Hadith Afdaliyyah

[Proud Muslimah]

Assalamualaikum..  I posted this article on Sunni Shia global debate n got the following comment:

http://twelvershia.net/2013/12/26/detailed-research-on-
the-chains-of-hadith-ul-afdaliyyah-narration-of-superio
rity/
 
Matn (Text) of those Ahadith that are against historical
facts, scientific facts, reason, or the Quran, are just
ballant lies. There is no need of checking the chain of
narrators (Raavi) of such Ahadith. The above narration
that “The best after Prophet were Abubakr & Umar” is
against the fact that Ali A.S. is Nafs-e-Rasool SAWAW
(Ref. Ayah-e-Mubahela) and who can be better thn the
Nafs-e-Rasool SAWAW. Also please remember the Surah
Al-Bara’a episode where Holy Prophet said "Allah
commanded me that none should proclaim [this] except
me or someone from my ahl al-bayt ". "

This comment is really strange fr me..  How can we answer this?

[Hani]

There's nothing to reply, he's an idiot obviously, tell him the narration of Afdaliyyah is Mutawatir as opposed to the narrations of Mubahala and Bara'ah. So if he believes that they conflict, then that means Mubahal and Bara'ah are the lies not Hadith-ul-Afdaliyyah because it's Mutawatir and has much more chains.

[Hani]

Besides they won't accept any narration in praise of Abu Bakr, try going through my book and post any narration you like, you'll see that they'll reject it and claim it is a fabrication and that it opposes some random virtue for `Ali here n there.

That's mainly why I don't go and debate in places like youtube/facebook, the level of the members is subzero intellectually.

[Proud Muslimah]

True..but their grps are more active than ours, they avoid coming to our grps n are spreading lies day n night.. If we don't debate on fb , theyll hv a free hand in doing so.. bcz in just 4 or 5 months, we hv  more than 2000 members in our Grp..So it might effect how ppl think..(positive or negative,either way).

[Ameen]

Besides they won't accept any narration in praise of Abu Bakr, try going through my book and post any narration you like, you'll see that they'll reject it and claim it is a fabrication and that it opposes some random virtue for `Ali here n there.

That's mainly why I don't go and debate in places like youtube/facebook, the level of the members is subzero intellectually.

This is exactly my point, will you accept or have you accepted anything that goes against Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) Was his Period of Khilafath all right and pure??? Was there anything he did get wrong??? Or is there anything on this site that you do accept from the opposition???

[Ameen]

True..but their grps are more active than ours, they avoid coming to our grps n are spreading lies day n night.. If we don't debate on fb , theyll hv a free hand in doing so.. bcz in just 4 or 5 months, we hv  more than 2000 members in our Grp..So it might effect how ppl think..(positive or negative,either way).

And what exactly are those lies that they are spreading??? This is what they accuse of the other. If the gentlemen here were honest and sure about themselves then they wouldn't hesitate to discuss and debate regardless of the place or venue.

[Proud Muslimah]

Starting with the MOST QUOTED lie on shia grps , I.e. Fatima r.a was assaulted by Umar r.a n tht was the reason fr her death.. ( a grave , blatant , shameless, concocted lie) ..  Alhumdulillah I hv tried my Best to expose this on their Grp n finally they now dont talk much abt this over there..but still they do ..  this is the most attention-grabbing lie I must say n they use it as a tool to mislead others..  n gradually I'm discovering more, lyk Hasan r.a being poisoned by Muaviya r.a.. lyk  names of Hz Ali's r.a sons.. rights usurped by Sheikhain r.a..   etc etc etc.. can't quote all!

[Hani]

This is exactly my point, will you accept or have you accepted anything that goes against Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) Was his Period of Khilafath all right and pure??? Was there anything he did get wrong??? Or is there anything on this site that you do accept from the opposition???

Re-read the topic closely, we're not talking about Abu Bakr's Caliphate. We're talking about the authenticity of a certain report.

[Ameen]

And how would they convince you gentlemen of anything. We are speaking about Ameer Muavia and Hazrath Hassan. When one is not even going to accept reality and facts then how can you convince them of anything.

According to the Ahle Sunnah Khalifatul Muslimeen is rightly guided. He is the Ulul Amre of the time. One must not challenge, rebel or go against the Ulul Amre but in fact one should obey him.

Now Hazrath Ali (as) was the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims. He was the Ulul Amre of his time. It doesn't matter whether it was Ameer Muavia, Hazrath Aisha or anyone else, those who used their influence, support and status to challenge and rebel against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, the Ulul Amre of time were outlaws, rebels and enemy of the state and were undoubtedly extremely wrong.

When we can't even convince you to see and stand by your own principals, to stick to your belief then, how are we suppose to get you to see our point of view about things??? You are stead fast in criticising and condemning, pointing and singling out those who were against anyone from the first three Khalifs, be it Malik Ibne Nuwayra or Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakar or anyone else but when it comes to the fourth Khalif, double standards kick in to place and please excuse me, this is exactly what double standards is all about.

Further more according to reality and facts and this is what it should be about that a terrorist and the definition of a terrorist or terrorists is someone or a group of people who are NOT IN AUTHORITY, point to be noted, who are NOT IN AUTHORITY and who use means of violence and threatening behaviour to have their demands met.

Now were those, who opposed the fourth Khalif, in authority??? No. Did they use means of violence and threatening behaviour to have their demand/s met ( Qisas qatal e Usman) Absolutely. Now that means they were terrorists but can I get you to agree on this simple thing??? No. I don't think so.

You will probably say "difference in opinion, you have this difference". How is there a difference in opinion when it comes to reality and facts??? When we can't even agree on hardcore reality and facts then how do we get you to see our perspective???

[Ameen]

Starting with the MOST QUOTED lie on shia grps , I.e. Fatima r.a was assaulted by Umar r.a n tht was the reason fr her death.. ( a grave , blatant , shameless, concocted lie) ..  Alhumdulillah I hv tried my Best to expose this on their Grp n finally they now dont talk much abt this over there..but still they do ..  this is the most attention-grabbing lie I must say n they use it as a tool to mislead others..  n gradually I'm discovering more, lyk Hasan r.a being poisoned by Muaviya r.a.. lyk  names of Hz Ali's r.a sons.. rights usurped by Sheikhain r.a..   etc etc etc.. can't quote all!

So do they give any references to these lies?? Do they back their claims up??? What I have heard and looked in to that they give references from Sunni books and sources. Would you accept this??? If not then what are the sources they provide and where do they come from???

[Ameen]

This is exactly my point, will you accept or have you accepted anything that goes against Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) Was his Period of Khilafath all right and pure??? Was there anything he did get wrong??? Or is there anything on this site that you do accept from the opposition???
[/quote

Re-read the topic closely, we're not talking about Abu Bakr's Caliphate. We're talking about the authenticity of a certain report.

Brother take a look at your post that I replied to. You said "they do not accept anything in praise of Abu Bakar" and my response was "would you accept anything against Abu Bakar". Please, it would be nice if you stopped accusing me of going of topic when I only respond to what is being said. There are plenty here who do go off topic but you are no where to be seen.

[Ameen]

Brother Hani you accused the others of not accepting anything in praise of Abu Bakar, it was about acceptance. And I asked you whether you have accepted or would accept anything that would go against Abu Bakar. This is what I asked you and what I was talking about. Bro, if you don't want to answer or can't answer then that is fine. I wish you would stop using the excuse of accusing me of going off topic. Are you with me bro???

[Hani]

You're still talking about something different. We're not discussing the acceptance of something bad that this or that Sahabi did. We're discussing the Shia rejecting this narration in praise of Abu Bakr (or any narration in praise of Abu Bakr for that matter).

[Proud Muslimah]

yes bro Ameen, they do provide references..Sunni references.. but all ref talk abt the threat n only one  ref abt burning the house , wch Is an extremely unreliable report.. such a grave incident can't be supported with weak n unreliable reports for sure.. n u know the condition of those reports ?? two books are actually shia books n falsely attributed to sunnis .. One is a story book wch has no chains .. other reports are weak n disconnected..  n yes one more lie, I.e. Accusing Ammi Ayesha r.a of Uthman's r.a murder.. I posted the reality of story book references etc they gave n no shia even commented on that...

Anyway, I guess it's quite irrelevant to the thread at hand.

[Ameen]

You're still talking about something different. We're not discussing the acceptance of something bad that this or that Sahabi did. We're discussing the Shia rejecting this narration in praise of Abu Bakr (or any narration in praise of Abu Bakr for that matter).

I'm not talking about anything different. I'm talking about what you've said. Now if you are talking about something different than what is being discussed then, that is another thing.

[Ameen]

yes bro Ameen, they do provide references..Sunni references.. but all ref talk abt the threat n only one  ref abt burning the house , wch Is an extremely unreliable report.. such a grave incident can't be supported with weak n unreliable reports for sure.. n u know the condition of those reports ?? two books are actually shia books n falsely attributed to sunnis .. One is a story book wch has no chains .. other reports are weak n disconnected..  n yes one more lie, I.e. Accusing Ammi Ayesha r.a of Uthman's r.a murder.. I posted the reality of story book references etc they gave n no shia even commented on that...

Anyway, I guess it's quite irrelevant to the thread at hand.

Ok, you consider this weak and unreliable but wouldn't this be just your opinion??? Or can you back this up and strengthen it??? You speak about Ammy Aisha, she rebelled against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, the Ulul Amre of the time according to the Ahle Sunnah and this is rebellion as well as terrorism. So what is your opinion??? Are you clear on this or would you also fall in to ifs and buts and have double standards on this???

Please do look it to these matters as well as Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakar causing fitnah against the third Khalif and the companion Malik Ibne Nuwayara accused of being a murtad, these are the claims of the Ahle Sunnah about those who opposed the first and third Khalifs. Muhammad Ibne Abu Bakar was a rebel (fitnebaz) and Malik Ibne Nuwayra a murtad by the Ahle Sunnah for opposing the Khalifs but those who opposed the fourth and went a hell of a lot fiurther, well...... What is the Ahle Sunnah point of view on them???

They start accusing the fourth Khalif of all sorts like, harbouring the killers of Usman (ra) to making a mistake of not accepting Ameer Muavia in his government etc.  Do you think we can be honest and stick to out principals as Ahle Sunnah???

[Proud Muslimah]

There's nothing to reply, he's an idiot obviously, tell him the narration of Afdaliyyah is Mutawatir as opposed to the narrations of Mubahala and Bara'ah. So if he believes that they conflict, then that means Mubahal and Bara'ah are the lies not Hadith-ul-Afdaliyyah because it's Mutawatir and has much more chains.

As expected, this is the response:

'' I think you missed the point…I am saying that.. if Matn
(text) of any Hadith is against the facts, reason or quran,
thn there is no need of going through the chain of
narrators. Mubahela event is in Kalaam-e-Ilaahi & there
is no contradiction amongst the scholars that in
Mubahela only five persons were there:-Prophet SAWAW,
Ali AS, Fatema SA, Hasan AS & Husain AS."

[Hani]

There's nothing to reply, he's an idiot obviously, tell him the narration of Afdaliyyah is Mutawatir as opposed to the narrations of Mubahala and Bara'ah. So if he believes that they conflict, then that means Mubahal and Bara'ah are the lies not Hadith-ul-Afdaliyyah because it's Mutawatir and has much more chains.

As expected, this is the response:

'' I think you missed the point…I am saying that.. if Matn
(text) of any Hadith is against the facts, reason or quran,
thn there is no need of going through the chain of
narrators. Mubahela event is in Kalaam-e-Ilaahi & there
is no contradiction amongst the scholars that in
Mubahela only five persons were there:-Prophet SAWAW,
Ali AS, Fatema SA, Hasan AS & Husain AS."

Tell him Mubahala goes against the Hadith we provided and our Hadith is much stronger and has loads of authentic chains, thus our Hadith is established and Mubahala needs to be rejected based on your standards. Also no scholar rejects the authenticity of the narration we posted. `Ali's name is not in the Qur'an, so we only know it from Hadith and our Hadith is stronger than your Hadith.