TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Noor-us-Sunnah on July 29, 2016, 10:14:15 AM
-
The deviant sects Such as Khawarij and Rafidah, often try to undermine the Caliphate of the rightly guided Caliphs, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, (May Allah be pleased with all of them) for their ijtihad in some matters during their rule, which appeared to be contrary to the Sunnah of Prophet(saws).
For example:
A Khawariji could accuse and disregard the Caliphate of Ali, claiming that he went against the Sunnah, when he punished people with fire. Or that he changed Islamic Capital from Madinah to Kufah, etc.
OR
A Rafidi could accuse and disregard the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, claiming that Umar & Uthman prohibited people from hajj tamattu, or that Umar issued the command of counting triple divorce as three, etc.
But one hadeeth of Prophet(saws) is sufficient to prove the incorrectness of criticism against the ijihaad of Rightly Guided Caliphs, where we find Prophet(saws) saying follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs.
Narrated Al-'Irbad bin Sariyah: "One day after the morning Salat, the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) exhorted us to the extent that the eyes wept and the hearts shuddered with fear. A man said: 'Indeed this is a farewell exhortation. [So what] do you order us O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'I order you to have Taqwa of Allah, and to listen and obey, even in the case of an Ethiopian slave. Indeed, whomever among you lives, he will see much difference. Beware of the newly invented matters, for indeed they are astray. Whoever among you sees that, then he must stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Khulafa', cling to it with the molars.'"
Since we dont have any khawariji on the forum, I would like to quote the report about the ijtihad of Ali, which invalidates the criticism of Rafidah against Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman for their ijtihad.
We read: Narrated `Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”(sahi bukhari 4.260).
Apparently, Ali did an ijtihad which was contrary to Sunnah, this is the reason Ibn Abbas said he wouldn't have done that, which is similar to Ali disagreeing to follow certain Ijtihad of Umar or Uthman. But this doesn't effect their Rule, as their ijtihad was legitimized per command of Prophet(saws).
-
I strongly disagree with this post and I do not believe that the Caliphs have any right to make tashree'.
However, if the OP is saying that the Caliphs get ajr for their ijtihad, then I agree with him, but that this is for the whole Ummah and not just for the four Caliphs.
If the OP means that they have the right to purposefully go against the Prophet - peace be upon him - then this is a misrepresentation of the hadith.
In any case, I do not believe the hadith of Al Irbath that was quoted above is authentic to begin with.
-
It means to follow their way since they adhere to the guidance of the Prophet (saw) strictly.
In odd or rare scenarios where they may make a judgement that opposes the Prophet's (saw) guidance, (e.g Ali burning people) then we do not follow them in these.
-
^ This is a much more acceptable understanding. Thank you Hani.
-
true, shia belief their mahdi can nullify sunnah and use the law of the jews instead.
It means to follow their way since they adhere to the guidance of the Prophet (saw) strictly.
In odd or rare scenarios where they may make a judgement that opposes the Prophet's (saw) guidance, (e.g Ali burning people) then we do not follow them in these.
Ahlussunnah belief in a nutshell, unlike shia who belief their demigods can go against sunnah and even their last one can use the law of the jews instead
-
I think i didnt phrase my view properly, or that I didn't choose the appropriate words. And yes I agree with Hani's view.
-
true, shia belief their mahdi can nullify sunnah and use the law of the jews instead. We do???
Caliph Umar willingly changed the Sunnah and even acknowledged it. Surely you have read that hadith? Same with Caliph Uthman? Am I going to have to provide references or you know what I am talking about?
-
true, shia belief their mahdi can nullify sunnah and use the law of the jews instead.
We do???
Caliph Umar willingly changed the Sunnah and even acknowledged it. Surely you have read that hadith? Same with Caliph Uthman? Am I going to have to provide references or you know what I am talking about?
like mut'ah which was forbidden by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam or Taraweeh in congregation which was done by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam etc? Whats that got to do with your imam judging using the jewish law? :D
He prefer Abdullah bin Saba' law?
-
like mut'ah which was forbidden by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam or Taraweeh in congregation which was done by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam etc? Whats that got to do with your imam judging using the jewish law? :D
Tarawih in congregation??? You must have missed this hadith:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next night they came for the prayer, but Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). He came out to them in a state of anger, saying, "You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. Tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (Tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer."
Sahih al-Bukhari
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/78/140
He prefer Abdullah bin Saba' law?
Werent a couple of your Cliphs BFF with Ka'ab Al-Ahbar the Jewish Rabbi. Explains a lot about you guys
-
The hadith you cited proves that there is a precedent for Tarawih in congregation. As you can read, the people prayed with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the masjid in congregation. Of course, the reward for voluntary prayers is greater at home and Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) didn't want the Muslims to think it was obligatory.
-
Werent a couple of your Cliphs BFF with Ka'ab Al-Ahbar the Jewish Rabbi. Explains a lot about you guys
Ibn tawoos: kaab al ahbar and Ibn salaam were from the most closest companions of Ali Ibn Abi talib. ( المصدر: التشريف بالمنن في التعريف بالمنن ص٨٠ ٨١ ٨٢
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/kaab.jpg
-
Werent a couple of your Cliphs BFF with Ka'ab Al-Ahbar the Jewish Rabbi. Explains a lot about you guys
Ibn tawoos: kaab al ahbar and Ibn salaam were from the most closest companions of Ali Ibn Abi talib. ( المصدر: التشريف بالمنن في التعريف بالمنن ص٨٠ ٨١ ٨٢
https://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/kaab.jpg
everytime shite think they have something against us, it goes back to their faces :D
like mut'ah which was forbidden by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam or Taraweeh in congregation which was done by Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam etc? Whats that got to do with your imam judging using the jewish law? :D
Tarawih in congregation??? You must have missed this hadith:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) made a small room (with a palm leaf mat). Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out (of his house) and prayed in it. Some men came and joined him in his prayer. Then again the next night they came for the prayer, but Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and knocked the door with small stones (to draw his attention). He came out to them in a state of anger, saying, "You are still insisting (on your deed, i.e. Tarawih prayer in the mosque) that I thought that this prayer (Tarawih) might become obligatory on you. So you people, offer this prayer at your homes, for the best prayer of a person is the one which he offers at home, except the compulsory (congregational) prayer."
Sahih al-Bukhari
http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/78/140
Thanks for proving my point that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam did pray taraweeh in congregation with the companion. You still havent answered why your 12th one gonna use jewish law?
So taraweeh is against sunnah, but this is act of worship of pious people. What a religion only for dimwit. You deserve it.
https://youtu.be/ArANFtDwsVg
-
everytime shite think they have something against us, it goes back to their faces :D
Associating Kaab with Ali is just to move away from the concrete proof that Kaab was Caliph Umar's closet advisor. So while Abdullah Ibn Saba is a fictitious character, Kaab is real.
As a matter of fact, the invention of AbS was probably done to shed light away from teh close relationship Kaab had with Caliphs Umar, Uthman and then Muawiya - they were Jew-Lovers.
Thanks for proving my point that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam did pray taraweeh in congregation with the companion.
Did you miss the part "offer this prayer at your homes". Hey I get it. Prophet said pray at home; Caliph Umar said pray in congregation. You guys have already admitted you follow the Sunnah of the Sahaba.
Moreover, there is not a single authentic narration where the Prophet uses the word "tarawih". It was an unknown term during his time.
It may have been another invention of Kaab the jewish rabbi and so dear to Caliph Umar.
You still havent answered why your 12th one gonna use jewish law?
Oh yeah, I missed this. The 12th will use jewish laws against you and your people since you clearly do not follow the Prophet's laws.
https://youtu.be/ArANFtDwsVg
Look closely at the video - you will notice there are no suicide bombers there. you people blow yourselves up day in-day out and then call others dimwits.
-
everytime shite think they have something against us, it goes back to their faces :D
Associating Kaab with Ali is just to move away from the concrete proof that Kaab was Caliph Umar's closet advisor. So while Abdullah Ibn Saba is a fictitious character, Kaab is real.
As a matter of fact, the invention of AbS was probably done to shed light away from teh close relationship Kaab had with Caliphs Umar, Uthman and then Muawiya - they were Jew-Lovers.
Thanks for proving my point that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam did pray taraweeh in congregation with the companion.
Did you miss the part "offer this prayer at your homes". Hey I get it. Prophet said pray at home; Caliph Umar said pray in congregation. You guys have already admitted you follow the Sunnah of the Sahaba.
Moreover, there is not a single authentic narration where the Prophet uses the word "tarawih". It was an unknown term during his time.
It may have been another invention of Kaab the jewish rabbi and so dear to Caliph Umar.
You still havent answered why your 12th one gonna use jewish law?
Oh yeah, I missed this. The 12th will use jewish laws against you and your people since you clearly do not follow the Prophet's laws.
https://youtu.be/ArANFtDwsVg
Look closely at the video - you will notice there are no suicide bombers there. you people blow yourselves up day in-day out and then call others dimwits.
Lol......so......when did prophet saw do matam???? When did He saw hit himself on death of any of His beloveds? Hamza??
FYI the first modern day suicide bomber was a Shia, and a kid in Iran/Iraq war, so are you lot the CREATORS of suicide bombings???
Your not very intelligent I would say more of a screw loose, maybe that's why you like to use sarcasm to cover your intelligence shortcomings
Gotta rate bro Muslim720............your lost on banging your head alone on mud while your nostrils sniff the carpet lol
-
everytime shite think they have something against us, it goes back to their faces :D
Associating Kaab with Ali is just to move away from the concrete proof that Kaab was Caliph Umar's closet advisor. So while Abdullah Ibn Saba is a fictitious character, Kaab is real.
Ibn Saba' fictious? Boy, you're another dumb shia who thinks he knows his jewish influenced religion :D
As a matter of fact, the invention of AbS was probably done to shed light away from teh close relationship Kaab had with Caliphs Umar, Uthman and then Muawiya - they were Jew-Lovers.
Says a shia whose jewish lover mahdi love jewish law so much that he will rule by it :P
Thanks for proving my point that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam did pray taraweeh in congregation with the companion.
Did you miss the part "offer this prayer at your homes". Hey I get it. Prophet said pray at home; Caliph Umar said pray in congregation. You guys have already admitted you follow the Sunnah of the Sahaba.
Moreover, there is not a single authentic narration where the Prophet uses the word "tarawih". It was an unknown term during his time.
It may have been another invention of Kaab the jewish rabbi and so dear to Caliph Umar.
Of course its not called taraweeh you dimwit, that's not my point. The fact he shallallahu alaihi wasallam did it in congregation with the companion and the only reason he stopped was because he did not want it to be made an obligation which will be very hard for the ummah, heck even praying 5 times a day are hard for some (wink wink, if you know what i mean :P). Did umar RA made taraweeh an obligation moron?
You still havent answered why your 12th one gonna use jewish law?
Oh yeah, I missed this. The 12th will use jewish laws against you and your people since you clearly do not follow the Prophet's laws.
:D you think you can avoid the fact your mahdi love jewish law & will rule by it by having a smart arse answer? Your mahdi will only care about his forefather's law
https://youtu.be/ArANFtDwsVg
Look closely at the video - you will notice there are no suicide bombers there. you people blow yourselves up day in-day out and then call others dimwits.
Say shia whose brethern pioneered suicide bombing in the early 80's. So suicide bombing is part of our religious ritual? You can't deny that animalistic practices in your holiest place in Karbala is part of your religion & one of the best act of worship for shia while suicide bombing is definitely not and will never be part of ours. Maybe if some sunni were not so close to shia in the 80s they won't get influenced and do it. Suicide bombing only started after khomeini, while you beating yourself up been happening for centuries. Try better comparison next time super dimwit
-
But one hadeeth of Prophet(saws) is sufficient to prove the incorrectness of criticism against the ijihaad of Rightly Guided Caliphs, where we find Prophet(saws) saying follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs.
We read: Narrated `Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”(sahi bukhari 4.260).
Apparently, Ali did an ijtihad which was contrary to Sunnah, this is the reason Ibn Abbas said he wouldn't have done that, which is similar to Ali disagreeing to follow certain Ijtihad of Umar or Uthman. But this doesn't effect their Rule, as their ijtihad was legitimized per command of Prophet(saws).
Brother from where you derived burning someone is against Islam and Imam was worng?
Secondly, what do you mean by prophet said my Sunnah and Sunnah of Rightly guided caliph ,Was Sunnah of prophet to be different from sunnah of Rightly guided caliph. I mean prophet could have said follow my sunnah and rightly guided caliph rather than saying sunnah of caliphs ...
-
But one hadeeth of Prophet(saws) is sufficient to prove the incorrectness of criticism against the ijihaad of Rightly Guided Caliphs, where we find Prophet(saws) saying follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs.
We read: Narrated `Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'”(sahi bukhari 4.260).
Apparently, Ali did an ijtihad which was contrary to Sunnah, this is the reason Ibn Abbas said he wouldn't have done that, which is similar to Ali disagreeing to follow certain Ijtihad of Umar or Uthman. But this doesn't effect their Rule, as their ijtihad was legitimized per command of Prophet(saws).
Brother from where you derived burning someone is against Islam and Imam was worng?
Ibn Abbas(ra) quoted a the hadeeth of Prophet(saws), to show that Ali(ra) was wrong.
Also we have these reports from Prophet(saws)
Abu Dawud in “Sunnan”: 2667 .Narrated Hamzah al-Aslami: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed him commander over a detachment. He said: I went out along with it. He (the Prophet) said: If you find so-and-so, burn him with the fire. I then turned away, and he called me. So I returned to him, and he said: If you find so-and-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire.
Ab dawood in sunan :2669 .Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: We were with the Apostle of Allah (saw) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Apostle of Allah (saw) came and said: Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire.
Secondly, what do you mean by prophet said my Sunnah and Sunnah of Rightly guided caliph ,Was Sunnah of prophet to be different from sunnah of Rightly guided caliph. I mean prophet could have said follow my sunnah and rightly guided caliph rather than saying sunnah of caliphs ...
Hani explained it.
-
Ibn Abbas(ra) quoted a the hadeeth of Prophet(saws), to show that Ali(ra) was wrong.
Also we have these reports from Prophet(saws)
Abu Dawud in “Sunnan”: 2667 .Narrated Hamzah al-Aslami: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) appointed him commander over a detachment. He said: I went out along with it. He (the Prophet) said: If you find so-and-so, burn him with the fire. I then turned away, and he called me. So I returned to him, and he said: If you find so-and-so, kill him, and do not burn him, for no one punishes with fire except the Lord of the fire.
Ab dawood in sunan :2669 .Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: We were with the Apostle of Allah (saw) during a journey. He went to ease himself. We saw a bird with her two young ones and we captured her young ones. The bird came and began to spread its wings. The Apostle of Allah (saw) came and said: Who grieved this for its young ones? Return its young ones to it. He also saw an ant village that we had burnt. He asked: Who has burnt this? We replied: We. He said: It is not proper to punish with fire except the Lord of fire.
The first narration shows that either our Prophet has first given command against command of God(truth) or he has forgotten either of the attribute can't be of attached to prophet so this narration seems to be fabricated brother.
Other narration which talked about animals includes the logic that except God none can punish with fire this logic is not of quranic .
We can look into quran:
[Shakir 16:126] And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
[Pickthal 16:126] If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.
Suppose if they punish a believer with fire a believer has option to punish back likewise.There are more verses which could be discussed for this.
If i am wrong correct me brother.
If Imam did that(though it's disputable) then also he wasn't wrong.
Secondly, what do you mean by prophet said my Sunnah and Sunnah of Rightly guided caliph ,Was Sunnah of prophet to be different from sunnah of Rightly guided caliph. I mean prophet could have said follow my sunnah and rightly guided caliph rather than saying sunnah of caliphs ...
Hani explained it.
I meant by this as i said that explicitly mentioning to follow sunnah of caliph rather than saying to follow caliphs seems these words not from prophets mouth in narration but to be fabricated to cover-up wrong sunnah(innovation) of some caliphs
-
Is that either our Prophet has first given command against command of God(truth) or he has forgotten either of the attribute can't be of attached to prophet so this narration seems to be fabricated brother.
Praise be to Allah, who gave us(Sunnis) the wisdom and understanding. The command of Prophet(saws) can easily be understood as a command which he gave, while being unaware of the command of Allah, but just at the same moment he was made aware of that, hence he changed his command. And this is quite reasonable for those who have read Quran with understanding. Since we find in Quran, that Prophet(saws) made a decision being unaware of the command of Allah, and then changed his decision. I'm talking about what we find Surah Tahreem.
O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Quran 66:1)
Going by your standards, if this verse was not a verse of Quran, but a hadeeth from Bukhari, then by Allah Shias would have called it a fabrication. But fortunately its a verse of Quran and you can't get away with it.
So, We Thank Allah, for keeping us on the path of Sunnah of Prophet(saws), where we don't judge things based on personal desires or views, and thus we Shun and reject this Shia ideology as its a misguidance and a deviance.
Other narration which talked about animals includes the logic that except God none can punish with fire this logic is not of quranic .
We can look into quran:
[Shakir 16:126] And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
[Pickthal 16:126] If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.
Suppose if they punish a believer with fire a believer has option to punish back likewise.There are more verses which could be discussed for this.
If i am wrong correct me brother.
The incident of Ali burning people, wasn't one about retaliation. Hence the example is invalid
If Imam did that(though it's disputable) then also he wasn't wrong.
He was wrong as per Ibn Abbas. If you say Ali made ijihad against command of Prophet(saws) and ibn Abbas was wrong in his view, then the same should apply to the ijtihad based decisions of other rightly guided caliphs, and if Ali objected to that then he was wrong in that. There is no scope for double standards here.
I meant by this as i said that explicitly mentioning to follow sunnah of caliph rather than saying to follow caliphs seems these words not from prophets mouth in narration but to be fabricated to cover-up wrong sunnah(innovation) of some caliphs
Your incapability and ignorance did appear in your objection to first hadeeth, so these unqualified objections doesnt carry any weight at all.
-
The command of Prophet(saws) can easily be understood as a command which he gave, while being unaware of the command of Allah, but just at the same moment he was made aware of that, hence he changed his command. And this is quite reasonable for those who have read Quran with understanding.
Firstly, your claiming Prophet gave wrong command then was made aware then changed command goes against the highly praised quranic characteristic of Prophet.
I mean, Prophet being unaware of correct command (of God) and then giving commands (God forbid)in ignorance of correct commands is unacceptable trait. As being ignorant and acting in ignorance is one of characteristics of disbelievers and hypocrites. Any prophet can't do this let alone leaders of all Prophets.
Since we find in Quran, that Prophet(saws) made a decision being unaware of the command of Allah, and then changed his decision. I'm talking about what we find Surah Tahreem.
O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. (Quran 66:1)
Anything which is made lawful, but not obligatory, you can do it or don't do it is upto you.
If I take an oath not to eat something which is lawful, but not obligatory, is upto me.
But God taking care of his most beloved Prophet asking him why do you prohibit something on yourself for your wives - infact after taking oath one has to fulfill it and to break it is not of noble traits,so humblest prophet was putting himself under one more obligation, but God eased him in very next verse.
It's not that prophet was wrong and then then told correct command, further you can go thru your tafsirs about this incident of hafsa and Hazrat Aisha.
The incident of Ali burning people, wasn't one about retaliation. Hence the example is invalid
16:126- And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
Suppose. A believer has been punished by disbeliever with fire then believer retaliates. So now this believer could afflict that disbeliever with fire or not? Because the logic used in above narrations goes against quran.
-
Firstly, your claiming Prophet gave wrong command then was made aware then changed command goes against the highly praised quranic characteristic of Prophet.
Not at all, rather it is inline with the Quran, and its againt the false and deviant Shia ideology.
I mean, Prophet being unaware of correct command (of God) and then giving commands (God forbid)in ignorance of correct commands is unacceptable trait. As being ignorant and acting in ignorance is one of characteristics of disbelievers and hypocrites. Any prophet can't do this let alone leaders of all Prophets.
Quran says Adam disobeyed Allah, and we know that the trait of iblees was to disobey Allah, now equating both is nothing but stupidity which is due to ignorance. The same is your case above.
Anything which is made lawful, but not obligatory, you can do it or don't do it is upto you.
A Prophet can't make a thing unlawful for himself, which was made lawful by Allah. Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't know this. Its quite clear and apparent in 66:1.
If I take an oath not to eat something which is lawful, but not obligatory, is upto me.
But God taking care of his most beloved Prophet asking him why do you prohibit something on yourself for your wives - infact after taking oath one has to fulfill it and to break it is not of noble traits,so humblest prophet was putting himself under one more obligation, but God eased him in very next verse.
There are many foods, which are lawful but Prophet(saws) didn't eat it. However what was unacceptable to Allah was Prophet(saws) making a thing which is lawful as unlawful for himself. Hence Allah rebuked his decision, and concluded the verse saying he is forgiving and merciful.
It's not that prophet was wrong and then then told correct command, further you can go thru your tafsirs about this incident of hafsa and Hazrat Aisha.
He was wrong in his decision, that is why Allah made him change it. If it was right then Allah wouldn't have made him change it.
16:126- And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.
Suppose. A believer has been punished by disbeliever with fire then believer retaliates. So now this believer could afflict that disbeliever with fire or not? Because the logic used in above narrations goes against quran.
I don't think that unlawful forms of punishments can be used as retaliation. I have read in some interviews of Muslim prisoners that they were being punished in the form of sodomy. Now if you ask me can these Muslims retaliate in the same way, then I say no. Unlawful form of punishments can't be used in retaliation.
-
Quran says Adam disobeyed Allah, and we know that the trait of iblees was to disobey Allah, now equating both is nothing but stupidity which is due to ignorance. The same is your case above.
yes brother this is out of ignorance to compare that realm with this worldly realm and that disobedience which adam(as) did was a sin or not itself an off-topic discussion if u want we could discuss but first lets concentrate on our Prophet(s).
A Prophet can't make a thing unlawful for himself, which was made lawful by Allah. Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't know this. Its quite clear and apparent in 66:1.
There are many foods, which are lawful but Prophet(saws) didn't eat it. However what was unacceptable to Allah was Prophet(saws) making a thing which is lawful as unlawful for himself. Hence Allah rebuked his decision, and concluded the verse saying he is forgiving and merciful.
He was wrong in his decision, that is why Allah made him change it. If it was right then Allah wouldn't have made him change it.
If any muslim takes any oath to do or not to do something then he can't make any changes in area of obligatory acts or in area of forbidden acts but the only area where he can make changes for himself to refrain or to do any act is the area lawful acts.
So if a muslim takes an oath to eat fruit X and not to eat fruit Y for whatever reasons upto a particular duration, then he must eat fruit X and eating fruit Y is unlawful for him upto that duration.A muslim must not be deceitful in his oath.
That's why prophet's making any lawful (not obligatory) thing unlawful for him according to his oath is not a sin or misled action. OR Is there any other way of taking oath? If yes, Please explain.
Or do you consider prophet was misled?
"By Your might, I will surely mislead all of them, except Your chosen servants among them" 38:82-83
I don't think that unlawful forms of punishments can be used as retaliation. I have read in some interviews of Muslim prisoners that they were being punished in the form of sodomy. Now if you ask me can these Muslims retaliate in the same way, then I say no. Unlawful form of punishments can't be used in retaliation.
All-wise God has properly structured the islamic rulings on wisdom.If a disbeliever slapped a believer then believer can islamically retaliate and punish him with slap(or blood for blood),If a disbeliever sodomized believer then believer can islamically retaliate and punish him back with the punishment of sodomy which is to kill by stoning or to behead disbeliever,which is at par of sodomy as per islamic wisdom. Afterall islam is not devoid of any ruling what will be the punishment of the one who burns with fire.?