham). Abu Bakr bin Sha'oub also fought against the muslims in the battle of Badr.You find anti-shia websites make a rather logically erroneous claim that, because we only find two famous Abu Bakr's in books of history [two that sunni's will agree on], it means that these names were only exclusively used for these two, and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s either named his son Abu Bakr after the kaffir apostate, or the first Caliph. And thus, they argue, we shia's defy reason to suggest he would have named it after the apostate, and hence, it must surely have been a name for Abu Bakr.There are a number of problems with this line of reasoning:1. The very fact there is another prominent Abu Bakr is of great importance. It means that indeed, Abu Bakr was not a Qunya that was only ever associated with the son of Abdallāh bin Abī Quḥāfah, rather it was given to someone unrelated to him, unconnected to him, who may also due to his day to day life, his work , or any other reason, develop the nick name of Abu Bakr (father of the young camel). It lends evidence to the notion that in a land where camels were so prevalent, it is not surprising for others to also be dubbed with this nick-name.2. It is highly possible that there may have been, in those days, many others across Arabia , who reared camels, and perhaps due to this, were subsequently given the nick-name of 'Abu Bakr ' , however, were not as notable, and not as famous, not as central to Islam and not as prominent. You see, not only do we not know the actual names of many of the companions of Muhammed s.a.w (large swathes are unknown in name), we also do not really know the names of the majority of arabs at the time. All having names enables us to do is know the prominent ones, and it lends evidence that such names were also common among others who were not as prominent and whose names are not recorded.3. It is also possible that, due to the prominence of the famous or notable Abu Bakr's, the nick-name became more popular. If you consider , again, that we are talking about a land where camels are prevalent, it may have been the fact that those who already had the nick name of Abu Bakr (father of a young camel) may have caused arabian culture to begin to adopt such a title/nick name more commonly for those perhaps who had a vocation where they worked with camels closely, or were known for their love of camels. This may not have been due to naming people in honour of Abu Bakr (though it did occur i won't doubt), but rather, the idea of giving a nick name of Abu Bakr to people who were associated with camels/young camels as a nick name , in and of itself may have been more popular.4. According to some, (another) Abu Bakr son of Hazim al-Ansari who had lived in the time of both the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) and Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s was an Arab originally from Yemen and a companion of Ali ibn abi Talib a.s4. The nick-name 'Abu Hurairah' i.e father of cats, would have in my own humble opinion, been of a greater weight in proving exclusivity, rather than father of a young camel, in arabia, a land full of camels. Even then, it would not be sufficient.Did Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s name his son Abu Bakr?In todays society, you often find people naming their children Abu Bakr. Thus, they believe Abu Bakr has always been a name you are given at birth. Many shia's and sunni's , and perhaps even non-muslims who study the life of the first Caliph themselves may be surprised to find out that his real name was not Abu Bakr. His father did not name him Abu Bakr - as stated at the beginning of this post.The crux of this argument relies on the notion that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s literally named his son 'Abu Bakr'. If one can prove that actually, his birth name was not Abu Bakr, it lends evidence to the notion that this was a Qunya - a title, given to him, and not what he was named from birth. The anti-shia website claims that the fact that Abu Bakr was a Qunya, and not a name, means that by Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s naming his son Abu Bakr, it almost exclusively means it was him. I have already touched on the Qunya of Abu Bakr, and how even then it would not be the case.However, do we have evidence that the birth name of Abu Bakr, the son of Ali ibn Abi talib a.s, was actually not Abu Bakr [thus lending evidence to the argument that it was a Qunya later given]?There is certianly evidence to suggest Abu Bakr was not a birth-nameThere is disagreement in terms of the actual name of Abu Bakr the son of Ali ibn abi talib a.s, suffice to say, the main point is, there is evidence that was not his birth name.Ibn al-Sabbagh al-Maliki reported: "…and Muhammad al-Asghar whose secondary name (i.e. Kunya) was Abu Bakr and [another son of Amir al-Mu'mineen] Abdullah. They had been martyred with their brother Hussain in Karbala. Their mother is Laila daughter of Masoud…" (al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, vol. 1 p. 644)Al-Masudi, a famous historian, has reported that Ali ibn Abi Talib had: "eleven sons, al-Hassan and al-Hussain their mother was Fatima daughter of Allah's Apostle peace be upon him and his family" further on he mentioned: "…and Muhammad al-Asghar, his secondary name was Abu Bakr…" (al-Tanbih wa-l-Ashraf, p. 258).This renowned shia scholar, al-Sheikh al-Mufid has said: "Amir al-Mu'mineen may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him had a total of twenty-seven sons and daughters…" further on he mentioned: "Muhammad al-Asghar, whose secondary name was Abu Bakr, and Ubaidullah, both had been martyred alongside their brother Hussain peace be upon him in Taff, their mother is Laila daughter of Masoud al-Darimiyyah." (al-Irshad, vol. 1, p. 354).Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi: "…from Laila daughter of Masoud [Imam Ali] had Ubaidullah who is Abu Bakr…" (al-Basa'ir wa-l-Dhakha'ir, vol. 1, p. 214).Ibn A'tham al-Kufi states: "… al-Hussain's brothers thereupon came forward. They were intent on sacrificing their lives for his sake.Abu Bakr son of Ali, whose name was Abdullah, was the first to come forward. His mother was Laila daughter of Masoud…" (al-Futouh, vol. 5, p. 112).al-Mujdi has reported: "Abu Bakr, whose name was Abdullahwas killed during the [battle] of Taff along with Abu Ali, who is Ubaidullah. Their mother is [Laila] al-Nahsha'iya al-Darimiyyah (i.e. Laila daughter of Masoud)." (Ansab al-Talibiyyin, p. 198).Closing points:Just as Abu Bakr's father may not have given him the Qunya Abu Bakr , nor the father of Abu Bakr bin Sha’oub named him Abu Bakr, nor any of the other Abu Bakrs, who had this nick-name at that time, before that time, and after that time, similarly, Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s named his son either Muhammed Al-Asghar, Abaidullah, or Abdullah. That was the birth name given, and the Qunya was not necessarily given to him by Ali ibn Abi talib a.s, and thus, the Qunya may have been something later given to Muhammed Al Asghar/ Abaidullah/ Abdullah.Furthermore, the very fact the term 'Abu Bakr' means 'father of the young camel' in a land full of camels, coupled with the fact there are names of others who also held this Qunya (nick-name per say), means that it is also highly likely many others not prominent or notable who we do not know the names of (majority of the sahaba, and majority of arabs at the time) may have also held such a Qunya. If you consider this in terms of probability, in a population , the chances of an Abu Bakr being notable is of a certian percent, dependent on the number of Abu Bakrs dubbed with such a Qunya at the time, and a number of complex factors. Thus, those Abu Bakrs we do then know , and do have the names of, only means of the population of Abu Bakrs existing, these are the ones who gained notability. It thus means it is highly likely many other Abu Bakrs existed at the time , and a few then gained that notability. Only having a number of Abu Bakrs recorded/noted down absoutely does not mean only that number existed at the time.It is not difficult to see that in a land full of camels, why one would be given that nick-name. Additionally, it is also not difficult to see why the qunya Abu Bakr perhaps - and i am not saying this is the case- but perhaps grew prominence as i argued before, not out of honour of Abu Bakr, but because a famous personality who has a nick name may cause culture of the time to begin to make such a nick-name more popular. Yes, it could be that in cases it was in honour of the caliph, but it is highly likely that again, in a land full of camels, with very famous people having a certain nick name that is fairly concordant with life at the time (living in a land full of camels) the nick name itself became more popular as a way to perhaps refer to people who had a love for camels, or worked with camels.Thus, for anyone to say that Ali ibn Abi Talib named his son Abu Bakr, is a false claim. Rather, he named his son Muhammed Al Asghar/ Abaidullah/ Abdullah, and the Qunya 'Abu Bakr' was later given. For anyone to go even further and ignore this, and claim that he named his son Abu Bakr, in honour of the first Caliph, as the absolute truth, makes an even more unsubstantiated claim ignoring the nuances of this paticular discussion.
    ...... .
    is your caliph Ayatollah Khomenie?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Walaykumsalam sister, brother Zamestaneh has asked this question as well. I will address it after answering some of the other questions as well, inshAllah in more detail.

    Suffice to say, the ijma with regards to the ulema is that Allah azwj has protected the Quran , and there is no tahreef in it.
    Any hadith , in shia books, or sunni books, which implies tahrif is either dae'f , graded wrongly (as was the case with majlisi) or is intepreted wrongly.[and some take hadiths from shia books, and use it to claim that shia's believe in tahreef). The same thing is done by non-muslims, such as the answeringislam website, inwhich they use ahadith from bukhari etc, and twist the hadith, or they use hadith from other books that may be dai'f, and try to make it look like muslims believe in tahreef.

    If any shia scholar in the past had doubt regarding if it was possible small parts of the Quran were missing, that individual has made an error, without any shadow of doubt. But it is not the ijma if our ulema - for the collective ijma is that falsehood has not touched the Quran, nor has any truth been ommited from the Quran, for Allah, azwj, the most high has protected it.

    I'll go into more detail with regards to this soon inshAllah, where i answer brother zamestanehs questions.
    Ok JZK for that.

    You can tag me in when you respond to him.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I respect your point of view brother. If i can ask, do you not believe this is a little bit too idealistic? Considering the fact that, in any large body of muslims, not all of them are virtuous. There are many different shades of imaan, from the very pious, the good, the ones who have mixture, the ones who never truly believed, the ones who did wrong, did evil, the ones who never truly believed?

    In any society, of all the prophets of God, their followers and those who lived among them were not all one homogenous, righteous group. Rather, as is in all societies, there were people of different grades of belief.

    If you consider the fact that, in the first decade or so of the Prophet s.a.w's mission, only a hundred or two hundred joined islam, followed by a ten year period in Medina, where the Meccans were hostile to him and fought many wars, coupled with the fact that the majority of arabia, as well as Mecca, only really converted to Islam in the last 1-2 years of the life of the Prophet s.a.w , is it really a wise choice to consider them all trustworthy and upright ?

    As for Muawiyah, if he deserves your unreserved respect, why is that so? Do you not believe he cursed Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s, had hatred towards him, and his children, threatened Hasan a.s, and Hussain a.s thereafter, and placed his evil son, Yazid in power, who was not even fit to lead cattle, let alone the Ummah? Putting aside the wars he fought against Ali ibn abi Talib a.s ?




    Then i respect your wish.
    I think we should leave the issue of the sahaba to a later stage.
    I'm just going to go back and see where our discussion is going and see if we have anything outstanding to each other.
    And please answer my wilayah questions as through your posts you make it seem a religious spiritual one, and elsewhere I read that it is a political/leadership one :confused:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Walaykum salam,

    I will address the question inshAllah, after answering brother Zamestanehs first. With regards to the issue of Wilayah, do you not feel it would be better for us to debate Ghadeer itself, and the proclamation of Ali a.s as the leader of the muslims after Muhammed s.a.w, before subsequently getting involved in rather niche areas like this?
    Salaam.
    I was looking at the other thread and this is something that we were discussing:
    (Original post by Al-farhan)
    Salam, just a quick response.



    So the claim here is either:

    1-the quran is unclear/a puzzle in its mother tongue Arabic, despite Allah swt say:
    بِلِسَاٍن عَرَبِيٍّ مُبِينٍ
    Revealed in a clear Arabic tongue.
    And the above statement alludes that since it is in a human language it is a cloudy murky quran.
    Do you believe in that?

    2-Allah swt is the creator of humans and their language, and the above statement alludes that Allah swt the creator couldn't find a way to clearly use the language he chose and created the spiritual theme he the almighty decreed for his subjects (god forbid)


    Of course the quran explains itself by itself but not in the way alluded to above which is the claim that the quran is murky cloudy mess.


    Im sorry bro but such a claim is not just an insult to the Arabic langue but also an insult to the quran, That Allah swt could use the plethora of expressions and words to mean heart.
    Plus the verse says Faces and is talking about faces where is the heart in all of this?!



    That verse is about the state in dunya, and not in jannah. So any possible contradiction would stem from misuse and misunderstanding.
    Just my quick bare-boned response.
    Will go into details if need be later.

    Ps: lets defer the discussion till after ramadan bro.
    I only asked the question as a placeholder so as to not forget it later on.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 7, 2016
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.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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

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