Our Imams (peace be upon them) confirmed that their grandfather, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family), had been poisoned in his last days by Aysha and Hafsa, at the order of their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar. One of the famous ancient Shia interpreters of Quran by the name of Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Qummi, who lived in the days of Imam al-Hassan al-Askry (Peace be upon him), relates a Hadith as reported by the Imams regarding the assassination of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family).
"The Prophet said to Hafsa: 'I will tell you a secret. If you divulge it, Allah, His Angels and people will curse you.' 'So, what is it?' wondered Hafsa. The Prophet said: 'Abu Bakr will be able to seize the Caliphate and power after me, and will be succeeded by your father, Omar.' Hafsa wondered: 'Who informed you of this?' 'Allah, the Omnipresent, the Omniscient informed me.'
"On the same day, Hafsa divulged the secret to her friend, Aysha. In turn, Aysha divulged the secret to her father, Abu Bakr. So, Abu Bakr came to Omar and said: 'My daughter Aysha told me a secret reported by Hafsa, but I cannot always trust what Aysha says. So, you ask your daughter Hafsa, make sure and tell me.'
"Omar went over to Hafsa, and asked her. In the beginning, she was startled and denied it. But, Omar said to her: 'If you have indeed heard this secret, then, tell us so we can immediately seize power and get rid of Muhammad'. So, Hafsa said: 'yes, he told me that.' At this point, those four got together and conspired to poison the Prophet" (Tafseer al-Qommi, Vol II, Page 367, Bihar-ul-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 239).
He narrates that: "Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) was sitting with a group of his followers, and asked them: 'Do you know whether the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Allah the Almighty says: "if then he died or is killed". The truth is that the Prophet was poisoned in his last days before he died. Aysha and Hafsa administered poison in his food.' Upon hearing this, the Imam Sadiq's followers said that they and their fathers were among the worst villains ever created by Allah." (Tafseer al-Ayashi, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, by Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 516)
Al-Ayshi relates another Hadith attributed to Imam Al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he says: "al-Hussein Ibn Munther asked Imam Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) about Allah's words "if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels". Does it mean that the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Imam Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: In this verse, Allah refers to the Prophet's companions who committed the misdeed". (Tafseer Al Ayash, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, By Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XX, Page 91)
Or are you saying that it is impossible for wives to hold a grudge against their husband and there is no way any wife or wives could decide on killing their husband???
Is something like this absolutely impossible??? If yes, then this is what extremism and extremist views are all about.
You have a lot of bitterness, hatred and envy with in you. And because of this you are an extremist and you hold extremist views. Have an open mind about things.
Or are you saying that it is impossible for wives to hold a grudge against their husband and there is no way any wife or wives could decide on killing their husband???
Is something like this absolutely impossible??? If yes, then this is what extremism and extremist views are all about.
You have a lot of bitterness, hatred and envy with in you. And because of this you are an extremist and you hold extremist views. Have an open mind about things.
So says the guy who when discussing the topic of Fadak, stuck to his opinion because he believes Fatimah (as) is a divine creature unable to make mistakes or forget or be ignorant of anything and thus placed the blame on Abu Bakr by default.
Dude you believe it's impossible for Fatimah (as) to make mistakes/sins, then you complain about them denying that the Prophet's (saw) wives killed him?
Subhanallah,
This reminds me of the claim that Hussain (R.A) knew that he would die if he was to march to Karbala.
Surely if Hussain (R.A) knew that, then The Prophet (S.A.W) would know the woman who would try to kill him.
This is more of an insult to the Prophet (S.A.W) and his grandson, how irresponsible must they be if they be if they walk to their deaths if they're the only sources for guidance. And they dare claim that we say the Prophet (S.A.W) was suicidal.
Needless to say, Aisha and Hafsa (R.A both) are innocent from such lies.
Just as you believe that it is impossible for Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) to look for means to run government and therefore have his eyes set on Fadak.
Just as you believe that it is impossible for a Sahabi to deceive someone or show interest in something that doesn't belong to them.
Just as you believe that a Sahabi can't make a mistake and or error in judgement that, if we get our hands on fadak we can put it to better use.
If one accuses a certain Sahabi of wrong saying or doing then that becomes a LIE IN RELIGION according to you.
Brother what lovely essays you are putting forward as well as writing some yourself. What are you trying to do and prove here??? Are you trying to put forward one side of the argument and refute it??? Or are you saying that it is impossible for wives to hold a grudge against their husband and there is no way any wife or wives could decide on killing their husband???
Is something like this absolutely impossible??? If yes, then this is what extremism and extremist views are all about. One can discuss whether this story is true or false or how much of it is true or false. And the same goes for any other story from which ever side. But turning around and absolutely rejecting the other side of the argument and calling it fairy tale is wrong.
You have a lot of bitterness, hatred and envy with in you. And because of this you are an extremist and you hold extremist views. Have an open mind about things.
Was this impossible??? Were they not humans??? Is or was it absolutely impossible to expect anything like this from them??? What is your answer and why???
What're you trying to insinutate?
How do you personally believe the Prophet (SAW) passed away?
Or are you saying that it is impossible for wives to hold a grudge against their husband and there is no way any wife or wives could decide on killing their husband???
Is something like this absolutely impossible??? If yes, then this is what extremism and extremist views are all about.
You have a lot of bitterness, hatred and envy with in you. And because of this you are an extremist and you hold extremist views. Have an open mind about things.
So says the guy who when discussing the topic of Fadak, stuck to his opinion because he believes Fatimah (as) is a divine creature unable to make mistakes or forget or be ignorant of anything and thus placed the blame on Abu Bakr by default.
Dude you believe it's impossible for Fatimah (as) to make mistakes/sins, then you complain about them denying that the Prophet's (saw) wives killed him?
What're you trying to insinutate?
How do you personally believe the Prophet (SAW) passed away?
Brother in history you have stories based on arguments and differences. There are two sides to every story and you have two or more individuals/groups to every argument. History is full of many things, all sorts. What is true and what is false, how much is true and how much is false, exaggeration, fabrication, strong hadiths/narrations and weak hadiths/narrations, this is what Islamic history is all about. How much is true and to what extent and how much is false and to what length, what is right and what is wrong, Allah knows better and best. Me, you or anyone else, we wasn't there and present at the time.
I am an individual who has an open mind, a clean heart and a clear conscious. I will not turn around and say,
"well this definitely happened" or "that just can't happen". It doesn't matter what it is, how the Prophet (pbuh) died, how Hazrath Fatimah (sa) died, how Hazrath Hassan (as) died, how Hazrath Aisha (ra) died, the matter of pen and paper, the matter of fadak or anything else, we can only examine the material we have and just look in to things and come out with a conclusion that this might have happened or it might not have happened.
It doesn't matter which side of the story it is or who the argument is between, coming out with such a belief that,
"this most definitely happened" and we are not going to take in to account anything else and what ever goes against this we will turn it down and reject it, is blindness and extremism.
On the other hand turning around and saying,
"Walahi, this is sickening and it could never ever have possibly happened" and to disregard what ever goes against this is also blindness and extremism.
I have a very solid theory that "might have happened", I think `Ali has a hand in killing Fatimah (as). As you all know `Ali wanted to marry other women but Fatimah (as) complained to her dad and would never allow him, she also received a large piece of land from her father and `Ali had his eyes on it.
`Ali made a deal with Abu Bakr and `Umar to "dispose" of Fatimah (as), so they got rid of her and `Ali did nothing to protect her, he was busy "collecting the Qur'an." That was his excuse of course as no such Qur'an exists and no one has ever seen it.
After she died, `Ali rewarded Abu Bakr and `Umar, he went and gave Abu Bakr Bay`ah right after she died and gave `Umar her daughter Umm Kulthoum for marriage. Then `Umar gave `Ali and `Abbas parts of the land and they split it together, and `Ali went and married many other women.
Of course none of you guys will reject this, a very solid theory and we're all open minded, rejecting this big possibility is nothing but blindness and extremism.
^LOL
Food for thought, if only Rawafidh would think.
I have a very solid theory that "might have happened", I think `Ali has a hand in killing Fatimah (as). As you all know `Ali wanted to marry other women but Fatimah (as) complained to her dad and would never allow him, she also received a large piece of land from her father and `Ali had his eyes on it.
`Ali made a deal with Abu Bakr and `Umar to "dispose" of Fatimah (as), so they got rid of her and `Ali did nothing to protect her, he was busy "collecting the Qur'an." That was his excuse of course as no such Qur'an exists and no one has ever seen it.
After she died, `Ali rewarded Abu Bakr and `Umar, he went and gave Abu Bakr Bay`ah right after she died and gave `Umar her daughter Umm Kulthoum for marriage. Then `Umar gave `Ali and `Abbas parts of the land and they split it together, and `Ali went and married many other women.
Of course none of you guys will reject this, a very solid theory and we're all open minded, rejecting this big possibility is nothing but blindness and extremism.
What an interesting theory you have put forward. Very well put together. Can you provide me with a single reference from any book to back your claim??? Name me any scholar who has recorded and mentioned this side of the story or argument??? LOL! I guess foolishness has no limit for some! Nothing more I need to say here.
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
The only reason people say this is because of Nawasib like you that say that he WAS a pedophile. Pedophilia is an old man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. Thankfully, the fact is that `Aisha was between the age of 17-20, i.e. a fully grown woman. You actually have a Pedophile prophet. The real Muhammad (sawa) was no such thing, but you invented an alternative Muhammed that marries 6 year olds and is a mass murdering terrorist. May Allah (swt) protect the reputation of the real Muhammad (sawa) from slanderous accusations like the ones the Nawasbi make up.
*facepalm*
The Battle of Khaybar was in the year 629. Muhammad (sawa) died in 632.
I will give you $1,000 if you can find me ANY poison on Earth that takes 3 years to kill a person, and during the 3 years the victim is still strong and able-bodied enough to do more battles and lead a military and government without showing any signs.
Ya3ni, show me a single poison that you can administer to a person today that will have no symptoms for 3 years, but after 3 years it will make him sick and he will die a week later.
$1,000 up for grabs.
Otherwise, admit the stupidity of such an opinion ::)
*facepalm*
The Battle of Khaybar was in the year 629. Muhammad (sawa) died in 632.
I will give you $1,000 if you can find me ANY poison on Earth that takes 3 years to kill a person, and during the 3 years the victim is still strong and able-bodied enough to do more battles and lead a military and government without showing any signs.
Ya3ni, show me a single poison that you can administer to a person today that will have no symptoms for 3 years, but after 3 years it will make him sick and he will die a week later.
$1,000 up for grabs.
Otherwise, admit the stupidity of such an opinion ::)
I can give you 1 of many examples of poison which doesn't kill you straightaway. Ever heard of nicotine or some dangerous chemical you eat which can caused cancer? Now where's my $1000? ;D
Besides its known that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam didn't consumed it in full
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
The only reason people say this is because of Nawasib like you that say that he WAS a pedophile. Pedophilia is an old man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. Thankfully, the fact is that `Aisha was between the age of 17-20, i.e. a fully grown woman. You actually have a Pedophile prophet. The real Muhammad (sawa) was no such thing, but you invented an alternative Muhammed that marries 6 year olds and is a mass murdering terrorist. May Allah (swt) protect the reputation of the real Muhammad (sawa) from slanderous accusations like the ones the Nawasbi make up.
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
The only reason people say this is because of Nawasib like you that say that he WAS a pedophile. Pedophilia is an old man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. Thankfully, the fact is that `Aisha was between the age of 17-20, i.e. a fully grown woman. You actually have a Pedophile prophet. The real Muhammad (sawa) was no such thing, but you invented an alternative Muhammed that marries 6 year olds and is a mass murdering terrorist. May Allah (swt) protect the reputation of the real Muhammad (sawa) from slanderous accusations like the ones the Nawasbi make up.
Thank you for revealing what you really are - the whole objective act you had going before felt fake from the beginning.
This is typical of many online Shiis - put on an act, pretend to be sensible - but deep down are nothing but a hateful little Rafidi.
You call Ebn Hussein a Nasibi - in other words he's worse than a kaffir. Why? Because he believes that 'Aisha (ra) was married at the age of 6-9?
You little jaahil - take a look at this:
Sistani on marriage:
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2358/
A girl can be married under the age of nine.
-----
So what do you have to say about this?
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
The only reason people say this is because of Nawasib like you that say that he WAS a pedophile. Pedophilia is an old man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. Thankfully, the fact is that `Aisha was between the age of 17-20, i.e. a fully grown woman. You actually have a Pedophile prophet. The real Muhammad (sawa) was no such thing, but you invented an alternative Muhammed that marries 6 year olds and is a mass murdering terrorist. May Allah (swt) protect the reputation of the real Muhammad (sawa) from slanderous accusations like the ones the Nawasbi make up.
Ya Rafidi, it is YOUR own scholars who also hold the view that 'Aisha (ra) was ten years old when the Prophet (saws) consummated the marriage (which is biologically absolutely fine and according to the customs back then):
Here a Saheeh Mawquf (Authentic Halted) athar from Isma'il b. Ja`far al-Saadiq that says that A'ishah was 10 years old when her marriage was consummated.
Click here: http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/08/aaishah-was-married-with-prophet-at-10.html
You want me to quote it? Here from your own books (I am gonna send it to all orientalists so they can call your madhab a pedophile one too, what you reckon?):
ـ وعن علي بن إبراهيم، عن محمد بن عيسى، عن يونس، عن أبي أيوب الخراز، عن إسماعيل بن جعفر ـ في حديث ـ أن رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) دخل بعائشة وهي بنت عشر سنين، وليس يدخل بالجارية حتى تكون امرأة.
– And from Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa from Yunus from Abu Ayyub al-Kharraz from Isma`il b. Ja`far in a hadith that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله entered upon (i.e. had intercourse with) `A’isha and she was ten years old, and that one does not enter upon a girl until she is a woman.
Verdict of the biggest shia muhaddith scholars (orientalists, pls write the following down):
Source Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 7 pg. 388 - 389, hadeeth # 1
Grading:Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Saheeh in his Mir'aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 24, pg. 235
And guess what guys, the Rafidah have put WHOLE CHAPTERS in their books to advise their followers to HASTEN to marry their daughters ONCE THEY REACH PUPERTY (as we know even in our age girls can reach puperty even before the age of 9!):
http://www.tashayyu.org/hadiths/marriage/preliminaries/chapter-23
Now what you gonna say now? Reject your own narrations that your favourite Rafidi website or scholar hides from you?!
Quite shocking always how you Rawafid repeat the lies of the orientalists, nobody before them has ever accuse the Prophet of behing an pedophile, not even his biggest enemies (because these kind of marriages were absolutely fine back then and even few centuries ago in Europe and America. The age of consent was 10 to 12 in many Western countries until the 1880's. In the US state of Delaware, it was 7. So basically, if we were all living 150 years ago, nobody would be batting an eyelid). So instead of repeating orientalists kafir lies, you Rawafid should educate yourself about this orientalist cheap shot against our Prophet (peace be upon him). All Sunni groups have destroyed the orientalists and their brothers in kufr, you Rafidah.
Response from Gibril Haddad: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=4604&CATE=1
Response on Wiki Islam (uses Gibril Haddad's arguments):
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Refutation_to_Muslim_Apologetics_against_Aisha%27s_Age_of_Consummation
Response from Ayman b. Khaalid (the best article): http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahlalhdeeth.com%2Fvb%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D59353%26d%3D1219927832&ei=ygcjUO3oD6WMygGAz4DICQ&usg=AFQjCNE-HLjkDmaLAsKyooy14CDU3pczkg
Even our SaHeeH Mawquf (Authentic Halted) athar from Isma`eel b. Ja`far al-Saadiq say that `Aa'ishah was 10 years old when her marriage was consummated. Click here: http://www.revivinga...phet-at-10.html
And here by a convert to Islam and expert on Islamic history:
And here by a convert to Islam and expert on Islamic history:
I don't recall Rasul-Allah (saw) died from poison. He was poisoned but it never killed him, what killed him was his disease.
JazakAllah Khayr,
As a person who collected many Shia Fatwas by these Maraji` and translated them, I always had an issue because every single one of them, from Roohani to Sistani to Abtahi etc.. They keep changing their websites links, and altering texts of Fatwas as well as completely deleting them sometimes.
Fatwa 2501 talks about nikah with a suckling baby and fatwa 2502 talks about mutah with a suckling baby, according to Sistani. I've noticed that they change the fatwa a bit from time to the time (2501 didn't talk about precaution before).
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2356/
believing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a pedophile
The only reason people say this is because of Nawasib like you that say that he WAS a pedophile. Pedophilia is an old man marrying a pre-pubescent girl. Thankfully, the fact is that `Aisha was between the age of 17-20, i.e. a fully grown woman. You actually have a Pedophile prophet. The real Muhammad (sawa) was no such thing, but you invented an alternative Muhammed that marries 6 year olds and is a mass murdering terrorist. May Allah (swt) protect the reputation of the real Muhammad (sawa) from slanderous accusations like the ones the Nawasbi make up.
Thank you for revealing what you really are - the whole objective act you had going before felt fake from the beginning.
This is typical of many online Shiis - put on an act, pretend to be sensible - but deep down are nothing but a hateful little Rafidi.
You call Ebn Hussein a Nasibi - in other words he's worse than a kaffir. Why? Because he believes that 'Aisha (ra) was married at the age of 6-9?
You little jaahil - take a look at this:
Sistani on marriage:
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2358/
A girl can be married under the age of nine.
-----
So what do you have to say about this?
Allah yisalmak akhi. The irony! You (Husayn) are an Ex-Shia, I (Ebn Hussein) am an Ex-Shia and we both have to educate this zindiq Rafidi about the narrations in his own books and the sayings of their scholars who confirm that the Prophet married consummated the marriage with 'Aisha when she was 9/10. Wallahi sometimes I feel like im in a nursery, we have to teach these little Rafidi about THEIR belief ...
Yes, by using the link at the bottom that's in red.Fatwa 2501 talks about nikah with a suckling baby and fatwa 2502 talks about mutah with a suckling baby, according to Sistani. I've noticed that they change the fatwa a bit from time to the time (2501 didn't talk about precaution before).
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2356/
Really??? I would love to see these fatwas as well. Any chance of getting hold of them???
Fatwa 2501 talks about nikah with a suckling baby and fatwa 2502 talks about mutah with a suckling baby, according to Sistani. I've noticed that they change the fatwa a bit from time to the time (2501 didn't talk about precaution before).
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2356/
Really??? I would love to see these fatwas as well. Any chance of getting hold of them???
Thanks!
Yes, by using the link at the bottom that's in red.
I don't recall Rasul-Allah (saw) died from poison. He was poisoned but it never killed him, what killed him was his disease.
Who poisoned him and why???
Yes, by using the link at the bottom that's in red.Fatwa 2501 talks about nikah with a suckling baby and fatwa 2502 talks about mutah with a suckling baby, according to Sistani. I've noticed that they change the fatwa a bit from time to the time (2501 didn't talk about precaution before).
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2356/ (http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2356/)
Really??? I would love to see these fatwas as well. Any chance of getting hold of them???
My beloved brother Ebn Hussein, a quote from your post;
"And from Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa from Yunus from Abu Ayyub al-Kharraz from Isma`il b. Ja`far in a hadith that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله entered upon (i.e. had intercourse with) `A’isha and she was ten years old, and that one does not enter upon a girl until she is a woman."
Entered upon??? This could mean anything, got spoken with, got engaged, got married. In brackets you have;
"(i.e. had intercourse with)"
So who's words are these??? Try and engage in a pleasant discussion for once in your life. Go on, give it a try!
| In this context, when the word “dakhala” (entered) is used, it is used as a nice way of saying “intercourse”. As you can see that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله was married with `Aa’ishah by the time she was 10 years for sure, since it says he “entered upon” `Aa’ishah. |
Oh so you're ex Shias. Right! Is this why you have so much hatred bursting out of you through your words??? So you haven't told me how Shiaism is the religion of Satan and the religion of Shirk. Please do educate me about your statements. You're to hesitant to tell and talk about your new found faith, so you might as well educate me about Rafidah. So tell me, how long have you been a Shia??? Don't be shy. Give it a go. Let all your frustration out
Thank you for revealing what you really are - the whole objective act you had going before felt fake from the beginning.I never pretended to be anything. Everything I have posted on here has been truthful, al-hamdulillah. I am not a nasibi that hides behind lies to make my religion more palatable to the masses.
This is typical of many online Shiis - put on an act, pretend to be sensible - but deep down are nothing but a hateful little Rafidi.
You call Ebn Hussein a Nasibi - in other words he's worse than a kaffir. Why? Because he believes that 'Aisha (ra) was married at the age of 6-9?A kafir is neutral, a nasibi hates Alhul-bayt and loves the lanatis.
Sistani on marriage:I don't care what Ali Sistani has to say. That would be like me quoting Abu Hanifa where he says you can drink beer and ask why the hell you aren't an alcoholic. Just because he is a "Shia scholar" doesn't mean every Shia agrees with 100% of the things he says.
2519. A wife who is under nine and who is in her menopause will not be required to observe any waiting period. It means that, even if the husband has had sexual intercourse with her, she can remarry immediately after being divorced.
http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2358/ (http://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2358/)
A girl can be married under the age of nine.
-----
So what do you have to say about this?
For me, Taha revealed who he really was when he wrote "in the name of Ali". Its just odd, because earlier he said he had doubts about shiism but then write something which most shia wont even write in public. After that i dont buy it anymore. You just need to look at his early posts which were very calm & seems tolerant of Sunni beliefs and then see how the tone of his writing "changed" late Nov/early Dec. Why are there so many online shia like this? Why can't they just be themselves from the very beginning? Is it too much to ask?
Ameen and Taha, how do you guys believe the Prophet (SAW) passed away?
I can give you 1 of many examples of poison which doesn't kill you straightaway. Ever heard of nicotine or some dangerous chemical you eat which can caused cancer? Now where's my $1000? ;D
Besides its known that Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam didn't consumed it in full
^You impure Mushrik Rafidi. One more time I see you cursing Abu Bakr and Omar, then I make sure you will get a one way ticket to the cellar of your 12th stinky accursed one-eyed saviour.
First and last warning.
Nah bro, I won't, but just as we can't curse their 12th impure cellar dwelling donkey, neither are they allowed to curse any Muslim on this board, let alone the masters of all Muslims, Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, Othman etc.
*facepalm*
The Battle of Khaybar was in the year 629. Muhammad (sawa) died in 632.
I will give you $1,000 if you can find me ANY poison on Earth that takes 3 years to kill a person, and during the 3 years the victim is still strong and able-bodied enough to do more battles and lead a military and government without showing any signs.
Ya3ni, show me a single poison that you can administer to a person today that will have no symptoms for 3 years, but after 3 years it will make him sick and he will die a week later.
$1,000 up for grabs.
Otherwise, admit the stupidity of such an opinion ::)
hey don't forget my $1000 ;DYou didn't give a valid answer yet. You have to meet my requirements before I pay you.
^He owns us already $2000. Rafidi kids seems to think he is a medic or knows everything about medicine.I owe nothing until one of you gives a valid example. And my offer is only to the first person who can accurately name the poison.
let me give it a shot.there are many poison with can cause damage to blood vessels. what if someone give a poison in sublethal dose it will not kill him but will damage it arteries.
this will result in formation of aneurysm most preciously aortic aneurysm. aortic aneurysm give no symptoms until and unless it rupture. which result in death in 95% of cases.
annual risk of it rupture is 20-30%. but in some sickness you have high cardiac rate chances increase to 60-70%.
what if that poison which jew gave him(pbuh) was sublethal. which result in aortic aneurysm. and when prophet got sick and got high fever which result in increase cardiac rate which result in aneurysm rupture.
1000 dollars please. hahaha
Nah bro, I won't, but just as we can't curse their 12th impure cellar dwelling donkey, neither are they allowed to curse any Muslim on this board, let alone the masters of all Muslims, Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, Othman etc.
Nah bro, I won't, but just as we can't curse their 12th impure cellar dwelling donkey, neither are they allowed to curse any Muslim on this board, let alone the masters of all Muslims, Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, Othman etc.
Curse whoever you want. I, unlike you, won't strap a bomb to my chest, rape women, and blow up in a crowd of civilians and children just because I'm offended.
Curse whoever you want. I, unlike you, won't strap a bomb to my chest, rape women, and blow up in a crowd of civilians and children just because I'm offended.
Providing you refrain from cursing any companion (RA) then your position on this forum is safe.Abu Lahab is a sahabah and the Qur'an curses him. Maybe you should ban the Qur'an?? Ban Allah (s.w.t.)??
Who told you Ebn Hussein raped women and such nonsense that you just wrote? I thought you were against misattributions.
Providing you refrain from cursing any companion (RA) then your position on this forum is safe.Abu Lahab is a sahabah and the Qur'an curses him. Maybe you should ban the Qur'an?? Ban Allah (s.w.t.)??Who told you Ebn Hussein raped women and such nonsense that you just wrote? I thought you were against misattributions.
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have said "my kind" and "your kind" instead of "I" and "you". It is the general Sunnie action of bombing, raping, killing, throwing acid on face, etc. I do not know if Ebn Hussein does it himself, but he certainly holds the same beliefs as those that do.
Why couldn't this guy Taha be a jew or a western agent. I don't believe that, he is just a rafidi. Ban him.
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have said "my kind" and "your kind" instead of "I" and "you". It is the general Sunnie action of bombing, raping, killing, throwing acid on face, etc. I do not know if Ebn Hussein does it himself, but he certainly holds the same beliefs as those that do.[/font]
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have said "my kind" and "your kind" instead of "I" and "you". It is the general Sunnie action of bombing, raping, killing, throwing acid on face, etc. I do not know if Ebn Hussein does it himself, but he certainly holds the same beliefs as those that do.[/font]
You are just like the Islamophobes or you are one of them.
You know throwing acid on women faces also happens in Iran (in fact more than Sunni countries) and this year the number of acid attacks increased dramatically and hit the headlines in Iran. Can we blame Shiism for it? Can we blame any religion for it?
See the Iranian website and all the news about the acid attacks in 2014 (1393) and previous years in Iran:
http://isna.ir/fa/tag/84018ae598e46123/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%8A
Nah bro, I won't, but just as we can't curse their 12th impure cellar dwelling donkey, neither are they allowed to curse any Muslim on this board, let alone the masters of all Muslims, Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, Othman etc.
Curse whoever you want. I, unlike you, won't strap a bomb to my chest, rape women, and blow up in a crowd of civilians and children just because I'm offended.
And if anyone calls the 12th Shia Imam a "Dajjal" then there position is more than safe on this forum. LOL!
And if anyone calls the 12th Shia Imam a "Dajjal" then there position is more than safe on this forum. LOL!
And if anyone calls the 12th Shia Imam a "Dajjal" then there position is more than safe on this forum. LOL!
And if anyone calls the 12th Shia Imam a "Dajjal" then there position is more than safe on this forum. LOL!
We are currently reviewing this seriously and will begin banning both Sunnies and Shia who use any foul words against anybody.
Give us some time.
Abu Lahab is not one of the Sahaba, you hilarious child.According to Sunni he is.
Why couldn't this guy Taha be a jew or a western agent. I don't believe that, he is just a rafidi. Ban him.
You are just like the Islamophobes or you are one of them.
You know throwing acid on women faces also happens in Iran (in fact more than Sunni countries) and this year the number of acid attacks increased dramatically and hit the headlines in Iran. Can we blame Shiism for it? Can we blame any religion for it?
See the Iranian website and all the news about the acid attacks in 2014 (1393) and previous years in Iran:
http://isna.ir/fa/tag/84018ae598e46123/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%8A (http://isna.ir/fa/tag/84018ae598e46123/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%8A)
We are currently reviewing this seriously and will begin banning both Sunnies and Shia who use any foul words against anybody.
Give us some time.
The forum rules has to be clear. Say for example "dajjal" for 12th imam is not allowed, but to say that he hides because he was afraid although it is an insult, but it is the truth according to shia narration, so it should not be a reason for warning or banning or shia imam gave up khilafa to someone shia believe was a kafir again it is an insult (for me anyway, though shia dont see it as insulting hasan RA), but should be allowed because it is the truth according to their narration as well, something like that
Sunni say anybody that ever met Muhammad (sawa) is a companion.
Shia say that somebody that met the Prophet (sawa) and died as a Muslim is a companion. Therefore, your idols are not real sahabi therefore Shias do not curse the companions.
Ban me? Why? Can't handle the truth? Only a liar fears opposing views. But sure, go ahead and prove your cowardice and ban me.
You shouldn't, otherwise Ebn Hussein would be the first one banned with his foul mouth.
But if you do decide on this rule, please make an official announcement so we can change our behavior.
Incorrect, Muslims say anyone who met the Prophet (saw), believed in him and died upon Islam is a companion.Then you cannot say that Shias curse the Sahabah because we consider them as apostates and not sahabah.
If we ban you it wouldn't be because we're unable to refute you, it would be because you are a very ill-informed nonacademic person who is way below the standard of our forum.At least I source things when asked. Some of your Sunni members do not. If I am breaking any rules, point them out to me and I will either conform or stop posting.
Don't worry, when it is implemented we will make it apparent for all to see, and then we will ban. We do not ban without notifying members of this rule.Thanks.
Sunnies and Shiites will be banned, trust me.I hope that intellectual members from both sects become more active inshallah. Ever since Nader became a moderator of ShiaChat, he hasn't been on here much.
Then you cannot say that Shias curse the Sahabah because we consider them as apostates and not sahabah.
At least I source things when asked. Some of your Sunni members do not. If I am breaking any rules, point them out to me and I will either conform or stop posting.
I hope that intellectual members from both sects become more active inshallah. Ever since Nader became a moderator of ShiaChat, he hasn't been on here much.
Believe it nor not, even though as you can see I'm very lenient even on people who abuse me verbally, yet I can ban whoever I wish if I feel that their presence on the forum serves no educational/scientific purpose.Then go ahead and ban me if you're so full of intent. The fact is, you haven't refuted me and banning me shows that you can't (especially when I haven't broken a rule). But go ahead, do as you please. I am not the dictator of this forum, you can moderate it as poorly as ShiaChat is moderated if that is your desire.
Believe it nor not, even though as you can see I'm very lenient even on people who abuse me verbally, yet I can ban whoever I wish if I feel that their presence on the forum serves no educational/scientific purpose.Then go ahead and ban me if you're so full of intent. The fact is, you haven't refuted me and banning me shows that you can't (especially when I haven't broken a rule). But go ahead, do as you please. I am not the dictator of this forum, you can moderate it as poorly as ShiaChat is moderated if that is your desire.
Believe it nor not, even though as you can see I'm very lenient even on people who abuse me verbally, yet I can ban whoever I wish if I feel that their presence on the forum serves no educational/scientific purpose.Then go ahead and ban me if you're so full of intent. The fact is, you haven't refuted me and banning me shows that you can't (especially when I haven't broken a rule). But go ahead, do as you please. I am not the dictator of this forum, you can moderate it as poorly as ShiaChat is moderated if that is your desire.
And if anyone calls the 12th Shia Imam a "Dajjal" then there position is more than safe on this forum. LOL!
We are currently reviewing this seriously and will begin banning both Sunnies and Shia who use any foul words against anybody.
Give us some time.
Providing you refrain from cursing any companion (RA) then your position on this forum is safe.Abu Lahab is a sahabah and the Qur'an curses him. Maybe you should ban the Qur'an?? Ban Allah (s.w.t.)??Who told you Ebn Hussein raped women and such nonsense that you just wrote? I thought you were against misattributions.
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have said "my kind" and "your kind" instead of "I" and "you". It is the general Sunnie action of bombing, raping, killing, throwing acid on face, etc. I do not know if Ebn Hussein does it himself, but he certainly holds the same beliefs as those that do.
Sahaba (RA) who accepted and died with Iman.
Abu Lahab like his half brother Abu Talib were losers in this regard despite Abu Talib was a decent bloke for protecting his nephew (SAW).
Sahaba (RA) who accepted and died with Iman.
Abu Lahab like his half brother Abu Talib were losers in this regard despite Abu Talib was a decent bloke for protecting his nephew (SAW).
Have some respect when speaking about Sayyidna Abu Talib (a.s)
Abu Lahab (l.a) is cursed in the Qur'an, but I'm pretty sure that if Shias started cursing him frequently, the Sunnis wound find a way to praise him.
Have some respect when speaking about Sayyidna Abu Talib (a.s)
Have some respect when speaking about Sayyidna Abu Talib (a.s)
Your Sayyid died upon disbelief according to authentic narrations from `Ali himself. Are you okay with that?
Providing you refrain from cursing any companion (RA) then your position on this forum is safe.Abu Lahab is a sahabah and the Qur'an curses him. Maybe you should ban the Qur'an?? Ban Allah (s.w.t.)??Who told you Ebn Hussein raped women and such nonsense that you just wrote? I thought you were against misattributions.
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have said "my kind" and "your kind" instead of "I" and "you". It is the general Sunnie action of bombing, raping, killing, throwing acid on face, etc. I do not know if Ebn Hussein does it himself, but he certainly holds the same beliefs as those that do.
Sahaba (RA) who accepted and died with Iman.
Abu Lahab like his half brother Abu Talib were losers in this regard despite Abu Talib was a decent bloke for protecting his nephew (SAW).
Lets hear those narrations and then we will discuss how authentic they are and why.
Why did he protect his nephew??? Abu Talib was a loser??? Why???
Take a look at the following verse, 93:6,
"Did he not find you as an orphan and give you refuge",
So Hazrath Abu Talib (as) died as a kafir and therefore was a loser??? Basically Allah found Muhammad (pbuh) as an orphan and claims that he gave him refuge, what kind of refuge??? Kufr??? He gave him refuge by placing him under the guardian of a loser and a kafir??? Is this Allah's refuge for Muhammad (pbuh) ???
Is this what you believe in??? Do you even bother to wonder and ponder over verses??? Do you even bother to look in to things and think them through??? You say "a'uzo billah min ashaitan" meaning I seek Allah's refuge from satan.
Satan became a kafir by not doing sajdah to Hazrath Adam (as) and you seek Allah's refuge from satan, who happens to be a kafir but place Muhammad (pbuh) under the refuge of a kafir (Abu Talib) ???
Honest question: The meat of Jews is not halal because they slaughter differently than us. So why would the Prophet (sawa) even eat the poisoned meat in the first place if it is haraam for him?What I was taught (shia masjid) is that Muslims slaughtered it (halal) and a Jewish woman cooked it.
What I was taught (shia masjid) is that Muslims slaughtered it (halal) and a Jewish woman cooked it.
What I was taught (shia masjid) is that Muslims slaughtered it (halal) and a Jewish woman cooked it.
Hmm, I see. Is there anything in Bukhari or Muslim about this? (Or any Shia books for that matter)
Honest question: The meat of Jews is not halal because they slaughter differently than us. So why would the Prophet (sawa) even eat the poisoned meat in the first place if it is haraam for him?
Take a look at the following verse, 93:6,
"Did he not find you as an orphan and give you refuge",
So Hazrath Abu Talib (as) died as a kafir and therefore was a loser??? Basically Allah found Muhammad (pbuh) as an orphan and claims that he gave him refuge, what kind of refuge??? Kufr??? He gave him refuge by placing him under the guardian of a loser and a kafir??? Is this Allah's refuge for Muhammad (pbuh) ???
Is this what you believe in??? Do you even bother to wonder and ponder over verses??? Do you even bother to look in to things and think them through??? You say "a'uzo billah min ashaitan" meaning I seek Allah's refuge from satan.
Satan became a kafir by not doing sajdah to Hazrath Adam (as) and you seek Allah's refuge from satan, who happens to be a kafir but place Muhammad (pbuh) under the refuge of a kafir (Abu Talib) ???
Thy Lord has neither forsaken thee nor hates thee (3) and the Last shall be better for thee than the First. (4) Thy Lord shall give thee, and thou shalt be satisfied. (5) Did He not find thee an orphan, and shelter thee? (6) Did He not find thee erring, and guide thee? (7) Did He not find thee needy, and suffice thee? ( 8 )
So Allah helping his Prophet (saw) means that abu Talib is a believer?
I thought the food of Ahlul-Kitab was Halal.I was under the impression that they can cook the food, but their method of slaughtering won't make it halal.
Also Jews slaughter EXACTLY as Muslims do. Same for Christians (in the past). Check the conditions for Kosher meat.
I thought the food of Ahlul-Kitab was Halal.I was under the impression that they can cook the food, but their method of slaughtering won't make it halal.Also Jews slaughter EXACTLY as Muslims do. Same for Christians (in the past). Check the conditions for Kosher meat.
Kashrut and the Islamic dietary laws are very different. They don't have to slaughter in the name of God, we do. Otherwise, we would just eat Kosher hot dogs and send money to Israel like the Sunnis do.
I am not talking about DIETARY laws I am talking about the METHOD of slaughtering as in CUTTING the throat. That's what Jews today (and Christians in the past) do and this is why ALLAH said that their meat (with certain conditions like to say the basmalah etc.) is Halal. As for the way they do the tasmiya and the ikhtilaf about it's hukm, then read this: http://muslimmatters.org/2012/06/22/is-kosher-meat-%E1%B8%A5alal-a-comparison-of-the-halakhic-and-shar%CA%BFi-requirements-for-animal-slaughter/ (http://muslimmatters.org/2012/06/22/is-kosher-meat-%E1%B8%A5alal-a-comparison-of-the-halakhic-and-shar%CA%BFi-requirements-for-animal-slaughter/) As for sending money to Israel, it seems you are the expert in this not the Sunnis.Meat can be Kosher without saying bismillah or ever mentioning the name of God even once. Kosher and Halal are different. You clearly know very little about both Islamic and Jewish dietary restrictions. Allah (s.w.t) did not say their meat is halal, they said their food is halal, i.e. the food they cook. The reason is because the kuffar are considered najis and we don't eat food that their hands touch, but it's okay to eat the food that Ahlul-Kitab touch. Is it really that difficult to understand for you? You can buy a halal steak and have a Jew cook it, no problem. But a Kosher steak is NOT halal.
I am not talking about DIETARY laws I am talking about the METHOD of slaughtering as in CUTTING the throat. That's what Jews today (and Christians in the past) do and this is why ALLAH said that their meat (with certain conditions like to say the basmalah etc.) is Halal. As for the way they do the tasmiya and the ikhtilaf about it's hukm, then read this: http://muslimmatters.org/2012/06/22/is-kosher-meat-%E1%B8%A5alal-a-comparison-of-the-halakhic-and-shar%CA%BFi-requirements-for-animal-slaughter/ (http://muslimmatters.org/2012/06/22/is-kosher-meat-%E1%B8%A5alal-a-comparison-of-the-halakhic-and-shar%CA%BFi-requirements-for-animal-slaughter/) As for sending money to Israel, it seems you are the expert in this not the Sunnis.Meat can be Kosher without saying bismillah or ever mentioning the name of God even once. Kosher and Halal are different. You clearly know very little about both Islamic and Jewish dietary restrictions. Allah (s.w.t) did not say their meat is halal, they said their food is halal, i.e. the food they cook. The reason is because the kuffar are considered najis and we don't eat food that their hands touch, but it's okay to eat the food that Ahlul-Kitab touch. Is it really that difficult to understand for you? You can buy a halal steak and have a Jew cook it, no problem. But a Kosher steak is NOT halal.
And stop playing the link game. The link game is played by people who know they're wrong and want to shift the blame to another person or website.
The "link game" is actually for kids like you to educate themselves. Anyway, I've actually read about the methods of Kosher meat so don't tell me what I know and what I don't know. Also what you've just uttered is the Rafidi (isolated) understanding of those verses. No Muslim scholar ever said that Jewish or Christian slaughtered meat is mutlaqan (absolutely) haram. This is ridicolous. Acc. to this retarded understanding you just typed down, one can not eat a bean by a Buddhists since it's considered FOOD and a Buddhist is a non-Kitabi and hence najis (so is all his food!).Actually, Shias are less strict on Kosher food than you sunnis are. When I was a Sunni, I would told I can't even eat Kosher products that aren't meat because the Jews have become mushrikeen and polytheists since they rejected Muhammad (sawa), which doesn't really make sense but whatever, nothing in Sunniiism does.
^ What did I lie about? In Islam it is a huge sin to accuse someone without evidence, so I expect an explanation of what I lied about and proof that I lied.
Do take a look at your own words,
"ALLAH IS HELPING HIS PROPHET (pbuh)",
How is Allah helping his Prophet (pbuh) ??? Through what means is Allah's help??? Through Kufr??? Through a Kafir???
You haven't answered my question but instead you're trying to turn it around because you're finding it difficult to refute.