TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 12:41:54 PM

Title: Need some help. Verse 5:55 and Shia argument
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 12:41:54 PM
Assalamualaikum...Need some help as to What cud be the most appropriate response to the following arguments :

' Qur’an clearly orders us to take Allah and His (swt)
messenger (asws) and those who give charity while in
ruku as our wali.
Hadiths prove that it was imam Ali ( asws ) only who
gave charity while being in ruku during salat.
Thus this verse from the Holy Qur’an explicitly mentions
the wilayat of imam Ali ( asws ) as obligatory.'

"
Kindly read the verse ahead in sequence with an incident
of Ghadeer... The Verse of Proclamation (Tabligh). - "0
Prophet proclaim what has been revealed to you from
your Lord, for if you do it not you have not conveyed His
message, and Allah will protect you from the (evil designs
of) people... Holy Our'an (5:67) Perhaps the most clear
portent of Imam Ali's excellence over the Muslims after
the Prophet, is the above ayah, which marks a decisive
phase in the history of divine revelation. After creating
this wide and wonderful world, the Almighty had sent an
unbroken chain of prophets to guide mankind towards
divine bliss. The last and the greatest link in this eternal
chain was Muhammad al-Mustapha (s.a.w.), who was
entrusted with the most comprehensive code of laws
capable of solving mankind's needs till doomsday. Now,
there no longer was need of any new messenger. But
nonetheless, the Wise Creator cannot leave mankind's
struggle of thousands of years to the whims and fancies
of fallible Arabs, who had spent the greater part of their
lives in idolatry and sin. Therefore to ensure the safety of
Islam and Muslims, Allah sent down this verse, appointing
Imam Ali as the Prophet's vicegerent. Narrators and
historians have testified to that great event. After
performing the farewell pilgrimage, as the Seal of the
Prophets was heading towards Madina, the Archangel
Gabriel suddenly appeared, at a place where the routes
parted for the different parts of Arabia. Learning the
Almighty's command, the Prophet at once stopped at the
pool Ghadir of Khum, and ordered all those who had gone
ahead, and those that lagged behind to hasten to his
station. When the great gathering of companions was
assembled in the midday sun, the Prophet said he had a
most important message to deliver.
A pulpit made of camel saddles was hastily set-up.
Ascending it, he delivered a sermon asking the people to
be witness that he had faithfully performed the task of
prophet- hood entrusted to him by the Almighty. The
multitude cried in one voice: "We bear witness 0
Messenger of Allah.
He asked, who in their opinion was more worthy of
obedience than their souls, to which they replied that
Allah and His Prophet know better. Then he said: "0
people Allah is my Master (Maula) and I am the master
(Maula) of believers." Hakim Hasakani in 'Shawahid al-
Tanzil', vol. 1, p. 191; Ibn Kathir, vol. 5, p. 209.
Muhammad (s.a.w.) then bent down and lifting up Ali ibn
Abi Talib (a.s.) in his hands, showed him to the vast
crowd and proclaimed those famous words, which
guaranteed the continuation of divine leadership:
"For whomsoever I am master (Ma ala), this All is his
master (Maula)..." For more details on historic events of
Ghadir Khum refers to such famous books as Musnad
Ahmad vol. 1, p. 118-119.; vol. 4 p. 281,270,272,273;
vol.5 p. 347,370; Mustadrak al-Hakim, vol. 3, p. 109;
Sunan ibn Majah and Hakim Hasakani, vol. 1, p.
190&191; Tarikh ibn Kathir vol. 5, p. 209,210,213.
Thrice he proclaimed these words before descending the
pulpit, relieved of having performed the great task which
would save the Muslims from going astray.
The great multitude of Muslims surged towards Ali ibn Abi
Talib (a.s.), felicitating him on his divine appointment.
According to such famous scholars as Zamakhshari and
Nasai, the first one to congratulate and swear allegiance
bai'a) to Imam Ali (a.s.) was Umar Ibn Khattab, who later
became the second caliph.

Gabriel descended again with another revelation, showing
that the Almighty was pleased with His Prophet for
having excellently performed the great final mission to
mankind.
"..today have I perfected unto you your religion and
completed upon you My blessings and approved for you
Islam as your religion..." Holy Qur'an (5:3)..."


Reason of edit: Improved the title
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 12:47:32 PM
Let's assume the verse refers only to hazrat Ali, did the other 11 also give away in charity while in ruku?

Give me a break.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 01:00:10 PM
As in bro ? Is it true that only hz Ali r.a gave away zakat in ruku?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hadrami on February 24, 2015, 01:01:30 PM
if youre not into reading article, watch this clip. It shud be more than enough refutation


http://youtu.be/6MNUISZIZIk

PS: its from zionist funded channel  ;D
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 01:04:04 PM
Oh Ok I understood it now  bro Furkan.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 01:06:52 PM
No actually I prefer to read articles.. I can't listen to the clip cuz of slow internet.. Which article contains its refutation?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hadrami on February 24, 2015, 01:30:35 PM
No actually I prefer to read articles.. I can't listen to the clip cuz of slow internet.. Which article contains its refutation?

found the brief summary of that clip. Except that he made a mistake on the 6th point, because i dont think the speaker mention anything about the beggar being a captive.

https://m.facebook.com/notes/мухаммед-тазин/refutation-of-false-claimwilayat-made-by-shia_s-about-555-in-al-quran/778699588820222?comment_id=779194878770693&offset=0&total_comments=4
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 01:33:33 PM
Can the text be posted here please?

Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 02:06:07 PM
I read the Summary bro.. JazakAllah.. But I wasn't able to comprehend why was the other sahabi referred to in the ruku part? Also , is it not proven from any sunni ñarration that Ali r.a gave zakah in ruku?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 02:14:45 PM
Bro Furkan , here's The note given by bro Hadrami :

Refutation of false
claim(Wilayat) made by Shia_S about 5:55 in Al Quran.
Shia scholars have been claiming always that in Sura
Maida, ayat 55 it ordered by Allah to make Ali(r.a) our
Khalifa or Supreme leader !!! They try to say that it is
ayat of Wilayat ! The ayat "Your ally is none but Allah
and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have
believed – those who establish prayer and give zakah,
and they bow [in worship]." 5:55....... Shia people try to
claim that here the Wali ( ﻭَﻝِ ) is Ali(r.a) ,based on their
sroty that, Ali(r.a) gave "zakat" to a poor person during
Salat, by moving his hands when he was in the stage of
RUKU !!! And their base of claim is also the word
( ﺭَﺍﻛِﻌُﻮﻥَ ). This is baseless and blind claim because of
these simple reasons-
1st* No mention of name of Hazrat Ali(r.a) here. 2nd*
As the name of Ali(r.a) is not directly mentioned, a
narration of hadis about this ayat is necessary, but there
is rarely any base !! Totally fabricated narration, there is
no necessary authenticity of this story.
3rd* Ali(r.a) is Amirul Mu’minin, he can’t harm Salat by
concentrating outside or moving fingers. And in Salat one
should be occupied (as Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi
Wasallam said) than moving to “Zakat” . As Quran says
to strictly concentrate in Salat. So , this story is slander
against Ali(r.a) .
4th* This Ayat mentions Zakat, that is given by going to
people, not when people come to you! This fabricated
narration making Ali(r.a) a person- who waits for people
to come and then give Zakat.
5th* During the lifetime of Prophet(s.a.w) , it was not
obligatory to Hazrat Ali(r.a) to give Zakat. As he and
many other sahaba were living under hard condition. He
even did not have MAhr to give in his marriage with
Fatima(r.a), so Rasul(s.a.w) advised him to hive his
metal armor.
6th* This is a blatant lie.AS the Shia narrations say, that
poor man was a CAPTIVE !! who was walking around in
Madina and asking for food !!!! Captive did not ran
away, but was wandering around !!
7th* Then why it is not a Sunnah giving Zakat while in
Ruku of Salat?! If Allah praised while giving Zakat inside
Salat (according to their narration) then it should have
been a Sunnah.

»»» Concerning the “ruku” «««
In this ayat Allah(swt) already mentioned about
establishing Salat, and we all know that Ruku, Sijdah are
included in Salat !! And in Arabic , words 3 rooted and
can change meaning when form changed in different
places. Here the Extra Ruku means -Submission to Allah.
As he said about Dawood(a.s)
[Dawud] said, "He has certainly wronged you in
demanding your ewe [in addition] to his ewes. And
indeed, many associates oppress one another,
except for those who believe and do righteous deeds
- and few are they." And Dawud became certain that
We had tried him, and he asked forgiveness of his
Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and
turned in repentance [to Allah]. Sura Saad (38:24)
Here Dawud(a.s) did not went to Ruku, rather fell to
sijdah, so we go to sijdah when we recite this ayat.
Rasul(s.a.w) said so. He fell down in the
submission to Allah. Similar about when Allah said
to Maryam(a.s) in Sura A’le Imran, Ayat 43. “ O
Maryam, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and
prostrate and bow with those who bow [in prayer]."
3:43 She was in a separate place under care of
Zakariyya(a.s), not praying salat in Jamaat !! So
clearly the meaning is "submission" also here!
Þ» Actual Answer: This ayat is about Ubada ibn
Samit(r.a) . If we look at the earlier ayats, Allah
says, - “ O you who have believed, do not take the
Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact]
allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to
them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them.
Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” Al
Maidah (5:51) In the later ayats , Allah forbade
Association with Kuffar, and then told in the 5:55
about who should be taken ally. And it was revealed
regarding Ubadah ibn Samit when Jews asked him
to help them like how Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salul
helped Banu Qaynuqa. As Ubadah ibn Samit was
their ally before his acceptance of ISLAM . Ubadah
(r.a) was pure so rejected the Jews. Thus Allah
revealed this ayat to instruct us –who is our ally.
Ally is Muslims , not Jews or Nasara.
May Allah guide those who are in worng path !!
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hadrami on February 24, 2015, 02:17:56 PM
I read the Summary bro.. JazakAllah.. But I wasn't able to comprehend why was the other sahabi referred to in the ruku part? Also , is it not proven from any sunni ñarration that Ali r.a gave zakah in ruku?

Whether it was Ali or not, that besides the point and he explained the ridiculousness of that claim and how the real meaning is not bowing down as in prayer but in humbleness etc. He also mentioned that the ayat is related to Ubadah bin Samit ra and his jewish ally situation not about Ali ra at all.

Can the text be posted here please?

Here you go bro...

Shia scholars have been claiming always that in Sura Maida, ayat 55 it ordered by Allah to make Ali(r.a) our Khalifa or Supreme leader !!! They try to say that it is ayat of Wilayat ! The ayat"Your ally is none but Allah and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed – those who establish prayer and give zakah, and they bow [in worship]."  5:55.......Shia people try to claim that here the Wali (وَلِ)  is Ali(r.a) ,based on their sroty that, Ali(r.a) gave "zakat" to a poor person during Salat, by moving his hands when he was in the stage of RUKU !!! And their base of claim is also the word (رَاكِعُونَ). This is baseless and blind claim because of these simple reasons-

1st*  No mention of name of Hazrat Ali(r.a) here. 2nd*  As the name of Ali(r.a) is not directly mentioned, a narration of hadis about this ayat is necessary, but there is rarely any base !! Totally fabricated narration, there is no necessary authenticity of this story.

3rd*  Ali(r.a) is Amirul Mu’minin, he can’t harm Salat by concentrating outside or moving fingers. And in Salat one should be occupied (as Rasulullah Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam said) than moving to “Zakat” . As Quran says to strictly concentrate in Salat. So ,  this story is slander against Ali(r.a) .
 
4th*   This Ayat mentions Zakat, that is given by going to people, not when people come to you!  This fabricated narration making Ali(r.a) a person- who waits for people to come and then give Zakat.

5th*  During the lifetime of Prophet(s.a.w) , it was not obligatory to Hazrat Ali(r.a) to  give Zakat. As he and many other sahaba were living under hard condition. He even did not have MAhr to give in his marriage with Fatima(r.a), so Rasul(s.a.w) advised him to hive his metal armor.

6th* This is a blatant lie.AS the Shia narrations say, that poor man was a CAPTIVE !! who was walking around in Madina and asking for food !!!!   Captive did not ran away, but was wandering around !!

7th*  Then why it is not a Sunnah giving Zakat while in Ruku of Salat?! If Allah praised while giving Zakat inside Salat (according to their narration)  then it should have been a Sunnah.

»»»  Concerning  the “ruku” «««

In this ayat Allah(swt) already mentioned  about establishing Salat, and we all know that Ruku, Sijdah are included in Salat !!  And in Arabic , words 3 rooted and can change meaning when form changed in different places. Here the Extra Ruku means  -Submission to Allah.  As he said about Dawood(a.s)

    [Dawud] said, "He has certainly wronged you in demanding your ewe [in addition] to his ewes. And indeed, many associates oppress one another, except for those who believe and do righteous deeds - and few are they." And Dawud became certain that We had tried him, and he asked forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance [to Allah].  Sura Saad (38:24)

    Here Dawud(a.s) did not went to Ruku, rather fell to sijdah, so we go to sijdah when we recite this ayat.  Rasul(s.a.w) said so. He fell down in the submission to Allah.   Similar about when Allah said to Maryam(a.s) in Sura A’le Imran, Ayat 43. “O Maryam, be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those who bow [in prayer]."   3:43  She was in a separate place under care of Zakariyya(a.s), not praying salat in Jamaat !!  So clearly the meaning is "submission" also here!

    Þ» Actual Answer: This ayat is about Ubada ibn Samit(r.a) . If we look at the earlier ayats,  Allah says, -  “ O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” Al Maidah (5:51) In the later ayats , Allah forbade Association with Kuffar, and then told in the 5:55  about who should be taken ally. And it was revealed regarding Ubadah ibn Samit when Jews asked him to help them like how Abdullah ibn Ubai ibn Salul helped Banu Qaynuqa. As Ubadah ibn Samit was their ally before his acceptance of ISLAM .  Ubadah(r.a) was pure so rejected the Jews. Thus Allah revealed this ayat to instruct us –who is our ally. Ally is Muslims , not Jews or Nasara.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Husayn on February 24, 2015, 02:44:39 PM
There is a very simple and easy contextual explanation. The Qur'an isn't a book of hidden messages, it is apparent and obvious.

The verse in question is from Surat al-Maidah - 5:55.

This is not a standalone verse, it is part of several verses. Let us place them in their proper context:

Qur'an 5:51:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۘ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُم مِّنكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

My comment: The Mu'mineen are being told not to take Jews/Christians as 'awliyaa. Does it mean taking them as leaders? No - wilayah in this case is referring to closeness, friendship, protection. Now, why is Allah (swt) telling this to the believers? The next verse explains.

Qur'an 5:52

فَتَرَى الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ يُسَارِعُونَ فِيهِمْ يَقُولُونَ نَخْشَىٰ أَن تُصِيبَنَا دَائِرَةٌ ۚ فَعَسَى اللَّـهُ أَن يَأْتِيَ بِالْفَتْحِ أَوْ أَمْرٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ فَيُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا أَسَرُّوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ نَادِمِينَ

So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into [association with] them, saying, "We are afraid a misfortune may strike us." But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.

My comment: Some of the hypocrites (in whose hearts is disease) used the excuse that "misfortune may strike us" unless the believers made an alliance with the Jews/Christians in Madina. This was Abdallah bin 'Ubayy and his hypocrite group. Allah (swt) then says "But perhaps Allah will bring conquest...", in other words, in spite of what these hypocrites are suggesting, He will instead bring victory to the believers, and He will expose the hypocrites and their schemes.

Qur'an 5:53

وَيَقُولُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَهَـٰؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ أَقْسَمُوا بِاللَّـهِ جَهْدَ أَيْمَانِهِمْ ۙ إِنَّهُمْ لَمَعَكُمْ ۚ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فَأَصْبَحُوا خَاسِرِينَ

And those who believe will say, "Are these the ones who swore by Allah their strongest oaths that indeed they were with you?" Their deeds have become worthless, and they have become losers.

My comment: After Allah (swt) has given the believers victory, and exposed the hypocrites, the believers will recognise them and denounce them.

Qur'an 5:54

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللَّـهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ أَذِلَّةٍ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ أَعِزَّةٍ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ يُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ وَلَا يَخَافُونَ لَوْمَةَ لَائِمٍ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّـهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّـهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers; they strive in the cause of Allah and do not fear the blame of a critic. That is the favor of Allah ; He bestows it upon whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

My comment: Here Allah (swt) warns the believers against apostatizing from Islam, and threatens to bring forth people who possess the qualities that He mentions (if the believers should become apostates). This is obviously tied in with the warning in verse 51 (taking Jews/Christans as allies). In other words, whoever does this, contravening the order of Allah (swt), is an apostate. The warning is very severe.

Qur'an 5:55

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّـهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ

Your ally is none but Allah and [therefore] His Messenger and those who have believed - those who establish prayer and give zakah, and they bow [in worship].

My comment: Here Allah (swt) tells the Muslims that their allies and protectors are Allah (swt), the Prophet (saw), and the believers. He then mentions some of the traits of the believers - they establish prayer, they pay zakat, and they bow down in worship. These are 3 seperate qualities, they are not one act - i.e. Allah (swt) isn't saying that they give zakat while they are praying and are in ruku'.

That would be"

يقيمون الصلاة ويؤتون الزكاة فالركوع

 "uqimoona as-salaata wa yu'toona az-zakaata fir ruku''".

They establish prayer, and give zakaat in ruku'.

The above, combined with the fact that "believers" is clearly plural, rules out it being about a single person, or about a person doing salaat and giving zakaat while he's in ruku'.


Qur'an 5:56

وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ اللَّـهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّـهِ هُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ

And whoever is an ally of Allah and His Messenger and those who have believed - indeed, the party of Allah - they will be the predominant.

My comment: Once again, Allah (swt) says that the allies of the believers are Allah (swt), His Prophet (saw), and the believers. No mention of their qualities in this verse. This was already done above. But "believers" is still plural, negating it being about a specific believer.

Qur'an 5:57

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّـهَ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers.

My comment: Once again, Allah (swt) warns the believers against taking anyone other than Allah (swt), His Messenger (saw) and the other believers as allies. It is a clear shut case.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
JazakAllahu khaira brothers.. It cleared that point , alhumdulillah..
Following are some comments frm a post on Sunni shia global debate fb grp where I posted an article frm twelvershia.net. ...

''Sister imam Ali a.s did not pledge alliance after 6
months because of fear , he decided to pledge alliance
because of his love for islam and to keep the stability.
Here is a biblical story that will make u understand imam
Ali a.s stance . He sacrificed his right for the well being of
islam and not fear . Same imam hassen a.s did when he
sacrificed his right to muawiyah. The Judgment of
Solomon refers to a story from the Hebrew Bible in which
King Solomon of Israel ruled between two women both
claiming to be the mother of a child by tricking the
parties into revealing their true feelings. It has become an
archetypalexample of a judge displaying wisdom in
making a ruling.''

'''I asked u tht question keeping this point alrdy in mind..
That's why I meant : If He a.s was a 'divinely appointed
first caliph' , why wudnt he stay firm for his right ? Why
would he give his right happily to baatil (maazAllah) to
rule over fr a long time .. Ali a.s himself acknowledged
the superiority of Abubakr a.s..brother..n it's clear from
the narration u shared in previous comments.. n wen He
acknowledged it ,why do shias hv to raise questions over
it?'' 

I hope I answered it right.. If not, plz leme know.. N I reckon they now wud bring the case of Sulah e Hudaibiya.. Other shias bring it too.. What shud be the possible reply in that case?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 05:21:35 PM
Hazrat Ali gave his bayah the next day and renewed it after six months.

Shiites say that Ali didn't had enough manpower to fight against Abu Bakr. The funny thing is, when you tell them that the rebels such as malik ibn nuwayra became murtads because they refused to pay zakah, the shiites will tell you " No no no, malik was a sahabi who supported Ali over Abu Bakr, he wasn't a murtad"



Hani you might add this to your great topic of "Religion of excuses" ?

Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 05:29:34 PM
He gave bayah the next day n then renewed it ..  Can I plz be provided with the narration n its grading ?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 05:55:49 PM
I heard it from audio and read it on various articles.

For now I found this: https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/fatimara-burning-of-house-bayah-of-alira/   
(Still reading)
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Proud Muslimah on February 24, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
Abu Dhar Ghifari says, "That one day he was praying with
The Prophet when a beggar came to the Prophet's
mosque and begged for alms(charity). Nobody gave him
anything. The beggar raised his hands towards heaven
and said, "God! be a witness that I came to Thy
Prophet's mosque and nobody gave me anything." Ali
was bowing in the 'Rukuu' at that time. It was the order
from Allah to Ali in the prayer to give him alms. He
pointed his little finger which had a ring, towards the
beggar who came forward and took away the ring. This
incident happening in The Prophet's presence he raised
his face towards Heaven and prayed as follows:[1]
"O Lord! my brother Musa had begged of Thee to open his
breast and to make his work easy, to loose the knot of
his tongue that people might understand him, and to
appoint from among his relations his brother, as his
Wazier, and to strengthen his back with Aaron and to
make Aaron his partner in his work. O God! Thou said to
Musa, We will strengthen thy arm with thy brother.
Nobody will now have an access to either of you! O God!
I am Moh
ammad and thou hast given me distinction. Open my
breast for me, make my work easy for me, and from my
family appoint my brother Ali as my Wazier. Strengthen
my back with him."
Muhammad had not finished his prayers when Jabraeel
brought the above quoted verse i.e. Quran 5:55.
(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Tha’labi,
under Verse 5:55
(2) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v6, pp
186,288-289
(3) Tafsir Jamiul Hukam al-Qur’an, by Muhammad Ibn
Ahmad Qurtubi, v6, p219
(4) Tafsir al-Khazin, v2, p68
(5) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, pp
293-294
(6) Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, Egypt 1373,
v1, pp 505,649
(7) Asbab al-Nuzool, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, Egypt 1382,
v1, p73 on the authority of Ibn Abbas
(8) Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, on the authority of Ibn
Abbas
(9) Sharh al-Tjrid, by Allama Qushji
(10) Ahkam al-Qur’an, al-Jassas, v2, pp 542-543
(11) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v5, p38
(12) Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, p391,
Tradition #5991
(13) al-Awsat, by Tabarani, narrated from Ammar Yasir
(14) Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn Abbas Ali


Is this narration sahih ? N wat mafhoom is to be taken from it ?
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 06:24:47 PM
In his famous commentary ibn Kathir made crystal clear, that he doesn’t accept narration about Ali giving zakat in rukoo as a authentic one.

He said:

﴿إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ﴾

(Verily, your Protector is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers…) means, the Jews are not your friends. Rather, your allegiance is to Allah, His Messenger and the faithful believers.

﴿الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلوةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَوةَ﴾

(those who perform the Salah, and give the Zakah…) referring to the believers who have these qualities and establish the prayer, which is one of the most important pillars of Islam, for it includes worshipping Allah alone without partners. They pay Zakah, which is the right of the creation and a type of help extended to the needy and the poor. As for Allah’s statement,

﴿وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ﴾

(and they bow down,) some people thought that they give the Zakah while bowing down. If this were the case, then paying the Zakah while bowing would be the best form of giving Zakah. No scholar from whom religious rulings are taken says this, as much as we know. Therefore,

﴿وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ﴾

(and they bow down,) means, they attend the prayer in congregation in Allah’s Masjids and spend by way of charity on the various needs of Muslims. Allah said;

﴿وَمَن يَتَوَلَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْغَـلِبُونَ ﴾

(And whosoever takes Allah, His Messenger, and those who have believed, as protectors, then the party of Allah will be the victorious.)

So, ibn Kathir apparently didn’t hold opinion that this verse revealed about Ali.

Jalal ad-Deen as-Suyoote in his “Jalalayn” said:

When [‘Abd Allāh] Ibn Salām said, ‘O Messenger of God, our people have shunned us’, the following was revealed: Your patron is God only, and His Messenger, and the believers who establish prayer and pay the alms, bowing down, humble, or performing voluntary prayers.

So it’s quet clear that Suyote also didn’t hold opinion that disccused verse was revealed about Ali (r.a).

And if anyone from scholars of tafsir, in their books mentioned narration that this was revealed about Ali (r.a), that doesn’t mean it was their own opinion. None of them named their books as sahih one.

http://gift2shias.com/2009/10/25/exposing-musawi-lari-2/

Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 24, 2015, 06:25:45 PM
Hazrat Ali gave his bayah the next day and renewed it after six months.

Shiites say that Ali didn't had enough manpower to fight against Abu Bakr. The funny thing is, when you tell them that the rebels such as malik ibn nuwayra became murtads because they refused to pay zakah, the shiites will tell you " No no no, malik was a sahabi who supported Ali over Abu Bakr, he wasn't a murtad"



Hani you might add this to your great topic of "Religion of excuses" ?



He gave baya and renewed it after 6 months??? LOL! What was the need for renewing it??? When exactly did the others renew theirs??? LOL!

For heavens sake, put something forward that makes sense or at least think and ponder over it before putting it forward.

There are many funny stories related to and told by many just like you have. The bottom line is Hazrath Ali (as) never put himself forward and above the welfare of Islam and never threatened the benefit and peace of the Muslims.

Going to war with Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) was easy and a piece of cake but the consequences for Islam and especially the Muslims were severe and catastrophic.

Hazrath Malik bin Nuwayra (ra) was a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and here we have people calling him murtad because of his difference with the first Khalif.

Tell me how does one become murtad by not paying zaka'ath??? Or refusing to pay??? How does one become murtad by not praying???

Where is the evidence that Hazrath Malik ibne Nuwayra (ra) refused to pay Zaka'ath??? This is your side of the story and only one side of the argument.















[I REMIND YOU TO NOT GO OFF TOPIC] your beloved moderator.







Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 06:29:33 PM
@Ameen

Read the stuff we post please.

AND NO, don't mix different subjects now.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hani on February 24, 2015, 07:15:44 PM
I remind the brothers, NEVER give long replies to Shia arguments (unless in really specific situations).

Rafidah are like tape recorders, they'll either copy/paste a huge argument from somewhere, or write it down from random Shubuhat they memorized. You show the strength of your argument by attacking ONE section of the opponent's argument and thus the rest all collapses on its own.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 24, 2015, 07:26:24 PM
You nailed it.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 24, 2015, 09:49:16 PM
I remind the brothers, NEVER give long replies to Shia arguments (unless in really specific situations).

Rafidah are like tape recorders, they'll either copy/paste a huge argument from somewhere, or write it down from random Shubuhat they memorized. You show the strength of your argument by attacking ONE section of the opponent's argument and thus the rest all collapses on its own.

I haven't seen anyone or anything collapse till yet, apart from you locking up threads and making excuses for it that, I failed to provide this or that discussion isn't academic anymore. But I agree on this statement of yours on the basis of, one has a right to dream be it me or you.

 

Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 24, 2015, 09:50:56 PM
You nailed it.

Well ofcourse. He most definitely needs cheering up. Keep it up!
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 24, 2015, 09:58:20 PM
Hazrat Ali gave his bayah the next day and renewed it after six months.

Shiites say that Ali didn't had enough manpower to fight against Abu Bakr. The funny thing is, when you tell them that the rebels such as malik ibn nuwayra became murtads because they refused to pay zakah, the shiites will tell you " No no no, malik was a sahabi who supported Ali over Abu Bakr, he wasn't a murtad"



Hani you might add this to your great topic of "Religion of excuses" ?



He gave baya and renewed it after 6 months??? LOL! What was the need for renewing it??? When exactly did the others renew theirs??? LOL!

For heavens sake, put something forward that makes sense or at least think and ponder over it before putting it forward.

There are many funny stories related to and told by many just like you have. The bottom line is Hazrath Ali (as) never put himself forward and above the welfare of Islam and never threatened the benefit and peace of the Muslims.

Going to war with Hazrath Abu Bakar (ra) was easy and a piece of cake but the consequences for Islam and especially the Muslims were severe and catastrophic.

Hazrath Malik bin Nuwayra (ra) was a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) and here we have people calling him murtad because of his difference with the first Khalif.

Tell me how does one become murtad by not paying zaka'ath??? Or refusing to pay??? How does one become murtad by not praying???

Where is the evidence that Hazrath Malik ibne Nuwayra (ra) refused to pay Zaka'ath??? This is your side of the story and only one side of the argument.















[I REMIND YOU TO NOT GO OFF TOPIC] your beloved moderator.

Where did I go off topic??? Was it the baya of Hazrath Ali to the first Khalif or the incident of Malik ibne Nuwayrah??? LOL. Come on, don't take the anger out on me when you're feeling the heat. I responded to what is being discussed.


 Come on, i






Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hani on February 24, 2015, 10:22:17 PM

I haven't seen anyone or anything collapse till yet, apart from you locking up threads and making excuses for it that, I failed to provide this or that discussion isn't academic anymore. But I agree on this statement of yours on the basis of, one has a right to dream be it me or you.

 



You can't see it because you're unqualified to see it, we never expect people of your level to see anything, you're still raw, and need a lot of time to mature.

Quote
Where did I go off topic??? Was it the baya of Hazrath Ali to the first Khalif or the incident of Malik ibne Nuwayrah??? LOL. Come on, don't take the anger out on me when you're feeling the heat. I responded to what is being discussed.

Was this thread opened to discuss WHEN `Ali gave Bay`ah? From the OP it doesn't seem like it so stick to the topic.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 25, 2015, 03:54:51 PM
Thank you very much. I also think very highly of you as well. The feelings mutual. That makes to of us now.

Take a look at what Furkan said. He mentioned Ali (as) giving baya and renewing it after 6 months. If Ali's (as) baya is not discussed then why not mention it to Furkan rather than waiting for my post???

I will tell you why, I don't go off topic but only reply to what is being or has been said. When you or yourkind get stuck and feel like you can't answer then, you use such tactics like, I've gone off




Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Furkan on February 25, 2015, 04:06:53 PM
If muting me makes you (Ameen) stop going offtopic and asking rhetoric questions, wallahi Hani do so please.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 25, 2015, 04:26:06 PM
If muting me makes you (Ameen) stop going offtopic and asking rhetoric questions, wallahi Hani do so please.

I only ask questions related to what you say with in your posts. When you can't answer you use such techniques and tactics like, stop asking rhetoric questions, you're going off topic, I am going to lock this thread because of so and so excuse etc.

You gentlemen behave like boxers who start to get in to trouble ina round and then either cling on to the ropes or their opponent just to save them selves from further battering or getting knocked out.

Go on, I dare you, answer my questions or believe in your double standards. This is what I want to expose. If you are genuine then prove it. Stop trying to fool the people.






Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hani on February 25, 2015, 06:58:08 PM
What do you want answered? Renewing the Bay`ah?

I do not know if you know this, but there is a concept of "renewing" your Bay`ah in Islam so I'm surprised you think this is weird.

For instance in Tareekh al-Islam by al-Dhahabi it says:

 وصبيحة قتله جدد الجند البيعة للأمين

[In the morning of the day he was murdered, al-Ameen's soldiers renewed their Bay`ah to him.]

Even in the Prophet's (saw) life, the people renewed their Bay`ah to him and this was "Bay`at-ul-Ridhwan".

Anyway, aside from all this... Let's get back to the topic, what happened was the following (So you may understand why he had to renew his Bay`ah):

-After the Prophet (saw) passed away, majority of Mouhajiroun sided with Abu Bakr, majority of Ansar wanted to choose a leader from themselves, and banu Hashim gathered in Fatimah's house when they heard about Saqifah.
-After Saqifah the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar almost unanimously sided with Abu Bakr and began giving him allegiance. Banu Hashim became angry because they thought they had a right to it and they were not even consulted on top of that.
-Abu Bakr begins taking the general Bay`ah at the Prophet's (saw) mosque and Banu Hashim boycott it so Abu Bakr asks for Zubayr and `Ali. The people notice that `Ali and Zubayr are not in attendance nor did they give Bay`ah.
-It is said that `Umar visited Fatimah's house as they were looking for `Ali and Zubayr and he told her to not allow them to stay at her house should they return otherwise there will be conflict.
-Apparently they returned to Fatimah's house and gathered in it once more and it does not seem they they listened to Fatimah's advice when she told them to go and give the Bay`ah. It is said that al-Zubayr drew his sword and promised to never put it down until they receive the Bay`ah, it is also said that they took away his sword and broke it then accompanied him to Abu Bakr.
-`Ali and al-Zubayr go to Abu Bakr and they discuss the matter and Abu Bakr tells them that what they did can result in division and hatred among the Muslims so they accept his leadership and grant him an oath of allegiance asking him to not reproach them for this mistake. They both explain to him that they were simply angry because they were not consulted even though they had a right to it, and that Abu Bakr is worthy of this position. The Muslims did not witness this Bay`ah from `Ali as it was not in public.
-The next day `Abbas and Fatimah go to Abu Bakr asking for the lands belonging to the Prophet (saw), Abu Bakr tells them that they belong to all the people and are not a possession of Banu Hashim since the Prophet (saw) leave no inheritance. Fatimah gets upset but they accept Abu Bakr's judgement.
-Fatimah falls ill and `Ali disappears for a while to take care of her. It is said that Banu Hashim have still not given a Bay`ah at this point. The people think that `Ali is still boycotting Abu Bakr's Caliphate and they begin to give him looks as if reproaching him.
-After Fatimah passes away, `Ali calls on Abu Bakr to discuss the matter with him and clear the misunderstanding, he also insists that `Umar should not come as he feared `Umar's harshness.
-`Ali explains himself to Abu Bakr and tells him that he was not jealous and that Abu Bakr is surely worthy of leadership  but they only did what they did for several reasons. Abu Bakr explains his position to `Ali and tells him of his deep love and respect for the Prophet's (saw) family and explains that he only used the lands as the Prophet (saw) used them, they have a very friendly conversation and `Ali tells Abu Bakr that he shall give him a public Bay`ah in the mosque in the time of `Isha' prayer on that night.
-Abu Bakr stands on the pulpit and praises `Ali and explains to the people why `Ali had not attended the Bay`ah with the rest of them and he excuses him for it. `Ali then also stands and explains to the people his position and excuses for doing what he did. The people accept from `Ali what he said and everything goes back to the way it was.
-Banu Hashim all go and give Abu Bakr the Bay`ah after `Ali.


These events happened in that order which I mentioned above according what I deem as historically accurate and based on my reading of the popular history books. Everything else such as the broken rib story, the tying `Ali up story, the witnesses story, the burning of `Ali's house story, and all those spices Shia use to distort history are all fabrications that have no basis only mentioned in very unreliable dubious story books without legitimate chains.
Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Ameen on February 25, 2015, 08:12:50 PM
Like I said brother, I didn't go off topic but only responed to what was being said. I have read your post and will Insha'allah reply to it when I finish work.

You have put one side of the argument forward and I can easily say to you that this is fabricated and false as you have mentioned about the other side of the argument.

But I am not going to do that infact I will only respond to what you have said and put the points out that alarm me about your version of events.





Title: Re: Need some help.
Post by: Hani on February 25, 2015, 08:38:26 PM
This is my historical reading based on all the evidence I encountered so far, so obviously I won't believe in anything else's authenticity.

The books are there, you can have any historical reading you wish. What matters most is not that you believe in a certain version of a historical period. What matters is the most is HOW you reached your conclusion and what scientific laws/rules did you apply and follow so that you may NOT be accused by your opponents that you simply pick and choose what suits your desires.

Keep this in mind when you formulate your own historical view on any period.
Title: Re: Need some help. Verse 5:55 and Shia argument
Post by: Ameen on February 26, 2015, 04:08:50 PM
This is my historical reading based on all the evidence I encountered so far, so obviously I won't believe in anything else's authenticity.

The books are there, you can have any historical reading you wish. What matters most is not that you believe in a certain version of a historical period. What matters is the most is HOW you reached your conclusion and what scientific laws/rules did you apply and follow so that you may NOT be accused by your opponents that you simply pick and choose what suits your desires.

Keep this in mind when you formulate your own historical view on any period.

Ok brother, thank you very much for your advice. Most appreciated.

How did you reach your conclusion and what scientific laws and rules did you apply??? And why would you not believe in the authenticity of anything else??? Why reach a conclusion and then just lock the door and throw the key away and then still want to discuss the matter and try to convince the other, when you have put a stop to the other side of the argument to begin with???
Title: Re: Need some help. Verse 5:55 and Shia argument
Post by: Hani on February 26, 2015, 08:09:45 PM
Well brother that ain't very simple and I don't know if I can explain it in detail.


My methodology is as follows... READ


What do I mean by "read"? A lot of people go on blogs and websites and read random historical articles, for instance here's an article on Saqifah in which several researchers and narrations were quoted:
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/critique-saqifa


This however my friend, is NOT reading. This is someone else doing the reading for you, quoting to you his own conclusion and expecting you to take it exactly as it is. This doesn't just apply to articles online but also contemporary books written by people who recently died, maybe a 100 years ago or so at least. Often times I read history books written by some contemporary scholar and I don't fully agree with a lot of what they say as it opposes my reading and research. When someone like Yasir Qadi offers a lecture on Karbala' and says "Mu`awiyah did this for this or that reason" I don't necessarily agree BECAUSE I READ and based on that reading I believe Mu`awiyah did the thing for a different purpose.


In other words, reading requires you to go back to the traditional classical historical sources yourself, the main history books that the nation relied on. When it comes to these sources, it is crucial to take into consideration a couple of matters, the earliness of the source and the earlier the better, the reliability of the author and his popularity and value, and the sources this historian relies on to present the historical material.


For example, we compare three historical sources:


"Al-Kamil fil-Tareekh" by ibn al-Atheer who died in 630AH, which is considered a bit late, this greatly reduces the value of the book when it comes to researching sensitive historical topics, the author is a renowned and reliable scholar but his book does not site its sources and chains, which is why when reading its contents I take them into consideration and benefit from them but cannot base my views on them except for what can be backed by sources from earlier books.


"Ansab-ul-Ashraf" by ِAhmad bin Yahya al-Baladhuri who died in 279AH which is very early, al-Dhahabi writes that he was writer, a historian, a poet. He is not known as a reliable scholar nor has anyone praised his Hadith, and even though he included chains in his book yet these to me cannot be accepted as authentic but are all historical stories that I take into consideration, if they agree with what is authentic or back it up I accept them as additional evidence, if not then I cannot build my historical view based on their content.


"Kitab al-Mihan" by abu al-`Arab al-Tamimi who is a Hafidh and a venerable Muhaddith, he died in 333AH which is not as early as Baladhuri but still very early, in his book he narrates with chains some of which are authentic and some are not. I would prefer this book the most out of the three.


So the above is simply an example and we can sum it up by saying, the you must always refer to the original resources and not take someone else's conclusions as fact. The researcher of history must have certain criteria as to what resources he must rely on, in this case keep in mind the earliness and popularity of the source, the reliability of the author and the availability and authenticity of the book's sources and chains.


Now when you do that and you wish to begin your reading, let's say you open Tareekh-ul-Tabari, the first thing you will notice is that each event is in its chapter and under each chapter are many narrations, some of these reports will be accurate, some will be partially accurate and others will be completely fabricated stories.


How do we figure out what actually happened then?


The first criteria is to draw a bold guideline, you do this by collecting the established historical facts that are authentic and popular. Anything which contradicts them is obviously an error and everything that agrees with them or backs them up can be accepted.


Unlike religious narrations, the historical narrations were not regarded as being so important that the scholars would go out of their way to find authentic chains for them, most historians exercise leniency in how they deal with such reports, this is why it is not very common to find solid authentic chains, you usually need to settle for acceptable chains most of the time.


For example, let's say we have a popular authentic report that says Abu Bakr sent three commanders to fight against the false-prophet Musaylamah and they defeated him.


Then you have two other narrations that are weak, and these two narrations actually announce the names of the commanders of of those three armies that Abu Bakr sent. We can simply accept these reports as they do not conflict or oppose the established authentic narration above, rather they back it up and provide more detail.


On the other hand if we find a weak narration that says that Abu Bakr only sent two commanders, then this is rejected as a historical error since it opposes the three narrations above, one of which is popular and authentic in chain.


Also another method of known what is accurate is simply to apply common sense and logic, for instance in the Shia book "Sulaym bin Qays" it says in one narration that Muhammad bin Abu Bakr was giving his father Abu Bakr advice while on his deathbed. We do not need to look into the chain of this report to know it is a lie, since it is established historically that Muhammad was around 2-3 years old when his father Abu Bakr died, so logically he can't have been giving him advice at that age.


Another way to know what is accurate and what isn't, is to dismiss what opposes what is known about a certain character. For example if we have a report in a history book that says "`Ali escaped with his life in Siffeen as he feared death." We know without checking this narration's chain that it is a lie because what is popularly known about `Ali in many other narrations and events both during the life of the Prophet (saw) and his own reign, that he was a strong warrior and he was very courageous, he'd never run away out of fear. Thus, these types of reports that oppose the Seerah of a certain person can easily be dismissed as historical errors.


At the end of the day though, the most important way is to analyse and authenticate the chain of a historical report. This is because many people could have lied in these past 1,400 years and if we do not have reliable narrators we cannot accept the report and this means the researcher needs to be familiar with historical chains, he must know the narrators and study their condition especially those who narrate a lot in history books such as Ibn `Uqdah al-Zaydi, Sayf ibn `Umar al-Tamimi, Muhammad bin `Umar al-Waqidi and many others. For example this is a study on the condition of a famous narrator in history called Ibn Lahee`ah:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/hadith-rijal/the-acceptable-hadeeth-of-ibn-laheeyah/


One last thing I'll mention, is that historical reports are not like religious ones, in that when it comes to religious narrations if the chain is authentic you have to accept the entire text. On the other hand weak historical reports might have some parts that are accurate and other parts that are inaccurate, which means the historian who is narrating the story might narrate some aspects that are true and others which are not based on the information that reached him. When you read you'll find such reports and the well trained researcher will know how to dissect each historical report and differentiate between what is acceptable and what isn't.


^ Those are all some rough guidelines, when you dive into history and Hadith you'll know what we mean with practice.