TwelverShia.net Forum
Off Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sword_of_sunnah on December 07, 2014, 11:24:43 PM
-
Smashing the myth of taking Ahlul-bayt as the only conveyors of Islamic knowledge.
http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/smashing-the-myth-of-taking-ahlul-bayt-as-the-only-conveyors-of-islamic-knowledge/
-
Good stuff, I browsed it quickly.
-
Thanks akhee.
All praises are due to Allah!
-
Good article.
A verse of the Quran:
إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِن كِتَابِ اللَّـهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ ۚ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers. (Maida verse: 44)
Allah says that after the Prophets, the Rabbis and the scholars judged according to Torah for the Jews.
-
JazakAllah khayr Akhee
-
From borther al-a3sha on the old kr-hcy forum :
there is no authentic Sunni report telling us to adhere to Ahlul Bayt. Rather authentic reports ask us to adhere to the Book of Allah -tala- and the Sunna of the Prophet image008.gif. Ahlul Bayt are one way of getting to the Sunna and understanding of Quran, but certainly they are not the only way.
Many Sunni scholars reported hadith, tafseer and fiqh from Imam Jafar and Imam Baqer. However, unlike the four Imams of madhabs of Ahlul Sunna, the Imams of Ahlul Bayt were victim to oppression from government , as well as oppression from people who lied on them and fabricarted reports under their name. Their opinions of feqh did not get the proper circumstances and proper followers to be manifested into a known madhab as did the others. Other known scholars of their time also suffered the same neglegence from people such as Al-Layth ibn Saad, Al-Shabi, Al-Zuhri, Ibn Abi Layla, Al-Thawri, Al-Awzai etc. Another reason is the degree of knowledge of one scholar over the other. Al-Zuhri -rahimahu Allah- was reknown for his knowledge of Sunna and he was more knowledgable than Muhammad Al-Bager -rahimahu Allah-. There is no reason whatsover to only adhere to Al-Baqer and neglect seeking Sunna from Al-Zuhri. If this was done, vast knowledge of Sunna would have been lost. Also, Imam Malik, Al-Shafi and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal were more knowledgable than Musa Al-Khadem and Ali Al-Redha in Sunna. If people would adhere to Musa Al-Khadem and Ali Al-Redha only and ignore other scholars of their time, then vast amounts of knowledge would have been lost.
Al-Shafi image020.gif is famous for the couplet about his love for Ahlul Bayt. Had Musa AL-Khadem image020.gif been more knowldgable than Malik image020.gif , Al-Shafi image020.gif would have been his close disciple, but he didn't. He sticked to Malik image020.gif . So did Muhammad Ibn Al_Hassan image020.gif , the disciple of Abu Haneefa image020.gif , who is one of the famous narrators of Imam Malik's Muwata. Had Al-Khadem image020.gif been more knowledgable than Malik he would not have wasted his time with Malik and only spent a few visits to Al-Khadem in prison. These two famous scholars had nothing against Ahlul Bayt. They seeked knowledge from wherever and whomever they can get it. Certainly a member of Ahlul Bayt would be more worthy of their pursuit had he been the most knowledgable person of his time.
Even the famous Shia narrator Abu Baseer attested to the fact that Al-Khadem was not very knowledgable. Al-Khoei said in Rijal Al-Hadith Vol 15 p. 154:
"Al-Shayk (i.e Al-Tusi) narrated this last narration through an isnad which could be considered, with a slight change in wording. He narrated through his isnad upto Ali Ibn Al-Hassan from Shuayb Al-Aqerkufi he said:" I asked Abu Al-Hassan (a.s)"... until he said: "and then I mentioned that to Abu Baseer (i.e the fatwa of Al-Khadem which is detailed in the next narration) so he said to me: by Allah Jafar (a.s) said: The woman is to be stonned and the man is to be flogged a hundred times as Hadd. And then he took his hands and placed them over his chest scratching it and saying: I do not think that the knowledge of one we are following has become complete yet (i.e referring to Al-Khazim)." (Ref,: Al-Tahdeeb Vol 7. Chapter on additional (topics) with regards to Fiqdh of Marriage, Hadith # 1957, as well as Al-Istibsar Vol 3, Chapter on Man marrying a woman and then knowing after having relation with her that she has a husband. Hadith # 687)
He also narrated the content of this hadith through his chain upto Ahmad Ibn Muhammad from Ibn Abi Umair from Shuaib that he said: I asked Abu Al-Hassan (a.s) about a man marrying a married woman. He said: They have to be separated. I asked: Is he to be flogged? He said: No , he is not to be flogged. So I departed him, while Abu Baseer was next to the Meez-ab (i.e of the Kaaba) so I informed him about the question and answer. He said to me: Where am I? I said: you are next to the Meez-ab. He then lifted his hand and said: By the Lord of this House , or by the Lord of this Kaaba, I have heard Jafar say that Ali (a.s) gave a judgment about the man marrying a married woman that the woman be stonned and the man be flogged as Hadd. He then said: Had I known that you have known I would have bruised your head with stones. He then said: I am so scared that he (i.e Al-Khadem ) was not given his knowledge. (Ref: Al-Tahdeeb Vol 10 Chapter on Hudud of adultery, hadith # 76)"
-
^ Interesting
-
Good article.
A verse of the Quran:
إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّبَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِن كِتَابِ اللَّـهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ ۚ فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُوا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ
Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah, and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers. (Maida verse: 44)
Allah says that after the Prophets, the Rabbis and the scholars judged according to Torah for the Jews.
Another verse:
مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّـهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللَّـهِ وَلَـٰكِن كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ
It is not for a human [prophet] that Allah should give him the Scripture and authority and prophethood and then he would say to the people, "Be servants to me rather than Allah," but [instead, he would say], "Be pious scholars of the Lord because of what you have taught of the Scripture and because of what you have studied." (Al-i-Imran verse: 79)
-
Afwan brothers, I really want to know, Is there any hadits stating that The prophet ( Shallallahu `alaihi wa sallam ) is the city of knowledge and Ali is the door of it?
-
Afwan brothers, I really want to know, Is there any hadits stating that The prophet ( Shallallahu `alaihi wa sallam ) is the city of knowledge and Ali is the door of it?
Yes, weak ones. There's also Hadith that Abu Bakr took the reward of all men who believed in Rasul-Allah (saw) from that time until judgement day, it's also weak.
-
Smashing the myth of taking Ahlul-bayt as the only conveyors of Islamic knowledge.
http://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/smashing-the-myth-of-taking-ahlul-bayt-as-the-only-conveyors-of-islamic-knowledge/
You're absolutely right. Why should the Ahlul Baith be taken as the only conveyors of Islamic knowledge. They are not the only conveyors since you have others as well. And this is why we have different factions and groups. You follow different sources and you end up with different groups. You can take Allah's Shariath and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah from who ever and where ever you want. And this is why the Ummah is in absolute dispute and disruption. We Muslims have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
-
@ Ameen
You're absolutely right. Why should the Ahlul Baith be taken as the only conveyors of Islamic knowledge. They are not the only conveyors since you have others as well. And this is why we have different factions and groups. You follow different sources and you end up with different groups. You can take Allah's Shariath and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah from who ever and where ever you want. And this is why the Ummah is in absolute dispute and disruption. We Muslims have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
Another common Shia argument.
Let me ask you - why is there so much division and infighting with the Shias? Don't they take all their knowledge from "one source - Ahlul Bayt"?
That being the case, why are Shia books full of condemnations from one Shia scholar to the other, cursing other groups (12ers cursing 7ers cursing Zaydis) or (Wilayat al-Faqihis cursing Khoei cursing Fadhallah) e.t.c.
This group thinks their marja' is right, this other group curses the former, another group curses the latter.
Even here in Australia, some people attend this Masjid and curse people attending this other Masjid, and there are Shia centres popping up every week, each trying to attract followers and Khums money.
It seems to me that the "followers of Ahlul Bayt" are even more divided than Christian denominations.
-
I still remember Nasrallah cursing Yasir al-Habib, and al-Sarkhi now in `Iraq cursing the hardliners, and Kamal al-Haydari being cursed by half the Shia scholars on the planet etc...
Cursing aside, Shia books of `Aqeedah and Fiqh are full of differences of opinions, Shia scholars even wrote books discussing these many opinions, review this article:
http://twelvershia.net/2013/06/28/the-sunnah-are-divided-and-the-shia-are-united/
-
@ Ameen
You're absolutely right. Why should the Ahlul Baith be taken as the only conveyors of Islamic knowledge. They are not the only conveyors since you have others as well. And this is why we have different factions and groups. You follow different sources and you end up with different groups. You can take Allah's Shariath and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah from who ever and where ever you want. And this is why the Ummah is in absolute dispute and disruption. We Muslims have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
Another common Shia argument.
Let me ask you - why is there so much division and infighting with the Shias? Don't they take all their knowledge from "one source - Ahlul Bayt"?
That being the case, why are Shia books full of condemnations from one Shia scholar to the other, cursing other groups (12ers cursing 7ers cursing Zaydis) or (Wilayat al-Faqihis cursing Khoei cursing Fadhallah) e.t.c.
This group thinks their marja' is right, this other group curses the former, another group curses the latter.
Even here in Australia, some people attend this Masjid and curse people attending this other Masjid, and there are Shia centres popping up every week, each trying to attract followers and Khums money.
It seems to me that the "followers of Ahlul Bayt" are even more divided than Christian denominations.
Listen brother, talk is very cheap and it doesn't matter whether it comes from me, you or any body else. This is what is fair and just. What ever we say has to be backed with solid and I mean solid references. I can say exactly the same about you. Take a look at your four schools of thought. A member of one school of thought is told not to pray behind and in the mosque of the Imam of another. They hate, curse and slander others. This has been going on for centuries. Your first school of thought was Hanfi. This was the only school of thought. Imagine what happened when the Maliki school of thought kicked off. How they were looked and treated by the Hanfis. Then you had the Shafi school emerge, later on followed by the Hanbali school. Bitter history is all there for you to read and see. Later on you have your political movements, Ahle Hadees, Deobandi, Wahabi, Barelvi and Salafi. They all differ, basically hate each others guts.
-
Listen brother, talk is very cheap and it doesn't matter whether it comes from me, you or any body else. This is what is fair and just. What ever we say has to be backed with solid and I mean solid references. I can say exactly the same about you. Take a look at your four schools of thought. A member of one school of thought is told not to pray behind and in the mosque of the Imam of another. They hate, curse and slander others. This has been going on for centuries. Your first school of thought was Hanfi. This was the only school of thought. Imagine what happened when the Maliki school of thought kicked off. How they were looked and treated by the Hanfis. Then you had the Shafi school emerge, later on followed by the Hanbali school. Bitter history is all there for you to read and see. Later on you have your political movements, Ahle Hadees, Deobandi, Wahabi, Barelvi and Salafi. They all differ, basically hate each others guts.
The brother wrote an article and linked to it, it talks about taking knowledge from Ahlul-Bayt, his article is organized as follows:
(I). Prophetic narrations which invalidate the false concept that Islamic knowledge must be sought only through Ahlul-bayt.
(II). Few Facts from Islamic history, which demolish the Shi’ite myth of acquiring Islamic knowledge only through Ahlul-bayt.
(III). Few examples of the supposed infallible Imams acquiring the Islamic knowledge from fallible Muslims.
(IV). Weren’t the Imams from Ahlul-bayt taught by fallible teachers?
(V). The Mischief of Shi’ites.
Now you're talking about "Wahhabi, Salafi, Ahlu-Hadees" (Who are all one group btw) and other groups, but what does this have to do with the article the brother wrote?
No one mentioned "groups" except you, it's completely off topic.
-
Listen brother, talk is very cheap and it doesn't matter whether it comes from me, you or any body else. This is what is fair and just. What ever we say has to be backed with solid and I mean solid references. I can say exactly the same about you. Take a look at your four schools of thought. A member of one school of thought is told not to pray behind and in the mosque of the Imam of another. They hate, curse and slander others. This has been going on for centuries. Your first school of thought was Hanfi. This was the only school of thought. Imagine what happened when the Maliki school of thought kicked off. How they were looked and treated by the Hanfis. Then you had the Shafi school emerge, later on followed by the Hanbali school. Bitter history is all there for you to read and see. Later on you have your political movements, Ahle Hadees, Deobandi, Wahabi, Barelvi and Salafi. They all differ, basically hate each others guts.
The brother wrote an article and linked to it, it talks about taking knowledge from Ahlul-Bayt, his article is organized as follows:
(I). Prophetic narrations which invalidate the false concept that Islamic knowledge must be sought only through Ahlul-bayt.
(II). Few Facts from Islamic history, which demolish the Shi’ite myth of acquiring Islamic knowledge only through Ahlul-bayt.
(III). Few examples of the supposed infallible Imams acquiring the Islamic knowledge from fallible Muslims.
(IV). Weren’t the Imams from Ahlul-bayt taught by fallible teachers?
(V). The Mischief of Shi’ites.
Now you're talking about "Wahhabi, Salafi, Ahlu-Hadees" (Who are all one group btw) and other groups, but what does this have to do with the article the brother wrote?
No one mentioned "groups" except you, it's completely off topic.
I just responded to what the brother said. Now open your eyes and stop accusing me of going off topic. Take a look at the brothers post that i responded to and stop playing games. They wont get you anywhere. One of your agents on Shia chat issued a challenge on your behalf. Now stop talking nonsense and lets here it.
-
I never issued any challenge in SC unless you're talking about a very old one from a couple of months ago.
-
@ Ameen
I just responded to what the brother said. Now open your eyes and stop accusing me of going off topic. Take a look at the brothers post that i responded to and stop playing games. They wont get you anywhere. One of your agents on Shia chat issued a challenge on your behalf. Now stop talking nonsense and lets here it.
Why change the focus? You said the following earlier:
You can take Allah's Shariath and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah from who ever and where ever you want. And this is why the Ummah is in absolute dispute and disruption. We Muslims have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
So the question is - since you Shias claim to take your religion from only one source - "Ahlul Bayt", why are you still so divided?
This question is part of a larger topic - Why is everything in Shiism so good in theory, but bad in practise?
-
@ Ameen
I just responded to what the brother said. Now open your eyes and stop accusing me of going off topic. Take a look at the brothers post that i responded to and stop playing games. They wont get you anywhere. One of your agents on Shia chat issued a challenge on your behalf. Now stop talking nonsense and lets here it.
Why change the focus? You said the following earlier:
You can take Allah's Shariath and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah from who ever and where ever you want. And this is why the Ummah is in absolute dispute and disruption. We Muslims have no one to blame but ourselves for this.
So the question is - since you Shias claim to take your religion from only one source - "Ahlul Bayt", why are you still so divided?
This question is part of a larger topic - Why is everything in Shiism so good in theory, but bad in practise?
Let me say this first, the same can be said to you and the same applies to you. Why are you (Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath) so divide as well??? Do you practice what you believe and preech??? No you don't. You say that the Prophet (pbuh) said "one must not turn against and revolt with their elected leader." Your scholars also say this because it makes Islamic states weak and vulnerable. Now you mentioned Iraq and Syria. Who are have turned against, revolted and challenged the goverments by taking up arms against them??? I.S.I.S. And Al Qaidah. Who are they??? Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath. That's who they claim to be. You have the Taliban involved in terrorist activities against the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Who are the Taliban??? Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath. You have Sipa e Sahaba and Lashkar e Janghavi involved in terrorist activities against the goverment of Pakistan.
-
You never answered his question Ameen = )
All you're doing is saying "Well, you guys are divided too!" But you're not answering his question concerning the division in Shia sects, politics, `Aqeedah and Fiqh.
-
You never answered his question Ameen = )
All you're doing is saying "Well, you guys are divided too!" But you're not answering his question concerning the division in Shia sects, politics, `Aqeedah and Fiqh.
I have answered his question in one manner. Just has you have divisions in you by all means like schools of thought, political parties, militant groups, Islamic sects etc. others have too. But there is a difference when it comes to the core belief and that is which Shia are you, this is where the difference is. One sees themselves as the right one. But with the Ahle Sunnah it doesn't matter, everything goes. You are all right, just and on haq. The same goes for your belief in the companions, they were all good, pious and on haq, when they fought fierce battles with each other. You have no clear difference between right and wrong, who is truthful and who is on falsehood and between haq and batil. It's not about any individual or person but it's about right and wrong and haq and batil. So if your faith and belief is about justifying incidents and events, regardless of how they came about and what ever the circumstances were, if it's about everyone is right and everything is accepted and goes then, may The Lord help you.
-
Brother Hani, do you believe Shia are KAFIR??? Yes or no.
-
I have answered his question in one manner. Just has you have divisions in you by all means like schools of thought, political parties, militant groups, Islamic sects etc. others have too. But there is a difference when it comes to the core belief and that is which Shia are you, this is where the difference is. One sees themselves as the right one. But with the Ahle Sunnah it doesn't matter, everything goes. You are all right, just and on haq. The same goes for your belief in the companions, they were all good, pious and on haq, when they fought fierce battles with each other. You have no clear difference between right and wrong, who is truthful and who is on falsehood and between haq and batil. It's not about any individual or person but it's about right and wrong and haq and batil. So if your faith and belief is about justifying incidents and events, regardless of how they came about and what ever the circumstances were, if it's about everyone is right and everything is accepted and goes then, may The Lord help you.
Thanks for your Du`a', may the Lord help you too! ; )
-
Brother Hani, do you believe Shia are KAFIR??? Yes or no.
Which Shia? Waqifah? Sabaa'iyyah? `Ali-Ilahiyyah? Ithna `Ashari Usooliyyah? Imamiyyah Shaykhiyyah?
Heck Ithna `Asharis themselves have very different beliefs and teams, some believe in Tahreef some don't, some curse `A'ishah some don't, some believe in `Ismah some don't, some believe in Wilayah Takweeniyah some don't, some do Istighatha some think it's Shirk etc...
I can't answer this question, better to ask about each specific belief rather than the sect.
-
Brother Hani, do you believe Shia are KAFIR??? Yes or no.
Which Shia? Waqifah? Sabaa'iyyah? `Ali-Ilahiyyah? Ithna `Ashari Usooliyyah? Imamiyyah Shaykhiyyah?
Heck Ithna `Asharis themselves have very different beliefs and teams, some believe in Tahreef some don't, some curse `A'ishah some don't, some believe in `Ismah some don't, some believe in Wilayah Takweeniyah some don't, some do Istighatha some think it's Shirk etc...
I can't answer this question, better to ask about each specific belief rather than the sect.
You can't answer this question, in other words you're not sure. Thanks for your honesty. That's all I wanted to know.
-
Brother Hani, do you believe Shia are KAFIR??? Yes or no.
Which Shia? Waqifah? Sabaa'iyyah? `Ali-Ilahiyyah? Ithna `Ashari Usooliyyah? Imamiyyah Shaykhiyyah?
Heck Ithna `Asharis themselves have very different beliefs and teams, some believe in Tahreef some don't, some curse `A'ishah some don't, some believe in `Ismah some don't, some believe in Wilayah Takweeniyah some don't, some do Istighatha some think it's Shirk etc...
I can't answer this question, better to ask about each specific belief rather than the sect.
You can't answer this question, in other words you're not sure. Thanks for your honesty. That's all I wanted to know.
No - what he means is that the kufr of a Shia depends on their beliefs. We can't say all Shias are kaffir because basically each Shia person has a different belief. There are certain beliefs that would make one a kaffir - such as declaring Abu Bakr a kaffir, or 'Aisha an adulterer (wal 'iyathu bil lah).
He could tell you that al-Majlisi was a kaffir, for example, without any doubt.
-
My friend's wife is shia. He asked me once about it and I said to him bluntly if your wife believes that Abu Bakar RA is a disbeliever then I dont see how she is a Muslimah for sure, because that belief is against al-Qur'an. And as far as I know, all 12ers believes that he is a disbeliever. He doesn't agree with me, but hey I don't beat around a bush.
-
can you tell me how someone would become a Kafir by saying that so and so companion in reality wasn't a true believer or was half a believer??? Or if someone said that so and so of the Prophet's (pbuh) wives had sinned or was disobedient??? What is the definition of a Kafir according to you and how would you define Kufar???
-
can you tell me how someone would become a Kafir by saying that so and so companion in reality wasn't a true believer or was half a believer??? Or if someone said that so and so of the Prophet's (pbuh) wives had sinned or was disobedient??? What is the definition of a Kafir according to you and how would you define Kufar???
Well his opinion (I assume and don't take my word for it), is that since the Prophet (saw) promised Abu Bakr heaven in plenty of narrations through many authentic chains, in addition to all the praise he received in other narrations and his merits and virtues and Qur'anic verses revealed concerning him etc...
Hadrami is probably saying that based on this, if one says he is a Kafir, then he himself falls into the Kufr of denying the Prophet's (saw) clear words.
I personally like to give people excuses when it comes to this stuff and never accuse them of Kufr.
-
can you tell me how someone would become a Kafir by saying that so and so companion in reality wasn't a true believer or was half a believer??? Or if someone said that so and so of the Prophet's (pbuh) wives had sinned or was disobedient??? What is the definition of a Kafir according to you and how would you define Kufar???
Thats the difference between you and me. I dont pretend about my belief. So are you saying Abu Bakar RA is a muslim?
-
can you tell me how someone would become a Kafir by saying that so and so companion in reality wasn't a true believer or was half a believer??? Or if someone said that so and so of the Prophet's (pbuh) wives had sinned or was disobedient??? What is the definition of a Kafir according to you and how would you define Kufar???
Well his opinion (I assume and don't take my word for it), is that since the Prophet (saw) promised Abu Bakr heaven in plenty of narrations through many authentic chains, in addition to all the praise he received in other narrations and his merits and virtues and Qur'anic verses revealed concerning him etc...
Hadrami is probably saying that based on this, if one says he is a Kafir, then he himself falls into the Kufr of denying the Prophet's (saw) clear words.
I personally like to give people excuses when it comes to this stuff and never accuse them of Kufr.
Yep, hani is correct. There is too many proofs where Allah SWT & Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam confirm that Abu Bakar RA is a true mu'min.
-
Can you show me those proofs??? I also want to know where it says that if someone believes a companion was a half hearted believer or wasn't a true believer then, this person becomes a Kafir due to such belief.
As far as I know and I am aware of "Kufar" has to do with "Nabuwath" and "Shirk" has to do with "Allah".
To reject "Nabuwath" or any part or bit of it, results in "Kufar". And to associate anything, anyone or yourself to "Allah" results in "Shirk".
-
Can you show me those proofs??? I also want to know where it says that if someone believes a companion was a half hearted believer or wasn't a true believer then, this person becomes a Kafir due to such belief.
As far as I know and I am aware of "Kufar" has to do with "Nabuwath" and "Shirk" has to do with "Allah".
To reject "Nabuwath" or any part or bit of it, results in "Kufar". And to associate anything, anyone or yourself to "Allah" results in "Shirk".
Come on, "half hearted" & "wasnt true believer"? What is that? Youre trying to hard to hide your real view of him. Just denying one of your imam is equal to denying nubuwwah anyway. Dont be shy rafidi.