TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Official Debates => Topic started by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 12:09:25 AM

Title: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 12:09:25 AM
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakathu,
After having given up on Shia-Sunni debates, I had to return to this website due to this one person I ran into on Facebook. 

Recently, a brother (he is my neighbor as well) who has turned towards his deen posted an image of Donald Trump holding an African-American child.  Beneath it, he he had written something to the effect that if Trump could show mercy towards a black child, why don't we show love toward Shias?  That is a noble thought.  Personally, I believe no Sunni is better than a Shia (or vice-versa) except by their faith and good deeds.

What my neighbor wrote would be welcomed by Shias but not Rawaafidh.  So a friend of his - going by the kunya "Al Rafidhi" - started commenting on his status instead of showing appreciation.  I warned the brother (my neighbor) that this Rafidhi is going to run him through a series of steps, all well known to people like myself who have spent time listening to their verbal diarrhea, which will eventually lead him to curse the Sahabas (ra).

To retaliate, this Rafidhi informed me that the wives of the Prophet [saw] were not Ahlul Bayt [ra] as stated in Sahih Muslim.  I showed him from Sahih Muslim how the Prophet [saw] referred to his wives [ra] as "Ahlul Bayt".  I even showed him Qur'an 33:33 but he had to retaliate with the narration in which Zayd ibn Arqam [ra] makes a special exception for other members of the household of the Prophet [saw].  In fact, Zayd [ra] states that wives are members of the household.  But of course our Rafidhi friend was taken for a ride by his scholars. 

Here is that narration:
“He (Husain) said to Zaid: ‘Who are the members of his household?  Aren’t his wives the members of his family?’  Thereupon he said: ‘His wives are the members of his family but here the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden.’  And he said: ‘Who are they?’  Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil and the offspring of Jafar and the offspring of Abbas.’  Husain said: ‘These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden?’  Zaid said: ‘Yes.’ ”

I was at work so I could type so much on Facebook but yesterday he messaged me again asking me if I believe that Abu Talib was a Muslim or not.  He also referred to him as Sahaba.  I explained to him that in order for one to be the Sahaba, he has to have seen the Prophet [saw], accepted Islam and died upon that faith.  Abu Talib rendered service to Islam and aided the Prophet [saw] - and for that I pray for him - but there is not one single authentic narration which establishes the fact that he accepted Islam.  Having said that, we do not curse him.  Never!  Thereafter, I tried to inform him why Abu Talib's faith became important.  It became important because Shias were consistently mocking other Sahabas [ra] because their parents died mushrik.  So if one has to be judged by their parents' iman, then would they (the Shias) judge Imam Ali [ra] by the same standards which they have established themselves?

What was his rebuttal?  Wallaahi, word for word the following: "I wanted to ask about Abu Talib [as].  If that's the criteria for being a Sahabah, he [as] was a Sahabah, whereas Abu Bakr and Umar, etc. were not."

From there our conversation spiraled into something ugly so he said that he would like to humiliate me on a public forum.  I asked him to see me here.

If he shows up, please welcome him.  This is an opportunity for me to make Muharram come early for him because as soon as he is done, he will be slapping himself wailing, "why did I bother debating him?"!!!


Edit by Farid: Topic title has been changed in order to make this a one on one conversation.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 06:53:24 AM
Quote
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakathu,
After having given up on Shia-Sunni debates, I had to return to this website due to this one person I ran into on Facebook. 

Wa `alaykum al-salaam wa rahmatullahe wa barakatuh.


Quote
Recently, a brother (he is my neighbor as well) who has turned towards his deen posted an image of Donald Trump holding an African-American child.  Beneath it, he he had written something to the effect that if Trump could show mercy towards a black child, why don't we show love toward Shias?  That is a noble thought.  Personally, I believe no Sunni is better than a Shia (or vice-versa) except by their faith and good deeds.

Alhamdulillah, I think we both agree it's all about Taqwa, Emaan, etc.

Quote
What my neighbor wrote would be welcomed by Shias but not Rawaafidh.  So a friend of his - going by the kunya "Al Rafidhi" - started commenting on his status instead of showing appreciation.  I warned the brother (my neighbor) that this Rafidhi is going to run him through a series of steps, all well known to people like myself who have spent time listening to their verbal diarrhea, which will eventually lead him to curse the Sahabas (ra).

I did welcome the brother's post; it was nice of him to consider Shias. Some people have an inability to comprehend context, and thus fall into the trap of pessimism. May Allah (swt) keep us clear from such negativity. What's wrong with cursing the misguided of the Sahabah? Many Sunni scholars note that the accursed Mu`awiyyah ordered the cursing of Imam Ali (as).

Quote
To retaliate, this Rafidhi informed me that the wives of the Prophet [saw] were not Ahlul Bayt [ra] as stated in Sahih Muslim.  I showed him from Sahih Muslim how the Prophet [saw] referred to his wives [ra] as "Ahlul Bayt".  I even showed him Qur'an 33:33 but he had to retaliate with the narration in which Zayd ibn Arqam [ra] makes a special exception for other members of the household of the Prophet [saw].  In fact, Zayd [ra] states that wives are members of the household.  But of course our Rafidhi friend was taken for a ride by his scholars. 

In all my years of debating Bakris [so-called Sunnis], I have realized that they're often very cunningly clever; they don't like to give the whole story. I suppose they're afraid of their weak arguments coming to light. I already explained it to you, but since you seem forgetful, I'll explain it again, in shaa'llah. In regards to the term Ahlul Bayt, it can be used in a general, or specific, manner. Just as many Americans will say that their own pets are a "part of the home/house." Quraan 33:33 is said to be about a specific People of the House [Ahlul Bayt (as)]. It becomes clear once you consider some of your own Sunni ahadeeth:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported:
We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren't the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَكَّارِ بْنِ الرَّيَّانِ، حَدَّثَنَا حَسَّانُ، - يَعْنِي ابْنَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ - عَنْ سَعِيدٍ، - وَهُوَ ابْنُ مَسْرُوقٍ - عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ حَيَّانَ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ، قَالَ دَخَلْنَا عَلَيْهِ فَقُلْنَا لَهُ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتَ خَيْرًا ‏.‏ لَقَدْ صَاحَبْتَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَصَلَّيْتَ خَلْفَهُ ‏.‏ وَسَاقَ الْحَدِيثَ بِنَحْوِ حَدِيثِ أَبِي حَيَّانَ غَيْرَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ ‏ "‏ أَلاَ وَإِنِّي تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ هُوَ حَبْلُ اللَّهِ مَنِ اتَّبَعَهُ كَانَ عَلَى الْهُدَى وَمَنْ تَرَكَهُ كَانَ عَلَى ضَلاَلَةٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَفِيهِ فَقُلْنَا مَنْ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ نِسَاؤُهُ قَالَ لاَ وَايْمُ اللَّهِ إِنَّ الْمَرْأَةَ تَكُونُ مَعَ الرَّجُلِ الْعَصْرَ مِنَ الدَّهْرِ ثُمَّ يُطَلِّقُهَا فَتَرْجِعُ إِلَى أَبِيهَا وَقَوْمِهَا أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ أَصْلُهُ وَعَصَبَتُهُ الَّذِينَ حُرِمُوا الصَّدَقَةَ بَعْدَهُ ‏.‏
Reference    : Sahih Muslim 2408 d
In-book reference    : Book 44, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference    : Book 31, Hadith 5923
  (deprecated numbering scheme)

and this:

Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him:
Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
حَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، وَشُجَاعُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، جَمِيعًا عَنِ ابْنِ عُلَيَّةَ، قَالَ زُهَيْرٌ حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو حَيَّانَ، حَدَّثَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ حَيَّانَ، قَالَ انْطَلَقْتُ أَنَا وَحُصَيْنُ، بْنُ سَبْرَةَ وَعُمَرُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ إِلَى زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ فَلَمَّا جَلَسْنَا إِلَيْهِ قَالَ لَهُ حُصَيْنٌ لَقَدْ لَقِيتَ يَا زَيْدُ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا رَأَيْتَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَسَمِعْتَ حَدِيثَهُ وَغَزَوْتَ مَعَهُ وَصَلَّيْتَ خَلْفَهُ لَقَدْ لَقِيتَ يَا زَيْدُ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا حَدِّثْنَا يَا زَيْدُ مَا سَمِعْتَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم - قَالَ - يَا ابْنَ أَخِي وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ كَبِرَتْ سِنِّي وَقَدُمَ عَهْدِي وَنَسِيتُ بَعْضَ الَّذِي كُنْتُ أَعِي مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَمَا حَدَّثْتُكُمْ فَاقْبَلُوا وَمَا لاَ فَلاَ تُكَلِّفُونِيهِ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ قَالَ قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فِينَا خَطِيبًا بِمَاءٍ يُدْعَى خُمًّا بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ وَذَكَّرَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَمَّا بَعْدُ أَلاَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ رَسُولُ رَبِّي فَأُجِيبَ وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ حُصَيْنٌ وَمَنْ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ يَا زَيْدُ أَلَيْسَ نِسَاؤُهُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ قَالَ نِسَاؤُهُ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَلَكِنْ أَهْلُ بَيْتِهِ مَنْ حُرِمَ الصَّدَقَةَ بَعْدَهُ ‏.‏ قَالَ وَمَنْ هُمْ قَالَ هُمْ آلُ عَلِيٍّ وَآلُ عَقِيلٍ وَآلُ جَعْفَرٍ وَآلُ عَبَّاسٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ كُلُّ هَؤُلاَءِ حُرِمَ الصَّدَقَةَ قَالَ نَعَمْ ‏.‏
Reference    : Sahih Muslim 2408 a
In-book reference    : Book 44, Hadith 55
USC-MSA web (English) reference    : Book 31, Hadith 5920
  (deprecated numbering scheme)

and this:

The verse

"Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)"

was revealed to the Prophet (S) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered ‘Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O’ Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification.”Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?”the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."

Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663

Quote
I was at work so I could type so much on Facebook but yesterday he messaged me again asking me if I believe that Abu Talib was a Muslim or not.  He also referred to him as Sahaba.  I explained to him that in order for one to be the Sahaba, he has to have seen the Prophet [saw], accepted Islam and died upon that faith.  Abu Talib rendered service to Islam and aided the Prophet [saw] - and for that I pray for him - but there is not one single authentic narration which establishes the fact that he accepted Islam.  Having said that, we do not curse him.  Never!  Thereafter, I tried to inform him why Abu Talib's faith became important.  It became important because Shias were consistently mocking other Sahabas [ra] because their parents died mushrik.  So if one has to be judged by their parents' iman, then would they (the Shias) judge Imam Ali [ra] by the same standards which they have established themselves?

What was his rebuttal?  Wallaahi, word for word the following: "I wanted to ask about Abu Talib [as].  If that's the criteria for being a Sahabah, he [as] was a Sahabah, whereas Abu Bakr and Umar, etc. were not."

There are many proofs that we can give to prove the correct `Aqeedah of Abu Talib (as), but if one's heart is blinded, it will not be palatable. Your ignorance of Tareekh al-Islaam [Islamic history] isn't a pass for you to reject; only an ignoramus would do as such.


Quote
If he shows up, please welcome him.  This is an opportunity for me to make Muharram come early for him because as soon as he is done, he will be slapping himself wailing, "why did I bother debating him?"!!!

I'll let `A'ishah take care of that tab [nice try, though]:

Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 6, p. 274, Number 26391 (edited by al-Arnaut) records that Aisha said:
ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبض وهو في حجري ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة وقمت ألتدم مع النساء واضرب وجهي
Allah’s Apostle died in my lap. I then placed his head on a pillow AND STARTED DOING ILTIDAM with the other women AND I BEAT MY FACE.
Shaykh al-Arnaut says:
إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق
Its chain is hasan on account of Ibn Ishaq
Abu Ya’la has also recorded this same report in his Musnad, vol. 8, p. 63, Number 4586 (edited by Husayn Salim Asad). Husayn Salim Asad says about it:
إسناده حسن
Its chain is hasan.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 01:01:08 PM

In all my years of debating Bakris [so-called Sunnis], I have realized that they're often very cunningly clever; they don't like to give the whole story. I suppose they're afraid of their weak arguments coming to light. I already explained it to you, but since you seem forgetful, I'll explain it again, in shaa'llah. In regards to the term Ahlul Bayt, it can be used in a general, or specific, manner. Just as many Americans will say that their own pets are a "part of the home/house." Quraan 33:33 is said to be about a specific People of the House [Ahlul Bayt (as)]. It becomes clear once you consider some of your own Sunni ahadeeth

Glad you showed up!  Now I want to say two things but before that, allow me to address what I have highlighted from your post.  The entire Sahihain is archived online and translated in English.  Every Muslim and non-Muslim can access them with a few clicks.  Can you say the same regarding your books that are kept under lock-and-key? 

You live in Washington DC area and I have been to Imam Ali Center (where they have "Happy Birthday Imam Zaman" events with birthday cakes reading just that), Manassas Mosque and Islamic Education Center.  I have yet to see an English translation of Al-Kafi in any of those mosques.  On the contrary, if you go to IEC, they have an entire stand with pamphlets that explain Shia practices using Sunni hadiths. 

Why am I saying all this?  Because we like to present the whole story.  If we were in the business of hiding, we would not have made our Sahihain available to everyone.  It is your ilk that rely on obscure narrations and isolated reports while hiding away their own problematic hadiths.  So this should be a good transition into my first point.

1.  The report you have shared by Zayd ibn Arqam [ra] occurs in the same Sahih Muslim with different wordings.  In other words, the same incident (although one event) has been reported numerously with different wordings.  It is our tradition that teaches us to look at all reports pertaining to a matter in order to get the entire picture in its clearest form.  And it is quite clear, from what I have shared and what you have posted, that Zayd [ra] was not excluding the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] from anything except in the matter of Zakat.  Why?  Because while a man is responsible to feed his blood relatives, a woman can be divorced and therefore, he is no longer be responsible for them.  As for blood relatives, there are no cutting ties and hence you are always held accountable.  This is of importance because the Prophet [saw] divorced some of his wives.

Unlike your lot that considers the Imams [ra] to be infallible, we do not consider Sahabas [ra] to be infallible.  And the statement of one Sahaba [ra] is not considered Divine Revelation, especially when the Qur'an and the Prophet [saw] consider the wives [ra] to be Ahlul Bayt [ra].  Again, Zayd [ra] was making a distinction based on an exception.  He was not making an exclusion!

Speaking of presenting part of the picture, do you know that the same Zayd ibn Arqam [ra], says the following in the preceding part of the same Sahih Muslim?
"I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger.

For more, please visit: http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/arqam.html

2.  Now let us get to the second thing I wanted to mention.  While my brothers here have made my task very easy, they have left nothing for you.  Singing praises of Abu Talib does not make him a Muslim or believer.  You have to bring proof.  Also, I am still waiting for you to find the verses regarding Fadak in the Qur'an.  Trust me, not a single Shia scholar worth the name - unless he is honest and God-fearing - shares those verses when talking about Fadak.  You may ask why!  Because the verses themselves, without the need for any explanations or exegesis, make it clear that properties such as Fadak cannot be under sole ownership.  In other words, giving Fadak to Fatima [ra] - whether as a gift or inheritance - is against the Qur'an.

Find the verses please.  The reason why I am stretching this out is to show you as to who presents part of the picture, Shias or Sunnis.  So far, you have came up with nothing, hence, it is obvious as to who has been duped.

Alhamdulilah, all your accusations point right back at you and your buffoonery has made me laugh out loud on a Monday morning.  Thank you! 
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 01:16:37 PM
Shaykh al-Arnaut says:
إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق
Its chain is hasan on account of Ibn Ishaq
Abu Ya’la has also recorded this same report in his Musnad, vol. 8, p. 63, Number 4586 (edited by Husayn Salim Asad). Husayn Salim Asad says about it:
إسناده حسن
Its chain is hasan.

There is more to hadith grading than just its chain, such as matn, et cetera.  Obviously you do not know this because your madhab copied the science of hadiths from us and did a pretty bad job in doing so.

Do you know that there is a narration in Al-Kafi, with a sahih chain - not hasan but sahih - in which we have the Prophet's [saw] donkey, Ufair, telling a story?  Please do not come back and say that animals speak as per the Qur'an, like ants in the case of Sulaiman [as].  I am talking about sanad, not miracles.  When you have a narration in which a donkey is narrating a story, that donkey becomes part of the chain.  So how do you authenticate the donkey's story?  How do you establish the donkey's reliability?  Ilm-ul haiwaan?  Yet, there is a narration in Al-Kafi which narrates a story on the authority of Ufair, the Prophet's [saw] donkey.  But Shias are quick to weaken it.  That is your prerogative.  You can grade Al-Kafi however you want but I wanted to teach you the basics of the science of hadiths. 

Having a hasan chain means nothing just like your scholars distance themselves away from the hadith narrated by a donkey although its chain is sahih!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 03:09:28 PM

There are many proofs that we can give to prove the correct `Aqeedah of Abu Talib (as), but if one's heart is blinded, it will not be palatable. Your ignorance of Tareekh al-Islaam [Islamic history] isn't a pass for you to reject; only an ignoramus would do as such.
Quote
Bro, you have no read the ridiculous reports regarding the shahadah of Abu Talib in your own books. Just read the reports in al-Kafi, see how ridiculous they are.

Which version of al-Kafi? I hope you know that it's said enemies of Islam are tampering with the online, or PDF, versions. Please bring forward the book and hadeeth number, if you're truthful.

Quote
And if you are so-confident then let me throw a small challenge to you. Tell us what did Ali(RA) inherit from Abu Talib after he died?  Please back your answer with a reliable Shia report, not a bunch of excuses.

[NOTE: We have authentic Sunni reports which state, Ali(RA) didn't inherit anything from Abu talib, because he wasn't a Muslim].
First of all, it's said in Islamic law, the Muslim may inherit from the Kafir, and not vice-versa, so you need to find reliable proofs. It's said to be sort of similar to how a Muslim man being able to marry an Ahlul-Kitabi woman, but not vice-versa. Such ahadeeth that show a Muslim can inherit from a Kafir, are said to be in the Shia book Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih.



Quote
I'll let `A'ishah take care of that tab [nice try, though]:

Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 6, p. 274, Number 26391 (edited by al-Arnaut) records that Aisha said:
ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبض وهو في حجري ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة وقمت ألتدم مع النساء واضرب وجهي
Allah’s Apostle died in my lap. I then placed his head on a pillow AND STARTED DOING ILTIDAM with the other women AND I BEAT MY FACE.
Shaykh al-Arnaut says:
إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق
Its chain is hasan on account of Ibn Ishaq
Abu Ya’la has also recorded this same report in his Musnad, vol. 8, p. 63, Number 4586 (edited by Husayn Salim Asad). Husayn Salim Asad says about it:
إسناده حسن
Its chain is hasan.

Quote
Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arnout said :
) إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق: وهو محمد، وقد صرح بالتحديث هنا، فانتفت شبهة تدليسه. وبقية رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير أخرج له أصحاب السنن، وهو ثقة، يعقوب: هو ابن إبراهيم بن سعد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف. وأخرجه أبو يعلى (4586) ، والبيهقي في “الدلائل” 7/213 من طريقين عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد. وأخرجه مختصراً ابن سعد 2/261-262 و262 من طريق عيسى بن معمر، وأبي الأسود، كلاهما عن عباد بن عبد الله، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: لكن في طريقهما الواقدي، وهو متروك. وأخرجه ابن سعد 2/262 من طريق زيد بن أبي عتاب، عن عروهَ، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: وفي طريقه الواقدي كذلك، وهو متروك. وقد سلف نحوه برقم (24039) و (24216) . قلنا: وقولها: وقمت ألتدم مع النساء وأضرب وجهي. فيه نكارة ولم نجده إلا في هذه السياقة، والسيدة عائشة زوجة النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لا يخفى عليها حديث ابن مسعود مرفوعاً: ليس منا من ضرب الخدود، وشق الجيوب، ودعا بدعوى الجاهلية” وهو حديث صحيح سلف في مسند ابن مسعود برقم (3658) ، وقال السندي في تفسيره هناك: ليس منا، أي: ليس من أهل طريقتنا وسنتنا.
[Rough Translation]
Isnaad is hassan because of Ibn Ishaaq: he is Muhammad, the hadith is stated by him and is suspected of tadlees, however rest of the men are trustworthy (men of the shaikhain) except Yahya bin ‘Ibaad bin Abdullah bin Zubair who is from ashaab as sunan, and he is trustworthy; Yaqoob: he is Ibn Ibrahim bin Sa’ad bin Ibrahim bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Awf. and it is narrated by Ab Ya`la (4586), and Bayhiqi in “Ad-Dalail” 7/213 from two routes (one) from Ibn Ishaaq with this chain. And it is also narrated in Mukhtasar Ibn Sa’ad 2/261-262 from ‘Essa bin Ma’amar, and Abi Aswad, and all of them from ‘Ibaad bin ‘Abdullah from ‘Aisha. we say: but in their route there is Waqdi , who is matrooq. And it is narrated in by Ibn Sa’ad 2/262 from Zaid bin Abi ‘Itaab, from ‘Arwa, from ‘Aisha. we say: It has in its chain Waqdi also , who is (again) matrooq. We say and her saying:”stood up with women and started doing iltidam( an arabic word meaning hitting the face and chest ) and hitting my face” it is denied and it is not found except in this context, and Sayeeda ‘Aisha is the wife of Rasool Allah (s.a.w)and  the following marfoo’ narration of Ibn Masood is not hidden from her: ” He who slaps his cheeks, rips his pockets, or calls out the cries of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance is not of us.” and it s a sahih hadith quoted in musnad via Ibn Masood (3658), Al-Sindi said in its tafseer there: “not from us” means not from the our ways and sunan.

Note: We did not mention the narration that had al-Waaqdi that states :
فعجبت من حداثة سني أن رسول الله قبض في حجري فلم أتركه علی حاله حتی یغسل و لکن تناولت وسادة فوضعتها تحت رأسه ثم قمت مع النساء أصيح و ألتدم
because Waadiqi is Matrook(abandoned).

In the above narration `Aisha(r.a) herself testifies that it was due to her insolence and immaturity (  فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ) she did what she did. Which implies her regret over it.

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ الْجَزَرِيِّ، عَنْ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَعْقِلٍ، قَالَ ‏:‏ دَخَلْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبِي ‏:‏ أَنْتَ سَمِعْتَ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَقُولُ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏:‏ نَعَمْ ‏.‏
It was narrated that Ibn Ma’qil said: “I entered with my father upon ‘Abdullah, and I heard him say: ‘The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Regret is repentance.” My father said: ‘Did you hear the Prophet (saw) say: “Regret is repentance?” He said: ‘Yes.’”[Sunan ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4393 ; Grading; Hasan].

Therefore, since Ayesha(ra) regretted over her act, then this was her repentance. So this is not going against her at all . And Allah does not punish a person for a mistake which they did either unknowingly or due to coercion or in circumstances when they were absolutely grieve striken or not in control. Even the strongest of Sahaabi `Umar (r.a) himself shrank back in astonishment upon hearing the news of the death of Prophet (s.a.w) so much so that he threatened to chop off the head of anyone who utterd such a “blasphemy” , then what about the grief and shock of the gentle and loving `Aisha (r.a)?

The prophet (s.a.w) himself said that “If any one of you is touched by a calamity, let him remember the calamity that befell him concerning me (death) because it is of the greatest calamities.”  [Ref: Tabraani Mu`jam al- Kabeer 6718 and Saheeh by Albaanee in Silsilah Saheeha 1106., may Allah reward brother Syed Asif for informing me of this narration]

Shias even use the above tradition in an attempt to justify the action of self beating during times of great misery. However, the narration is actually evidence against those that see the permissibility of these actions, since A’isha(as) attributes these actions to her ignorance and youthfulness, also there are authentic reports that prohibit it. This is more obvious since we are not aware of any other accounts in which A’isha practices this, nor does she attempt to justify her actions.

On the other hand, those that self-flagellate today are not only young Shias, nor do they blame their ignorance. They practice this with the upmost pride, believing that these actions will allow them to reap their rewards.

Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/part-1-defence-of-ahlelbaytwives-of-prophetmothers-of-believers-from-the-religious-slanderers/
[/quote]

From that hadeeth, it doesn't look like `A'ishah regretted because of insolence and immaturity. Are you trying to imply that she no longer arrogant and immature afterwards? Any proofs, or just wishful thinking? What do you mean by Waadiqi is abandoned?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 03:13:22 PM

Quote
Bro, you have no read the ridiculous reports regarding the shahadah of Abu Talib in your own books. Just read the reports in al-Kafi, see how ridiculous they are.

Which version of al-Kafi? I hope you know that it's said enemies of Islam are tampering with the online, or PDF, versions. Please bring forward the book and hadeeth number, if you're truthful.

Quote
And if you are so-confident then let me throw a small challenge to you. Tell us what did Ali(RA) inherit from Abu Talib after he died?  Please back your answer with a reliable Shia report, not a bunch of excuses.

[NOTE: We have authentic Sunni reports which state, Ali(RA) didn't inherit anything from Abu talib, because he wasn't a Muslim].
First of all, it's said in Islamic law, the Muslim may inherit from the Kafir, and not vice-versa, so you need to find reliable proofs. It's said to be sort of similar to how a Muslim man being able to marry an Ahlul-Kitabi woman, but not vice-versa. Such ahadeeth that show a Muslim can inherit from a Kafir, are said to be in the Shia book Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih.



Quote
I'll let `A'ishah take care of that tab [nice try, though]:

Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 6, p. 274, Number 26391 (edited by al-Arnaut) records that Aisha said:
ان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قبض وهو في حجري ثم وضعت رأسه على وسادة وقمت ألتدم مع النساء واضرب وجهي
Allah’s Apostle died in my lap. I then placed his head on a pillow AND STARTED DOING ILTIDAM with the other women AND I BEAT MY FACE.
Shaykh al-Arnaut says:
إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق
Its chain is hasan on account of Ibn Ishaq
Abu Ya’la has also recorded this same report in his Musnad, vol. 8, p. 63, Number 4586 (edited by Husayn Salim Asad). Husayn Salim Asad says about it:
إسناده حسن
Its chain is hasan.

Quote
Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arnout said :
) إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق: وهو محمد، وقد صرح بالتحديث هنا، فانتفت شبهة تدليسه. وبقية رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير أخرج له أصحاب السنن، وهو ثقة، يعقوب: هو ابن إبراهيم بن سعد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف. وأخرجه أبو يعلى (4586) ، والبيهقي في “الدلائل” 7/213 من طريقين عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد. وأخرجه مختصراً ابن سعد 2/261-262 و262 من طريق عيسى بن معمر، وأبي الأسود، كلاهما عن عباد بن عبد الله، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: لكن في طريقهما الواقدي، وهو متروك. وأخرجه ابن سعد 2/262 من طريق زيد بن أبي عتاب، عن عروهَ، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: وفي طريقه الواقدي كذلك، وهو متروك. وقد سلف نحوه برقم (24039) و (24216) . قلنا: وقولها: وقمت ألتدم مع النساء وأضرب وجهي. فيه نكارة ولم نجده إلا في هذه السياقة، والسيدة عائشة زوجة النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لا يخفى عليها حديث ابن مسعود مرفوعاً: ليس منا من ضرب الخدود، وشق الجيوب، ودعا بدعوى الجاهلية” وهو حديث صحيح سلف في مسند ابن مسعود برقم (3658) ، وقال السندي في تفسيره هناك: ليس منا، أي: ليس من أهل طريقتنا وسنتنا.
[Rough Translation]
Isnaad is hassan because of Ibn Ishaaq: he is Muhammad, the hadith is stated by him and is suspected of tadlees, however rest of the men are trustworthy (men of the shaikhain) except Yahya bin ‘Ibaad bin Abdullah bin Zubair who is from ashaab as sunan, and he is trustworthy; Yaqoob: he is Ibn Ibrahim bin Sa’ad bin Ibrahim bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Awf. and it is narrated by Ab Ya`la (4586), and Bayhiqi in “Ad-Dalail” 7/213 from two routes (one) from Ibn Ishaaq with this chain. And it is also narrated in Mukhtasar Ibn Sa’ad 2/261-262 from ‘Essa bin Ma’amar, and Abi Aswad, and all of them from ‘Ibaad bin ‘Abdullah from ‘Aisha. we say: but in their route there is Waqdi , who is matrooq. And it is narrated in by Ibn Sa’ad 2/262 from Zaid bin Abi ‘Itaab, from ‘Arwa, from ‘Aisha. we say: It has in its chain Waqdi also , who is (again) matrooq. We say and her saying:”stood up with women and started doing iltidam( an arabic word meaning hitting the face and chest ) and hitting my face” it is denied and it is not found except in this context, and Sayeeda ‘Aisha is the wife of Rasool Allah (s.a.w)and  the following marfoo’ narration of Ibn Masood is not hidden from her: ” He who slaps his cheeks, rips his pockets, or calls out the cries of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance is not of us.” and it s a sahih hadith quoted in musnad via Ibn Masood (3658), Al-Sindi said in its tafseer there: “not from us” means not from the our ways and sunan.

Note: We did not mention the narration that had al-Waaqdi that states :
فعجبت من حداثة سني أن رسول الله قبض في حجري فلم أتركه علی حاله حتی یغسل و لکن تناولت وسادة فوضعتها تحت رأسه ثم قمت مع النساء أصيح و ألتدم
because Waadiqi is Matrook(abandoned).

In the above narration `Aisha(r.a) herself testifies that it was due to her insolence and immaturity (  فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ) she did what she did. Which implies her regret over it.

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ الْجَزَرِيِّ، عَنْ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَعْقِلٍ، قَالَ ‏:‏ دَخَلْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبِي ‏:‏ أَنْتَ سَمِعْتَ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَقُولُ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏:‏ نَعَمْ ‏.‏
It was narrated that Ibn Ma’qil said: “I entered with my father upon ‘Abdullah, and I heard him say: ‘The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Regret is repentance.” My father said: ‘Did you hear the Prophet (saw) say: “Regret is repentance?” He said: ‘Yes.’”[Sunan ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4393 ; Grading; Hasan].

Therefore, since Ayesha(ra) regretted over her act, then this was her repentance. So this is not going against her at all . And Allah does not punish a person for a mistake which they did either unknowingly or due to coercion or in circumstances when they were absolutely grieve striken or not in control. Even the strongest of Sahaabi `Umar (r.a) himself shrank back in astonishment upon hearing the news of the death of Prophet (s.a.w) so much so that he threatened to chop off the head of anyone who utterd such a “blasphemy” , then what about the grief and shock of the gentle and loving `Aisha (r.a)?

The prophet (s.a.w) himself said that “If any one of you is touched by a calamity, let him remember the calamity that befell him concerning me (death) because it is of the greatest calamities.”  [Ref: Tabraani Mu`jam al- Kabeer 6718 and Saheeh by Albaanee in Silsilah Saheeha 1106., may Allah reward brother Syed Asif for informing me of this narration]

Shias even use the above tradition in an attempt to justify the action of self beating during times of great misery. However, the narration is actually evidence against those that see the permissibility of these actions, since A’isha(as) attributes these actions to her ignorance and youthfulness, also there are authentic reports that prohibit it. This is more obvious since we are not aware of any other accounts in which A’isha practices this, nor does she attempt to justify her actions.

On the other hand, those that self-flagellate today are not only young Shias, nor do they blame their ignorance. They practice this with the upmost pride, believing that these actions will allow them to reap their rewards.

Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/part-1-defence-of-ahlelbaytwives-of-prophetmothers-of-believers-from-the-religious-slanderers/
[/quote]

From that hadeeth, it doesn't look like `A'ishah regretted because of insolence and immaturity. Are you trying to imply that she no longer arrogant and immature afterwards? Any proofs, or just wishful thinking? What do you mean by Waadiqi is abandoned?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 03:14:51 PM
Quote
Bro, you have no read the ridiculous reports regarding the shahadah of Abu Talib in your own books. Just read the reports in al-Kafi, see how ridiculous they are.

Which version of al-Kafi? I hope you know that it's said enemies of Islam are tampering with the online, or PDF, versions. Please bring forward the book and hadeeth number, if you're truthful.

Quote
And if you are so-confident then let me throw a small challenge to you. Tell us what did Ali(RA) inherit from Abu Talib after he died?  Please back your answer with a reliable Shia report, not a bunch of excuses.

[NOTE: We have authentic Sunni reports which state, Ali(RA) didn't inherit anything from Abu talib, because he wasn't a Muslim].
First of all, it's said in Islamic law, the Muslim may inherit from the Kafir, and not vice-versa, so you need to find reliable proofs. It's said to be sort of similar to how a Muslim man being able to marry an Ahlul-Kitabi woman, but not vice-versa. Such ahadeeth that show a Muslim can inherit from a Kafir, are said to be in the Shia book Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih.

Quote
Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arnout said :
) إسناده حسن من أجل ابن إسحاق: وهو محمد، وقد صرح بالتحديث هنا، فانتفت شبهة تدليسه. وبقية رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير يحيى بن عباد بن عبد الله بن الزبير أخرج له أصحاب السنن، وهو ثقة، يعقوب: هو ابن إبراهيم بن سعد بن إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن بن عوف. وأخرجه أبو يعلى (4586) ، والبيهقي في “الدلائل” 7/213 من طريقين عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد. وأخرجه مختصراً ابن سعد 2/261-262 و262 من طريق عيسى بن معمر، وأبي الأسود، كلاهما عن عباد بن عبد الله، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: لكن في طريقهما الواقدي، وهو متروك. وأخرجه ابن سعد 2/262 من طريق زيد بن أبي عتاب، عن عروهَ، عن عائشة، به. قلنا: وفي طريقه الواقدي كذلك، وهو متروك. وقد سلف نحوه برقم (24039) و (24216) . قلنا: وقولها: وقمت ألتدم مع النساء وأضرب وجهي. فيه نكارة ولم نجده إلا في هذه السياقة، والسيدة عائشة زوجة النبي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لا يخفى عليها حديث ابن مسعود مرفوعاً: ليس منا من ضرب الخدود، وشق الجيوب، ودعا بدعوى الجاهلية” وهو حديث صحيح سلف في مسند ابن مسعود برقم (3658) ، وقال السندي في تفسيره هناك: ليس منا، أي: ليس من أهل طريقتنا وسنتنا.
[Rough Translation]
Isnaad is hassan because of Ibn Ishaaq: he is Muhammad, the hadith is stated by him and is suspected of tadlees, however rest of the men are trustworthy (men of the shaikhain) except Yahya bin ‘Ibaad bin Abdullah bin Zubair who is from ashaab as sunan, and he is trustworthy; Yaqoob: he is Ibn Ibrahim bin Sa’ad bin Ibrahim bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin ‘Awf. and it is narrated by Ab Ya`la (4586), and Bayhiqi in “Ad-Dalail” 7/213 from two routes (one) from Ibn Ishaaq with this chain. And it is also narrated in Mukhtasar Ibn Sa’ad 2/261-262 from ‘Essa bin Ma’amar, and Abi Aswad, and all of them from ‘Ibaad bin ‘Abdullah from ‘Aisha. we say: but in their route there is Waqdi , who is matrooq. And it is narrated in by Ibn Sa’ad 2/262 from Zaid bin Abi ‘Itaab, from ‘Arwa, from ‘Aisha. we say: It has in its chain Waqdi also , who is (again) matrooq. We say and her saying:”stood up with women and started doing iltidam( an arabic word meaning hitting the face and chest ) and hitting my face” it is denied and it is not found except in this context, and Sayeeda ‘Aisha is the wife of Rasool Allah (s.a.w)and  the following marfoo’ narration of Ibn Masood is not hidden from her: ” He who slaps his cheeks, rips his pockets, or calls out the cries of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance is not of us.” and it s a sahih hadith quoted in musnad via Ibn Masood (3658), Al-Sindi said in its tafseer there: “not from us” means not from the our ways and sunan.

Note: We did not mention the narration that had al-Waaqdi that states :
فعجبت من حداثة سني أن رسول الله قبض في حجري فلم أتركه علی حاله حتی یغسل و لکن تناولت وسادة فوضعتها تحت رأسه ثم قمت مع النساء أصيح و ألتدم
because Waadiqi is Matrook(abandoned).

In the above narration `Aisha(r.a) herself testifies that it was due to her insolence and immaturity (  فمن سفهي وحداثة سني ) she did what she did. Which implies her regret over it.

حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ الْجَزَرِيِّ، عَنْ زِيَادِ بْنِ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَعْقِلٍ، قَالَ ‏:‏ دَخَلْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عَلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبِي ‏:‏ أَنْتَ سَمِعْتَ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَقُولُ ‏:‏ ‏”‏ النَّدَمُ تَوْبَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏:‏ نَعَمْ ‏.‏
It was narrated that Ibn Ma’qil said: “I entered with my father upon ‘Abdullah, and I heard him say: ‘The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Regret is repentance.” My father said: ‘Did you hear the Prophet (saw) say: “Regret is repentance?” He said: ‘Yes.’”[Sunan ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4393 ; Grading; Hasan].

Therefore, since Ayesha(ra) regretted over her act, then this was her repentance. So this is not going against her at all . And Allah does not punish a person for a mistake which they did either unknowingly or due to coercion or in circumstances when they were absolutely grieve striken or not in control. Even the strongest of Sahaabi `Umar (r.a) himself shrank back in astonishment upon hearing the news of the death of Prophet (s.a.w) so much so that he threatened to chop off the head of anyone who utterd such a “blasphemy” , then what about the grief and shock of the gentle and loving `Aisha (r.a)?

The prophet (s.a.w) himself said that “If any one of you is touched by a calamity, let him remember the calamity that befell him concerning me (death) because it is of the greatest calamities.”  [Ref: Tabraani Mu`jam al- Kabeer 6718 and Saheeh by Albaanee in Silsilah Saheeha 1106., may Allah reward brother Syed Asif for informing me of this narration]

Shias even use the above tradition in an attempt to justify the action of self beating during times of great misery. However, the narration is actually evidence against those that see the permissibility of these actions, since A’isha(as) attributes these actions to her ignorance and youthfulness, also there are authentic reports that prohibit it. This is more obvious since we are not aware of any other accounts in which A’isha practices this, nor does she attempt to justify her actions.

On the other hand, those that self-flagellate today are not only young Shias, nor do they blame their ignorance. They practice this with the upmost pride, believing that these actions will allow them to reap their rewards.

Taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/part-1-defence-of-ahlelbaytwives-of-prophetmothers-of-believers-from-the-religious-slanderers/

From that hadeeth, it doesn't look like `A'ishah regretted because of insolence and immaturity. Are you trying to imply that she was no longer arrogant and immature afterwards? Any proofs, or just wishful thinking? What do you mean by Waadiqi is abandoned? As for Tatbeer, it can be viewed similar to Hijaamah, as it's said to draw-out dirty blood, etc.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 03:27:42 PM

Seerat Ibn Ishaq, 2/713
“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”

Wallaahi, these people are so preoccupied with inserting their own misconceptions and evil concoctions into narrations that they fail to read what is right in front of their eyes.  Another example of not giving the whole story...more like not knowing the whole story lol!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 04:26:25 PM

Seerat Ibn Ishaq, 2/713
“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”

Wallaahi, these people are so preoccupied with inserting their own misconceptions and evil concoctions into narrations that they fail to read what is right in front of their eyes.  Another example of not giving the whole story...more like not knowing the whole story lol!

You deceiver [Muslim702]. I don't know if your deception is deliberate or inadvertent. It must've been written in Arabic, and I wonder why the English wasn't included. Did you think I wasn't going to catch it? Alhamdulillah. I searched for what Noor-us-Sunnah replied in reply #5, and I didn't see it. I'm not that great with Arabic yet. With that being said, we're discussing in English, so please try to give the pertinent arguments in proper English. According to the English translation of that Sunni hadeeth, it's two separate sentences. Perhaps it was a bad translation, but it looks like her ignorance and youthfulness -- and not insolence, as the brother previously tried to state -- is what led to her saying Prophet (saww) died in her lap. See what I did there? I searched, meticulously, for the term insolence, in your replies, and I caught you. Alhamdulillahe Rabbil `Alameen. Furthermore, it's said that hadeeth is even a fabrication, since Rasool (saww) is said to have died in Imam Ali's (as) lap/chest, etc.

Also, Muslim720 [Masood], I thought you were going to debate me one-on-one? Due to time constraints, it's challenging trying to answer others as well. I'll try my best, though.


Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 04:27:39 PM
Welcome to the boards Naveen.

Be nice, guys.
I appreciate it, bro.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 04:34:20 PM
Would you like me to delete the posts of the other members akhi?
I'm not one who advocates for deletion of posts, but I just want to make it clear that it's more challenging to go back and forth with many people via online discussion/debates; if the discussions were in person, it'd probably be way easier. I'm even having trouble with using the quote feature. lol
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 04:37:38 PM

Seerat Ibn Ishaq, 2/713
“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”

Wallaahi, these people are so preoccupied with inserting their own misconceptions and evil concoctions into narrations that they fail to read what is right in front of their eyes.  Another example of not giving the whole story...more like not knowing the whole story lol!

You deceiver. I don't know if your deception if deliberate or inadvertent. It must've been written in Arabic, and I wonder why the English wasn't included. Did you think I wasn't going to catch you? Alhamdulillah. I searched for what Noor-us-Sunnah replied in reply #5, and I didn't see it. I'm not that great with Arabic yet. With that being said, we're discussing in English, so please try to give the pertinent arguments in proper English. According to the English translation of that Sunni hadeeth, it's two separate sentences. Perhaps it was a bad translation, but it looks like her ignorance and youthfulness -- and not insolence, as the brother previously tried to state -- is what led to her saying Prophet (saww) died in her lap. See what I did there? I searched, meticulously, for the term insolence, in your replies, and I caught you. Alhamdulillahe Rabbil `Alameen. Furthermore, it's said that hadeeth is even a fabrication, since Rasool (saww) is said to have died in Imam Ali's (as) lap/chest, etc.

Also, Muslim720 [Masood], I thought you were going to debate me one-on-one? Due to time constraints, it's challenging trying to answer others as well. I'll try my best, though.




I can debate you one-on-one just as good.  I am the one who has taken time to visit mosques like Imam Ali Center, et cetera, and discussed with brothers there.  In fact, I was an active member at ShiaChat.  Seeing how I was refuting Shias easily and logically, before even reaching out to texts, the admins of this site - back then it had a different name - invited me to this site.  So I did not invite you here to gang up on you except that I promised myself never to return to ShiaChat.  The Rawaafidh there, and like yourself, are nothing like the pious Shias I know, some of whom are my teachers and I look up to them.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 04:43:09 PM
Muslim720 sendin for naveen, hold tight twelvershia.net mandem big up anti-majos

Anti-Majos? Oh, you mean like this:



It is a known fact that present-day Iran is a land that produced great scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.  We know who made it a Shia stronghold and how.  We also know who brought Islam to that part of the world by defeating Persia.  Hint: it was the second Caliph (ra), not Imam Ali (ra).  All that favor he bestowed upon you Rawaafidh and not even a thank you!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 05:07:29 PM
Muslim720 sendin for naveen, hold tight twelvershia.net mandem big up anti-majos

Anti-Majos? Oh, you mean like this:



It is a known fact that present-day Iran is a land that produced great scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.  We know who made it a Shia stronghold and how.  We also know who brought Islam to that part of the world by defeating Persia.  Hint: it was the second Caliph (ra), not Imam Ali (ra).  All that favor he bestowed upon you Rawaafidh and not even a thank you!
Okay, so you do admit to the Majoosi roots of Bakrism. The truth [Shiism] was willed to spread. It seems you've forgot the part in Quran where it's mentions the disbelievers wanting to extinguish the light of Allah (swt).
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 05:10:51 PM

Seerat Ibn Ishaq, 2/713
“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”

Wallaahi, these people are so preoccupied with inserting their own misconceptions and evil concoctions into narrations that they fail to read what is right in front of their eyes.  Another example of not giving the whole story...more like not knowing the whole story lol!

You deceiver. I don't know if your deception if deliberate or inadvertent. It must've been written in Arabic, and I wonder why the English wasn't included. Did you think I wasn't going to catch you? Alhamdulillah. I searched for what Noor-us-Sunnah replied in reply #5, and I didn't see it. I'm not that great with Arabic yet. With that being said, we're discussing in English, so please try to give the pertinent arguments in proper English. According to the English translation of that Sunni hadeeth, it's two separate sentences. Perhaps it was a bad translation, but it looks like her ignorance and youthfulness -- and not insolence, as the brother previously tried to state -- is what led to her saying Prophet (saww) died in her lap. See what I did there? I searched, meticulously, for the term insolence, in your replies, and I caught you. Alhamdulillahe Rabbil `Alameen. Furthermore, it's said that hadeeth is even a fabrication, since Rasool (saww) is said to have died in Imam Ali's (as) lap/chest, etc.

Also, Muslim720 [Masood], I thought you were going to debate me one-on-one? Due to time constraints, it's challenging trying to answer others as well. I'll try my best, though.




I can debate you one-on-one just as good.  I am the one who has taken time to visit mosques like Imam Ali Center, et cetera, and discussed with brothers there.  In fact, I was an active member at ShiaChat.  Seeing how I was refuting Shias easily and logically, before even reaching out to texts, the admins of this site - back then it had a different name - invited me to this site.  So I did not invite you here to gang up on you except that I promised myself never to return to ShiaChat.  The Rawaafidh there, and like yourself, are nothing like the pious Shias I know, some of whom are my teachers and I look up to them.
I have visited Sunni Masaajid alone, and discussed/debated with your scholars. What was your name on Shiachat? I was active there for a while, under the name Gogiison2, and then I changed it to my real name, NaveenHussain. I don't recall any good arguments by any Sunnis on Shiachat.com. I'll debate you there, too, if you feel you have good arguments, and in shaa'llah you'll realize the faults in your belief system. What do you know about piety? You follow enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 05:24:55 PM
Like I showed up with an entourage!  I was alone too and this one time, when the whole lot ran out of excuses, the imam there outright rejected the fact that it was Abu Bakr (ra) who was in the cave with the Prophet (saw).  I laughed at his pathetic and helpless "rebuttal".  I had to excuse myself for Maghrib prayers which I prayed behind him but even his sidekicks were disappointed by his shameless rejection of established Islamic history.

But I will not feed your troll.  Prove Abu Talib's faith or find me the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak.

Regarding following enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra), it seems like you Rawaafidh know more, and better, than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) befriended them, established marriage ties with them and entrusted them with his life.  But the Prophet (saw) somehow didn't know of the animosity they harbored in their chests.  You know but he (saw) did not...naudhibillah!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 05:35:47 PM
Like I showed up with an entourage!  I was alone too and this one time, when the whole lot ran out of excuses, the imam there outright rejected the fact that it was Abu Bakr (ra) who was in the cave with the Prophet (saw).  I laughed at his pathetic and helpless "rebuttal".  I had to excuse myself for Maghrib prayers which I prayed behind him but even his sidekicks were disappointed by his shameless rejection of established Islamic history.

But I will not feed your troll.  Prove Abu Talib's faith or find me the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak.
The Shia Shaykh rejected the fact of Abu Bakr being in the Cave with Rasool (saww)? I wonder what his explanation was. You're lucky I wasn't there. You probably would've left as Shia, or highly doubting your Bakri faith.

I remember when I went to IHC Masjid in Fairfax, and the Egyptian Shaykh was discussing with me, and there were about 5 others from the Masjid that circled me, and the Bakri Shaykh didn't even know his own books of "Saheeh" ahadeeth. It's sad. I will admit, though, that scholars on both sides -- Sunni and Shia -- can be very ignorant, to which I think you'd agree.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 05:40:51 PM
Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 05:46:03 PM
Regarding following enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra), it seems like you Rawaafidh know more, and better, than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) befriended them, established marriage ties with them and entrusted them with his life.  But the Prophet (saw) somehow didn't know of the animosity they harbored in their chests.  You know but he (saw) did not...naudhibillah!
The Prophet (saww) treated EVERYONE justly, be they Kuffaar, or otherwise. You should know that. It puzzles me that you don't, evidently. The Prophet (saww) did marry man a woman, for many different reasons, as it's said. One such reason was said to bring together tribes. I think your logic will fail you when you reply with such comments. Just because I may marry a white woman, for example, doesn't mean I like the evil people among whites; sure, if they're good white people, I have no issues liking them. You should try to better acquaint yourself with the Holy Quraan:

Quraan 9:101
[Shakir]:

And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement
-----
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 05:47:07 PM
Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.
One such verse, as I have shared with you elsewhere, is Quraan 17:26.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 06:12:34 PM
Regarding following enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra), it seems like you Rawaafidh know more, and better, than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) befriended them, established marriage ties with them and entrusted them with his life.  But the Prophet (saw) somehow didn't know of the animosity they harbored in their chests.  You know but he (saw) did not...naudhibillah!
The Prophet (saww) treated EVERYONE justly, be they Kuffaar, or otherwise. You should know that. It puzzles me that you don't, evidently. The Prophet (saww) did marry man a woman, for many different reasons, as it's said. One such reason was said to bring together tribes. I think your logic will fail you when you reply with such comments. Just because I may marry a white woman, for example, doesn't mean I like the evil people among whites; sure, if they're good white people, I have no issues liking them. You should try to better acquaint yourself with the Holy Quraan:

Quraan 9:101
[Shakir]:

And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement
-----

Your post has two lies.  First, your allegation that I do not know the Qur'an.  Two, that the Prophet [saw] treated everyone equally, even the Kuffaar.  While your second lie has truth in it, it is the twist that I will address which is a by-product of you projecting your own ignorance on to something that I thought you would at least understand, if not admit!

Let us see what is one of the most basic guidelines for marriage in the Qur'an.

"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."  (Surah An-Nur, verse 3)

I am not an Arab and my Arabic is zero but the Arabic word used there is "Mushrikat".  Now you believe that Abu Bakr [ra] was not a Muslim and by extension - plus fact that you consider Aisha [ra] to be an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] - you consider his daughter to be a disbeliever.  Therefore, you must concede that the Prophet [saw] married a "mushrika" and violated the Qur'an so as to show fairness to everyone, including kuffaar.

Our Prophet [saw] never married a disbeliever.  Doing so would be a violation of the Qur'an.  Either you did not know that or tried to morph my post into something you could respond to.

As for bringing tribes together, Abu Bakr [ra] was from the Quraysh (no need to bring tribes together) and he was one of the first adults to accept Islam.  By marrying Aisha [ra], what severed ties did the Prophet [saw] mend with Abu Bakr [ra] except to strengthen his [saw] friendship with As-Siddeeq [ra]?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 06:13:34 PM
Glad you showed up!  Now I want to say two things but before that, allow me to address what I have highlighted from your post.  The entire Sahihain is archived online and translated in English.  Every Muslim and non-Muslim can access them with a few clicks.  Can you say the same regarding your books that are kept under lock-and-key? 

You live in Washington DC area and I have been to Imam Ali Center (where they have "Happy Birthday Imam Zaman" events with birthday cakes reading just that), Manassas Mosque and Islamic Education Center.  I have yet to see an English translation of Al-Kafi in any of those mosques.  On the contrary, if you go to IEC, they have an entire stand with pamphlets that explain Shia practices using Sunni hadiths. 

I have all 8 volumes of al-Kafi translated into English. I don't know why many Shia centers don't carry them yet, but I think it's because they've recently been translated, in-full, into English. I do hope that they'll acquire the books soon, if they haven't done so already.

Quote
Why am I saying all this?  Because we like to present the whole story.  If we were in the business of hiding, we would not have made our Sahihain available to everyone.  It is your ilk that rely on obscure narrations and isolated reports while hiding away their own problematic hadiths.  So this should be a good transition into my first point.
Presenting fabricated whole stories won't help your case, unless versus another ignorant person. Your Bakri leaders hid many things from the Ummah. Don't forget your lot follow known liars, according to ahadeeth we have reportedly from Imam Ali (as), and others from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as),  such as Abu Hurayrah, `A'ishah, etc. Even Umar ibn al-Khattab hit Abu Hurayrah, mentioned in Saheeh Muslim, as it's evident even he didn't believer him [Abu Hurayrah].


Quote
1.  The report you have shared by Zayd ibn Arqam [ra] occurs in the same Sahih Muslim with different wordings.  In other words, the same incident (although one event) has been reported numerously with different wordings.  It is our tradition that teaches us to look at all reports pertaining to a matter in order to get the entire picture in its clearest form.  And it is quite clear, from what I have shared and what you have posted, that Zayd [ra] was not excluding the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] from anything except in the matter of Zakat.  Why?  Because while a man is responsible to feed his blood relatives, a woman can be divorced and therefore, he is no longer be responsible for them.  As for blood relatives, there are no cutting ties and hence you are always held accountable.  This is of importance because the Prophet [saw] divorced some of his wives.
I already explained about specific vs. general applications of the term Ahlul Bayt. Literalists will run into such problems, if they don't use their intellect [`Aql]. For instance, even Prophet Nooh's [as] own biological son isn't considered a part of his "Ahl," as shown from Quraan 11:46.

Quote
Unlike your lot that considers the Imams [ra] to be infallible, we do not consider Sahabas [ra] to be infallible. 
Let me ask you: do you consider the Quraan as infallible?

Quote
Speaking of presenting part of the picture, do you know that the same Zayd ibn Arqam [ra], says the following in the preceding part of the same Sahih Muslim?
"I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger.
It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

Quote
2.  Now let us get to the second thing I wanted to mention.  While my brothers here have made my task very easy, they have left nothing for you.  Singing praises of Abu Talib does not make him a Muslim or believer.  You have to bring proof.  Also, I am still waiting for you to find the verses regarding Fadak in the Qur'an.  Trust me, not a single Shia scholar worth the name - unless he is honest and God-fearing - shares those verses when talking about Fadak.  You may ask why!  Because the verses themselves, without the need for any explanations or exegesis, make it clear that properties such as Fadak cannot be under sole ownership.  In other words, giving Fadak to Fatima [ra] - whether as a gift or inheritance - is against the Qur'an.
I will provide proofs for Abu Talib's (as) correct faith in my upcoming posts, in shaa'llah. I have to seek out evidences before I post slanderous comments [like you]. As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 06:15:46 PM
Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.
One such verse, as I have shared with you elsewhere, is Quraan 17:26.

Now we are talking.  You are not sincere enough to share the verse so allow me to do the honor.

"And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift."

There!  Now explain what this has to do with Fadak, a land which fell in the hands of Muslims without any warfare. 

Waiting....
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 09, 2016, 06:25:49 PM

Presenting fabricated whole stories won't help your case, unless versus another ignorant person.

It is from the same Sahih Muslim.  How can you accept one narration (which is in your favor) and ignore the rest (that expose your lies)? 

Quote
and others from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as),  such as Abu Hurayrah, `A'ishah, etc. Even Umar ibn al-Khattab hit Abu Hurayrah, mentioned in Saheeh Muslim, as it's evident even he didn't believer him [Abu Hurayrah].

I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].

Quote
I already explained about specific vs. general applications of the term Ahlul Bayt. Literalists will run into such problems, if they don't use their intellect [`Aql]. For instance, even Prophet Nooh's [as] own biological son isn't considered a part of his "Ahl," as shown from Quraan 11:46.

Nooh [as] is outside the scope of our discussion.  You brought up Sahih Muslim and the same Sahih Muslim did more damage to your claim than good.

Quote
Let me ask you: do you consider the Quraan as infallible?

Not only do I consider the Qur'an to be infallible but I consider anyone that speaks of distortions to be kaaffir.  Waiting for such a fatwa from your scholars.  It would be nice to see your own scholars make takfir on their predecessors. 

Quote
It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

The man said that he has forgotten some of what he had heard but you say that he must have remembered the important things.  In other words, since the issue of being a part of Ahlul Bayt [ra] is important to you, you will decide for Zayd [ra] what he remembered correctly and what he had forgotten.

Judge, jury and executioner!

Quote
As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak.

Please bring that weak narration which you all quote.  Forget tafseer!  The Qur'anic verses in regards to Fadak, if you knew the Qur'an that is, clearly forbids Fadak from being inherited by, or gifted to, one person.

Do you even know how Fadak came under the the ownership of Muslims? 
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 08:07:48 PM
Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.
One such verse, as I have shared with you elsewhere, is Quraan 17:26.

Now we are talking.  You are not sincere enough to share the verse so allow me to do the honor.

"And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift."

There!  Now explain what this has to do with Fadak, a land which fell in the hands of Muslims without any warfare. 

Waiting....

I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on May 09, 2016, 08:17:51 PM
Oh I know this guy lol
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 09, 2016, 08:20:38 PM
Quote
It is from the same Sahih Muslim.  How can you accept one narration (which is in your favor) and ignore the rest (that expose your lies)? 
I think only an amateur wouldn't understand that some ahadeeth can be taken, while some cannot. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, as it's said a broken clock is correct twice a day. Think about it.

Quote
I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].
Very clever. Still, we have 5 prior A'immah (as) from whom we took Fiqh, via Rasool (saww), Jibra'eel (as), and ultimately, from Allah (swt), whereas your chain is broken and full of known liars.

Quote
Nooh [as] is outside the scope of our discussion.  You brought up Sahih Muslim and the same Sahih Muslim did more damage to your claim than good.
What a weak argument, and nice way to sidestep what I wrote.

Quote
Not only do I consider the Qur'an to be infallible but I consider anyone that speaks of distortions to be kaaffir.  Waiting for such a fatwa from your scholars.  It would be nice to see your own scholars make takfir on their predecessors. 
Didn't `A'ishah mention about a goat eating certain verses from the Quraan? Do you agree she died as a Kafir? If so, I think we're in agreement there. Logically, if Allah (swt) can protect a book, do you think he couldn't protect the best of Messengers (saww) via infallibility?

Quote
It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

Quote
The man said that he has forgotten some of what he had heard but you say that he must have remembered the important things.  In other words, since the issue of being a part of Ahlul Bayt [ra] is important to you, you will decide for Zayd [ra] what he remembered correctly and what he had forgotten.
As for the opposers, of course, you'll tend to agree with the interpretation of the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Quote
Please bring that weak narration which you all quote.  Forget tafseer!  The Qur'anic verses in regards to Fadak, if you knew the Qur'an that is, clearly forbids Fadak from being inherited by, or gifted to, one person.

I already shared your Sunni scholar's interpretation of the said verse. Enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) love to pick and choose when to follow Islam. Didn't Quraan warm about those who pick and choose certain parts of faith/book?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 02:52:02 AM
I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.

Correction, reply 22.  In that post, you only alluded to Fadak once when you said:
"As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak."

Fakhrudeen Razi [rah] is not Sunni scholars; he is, or was, a Sunni scholar.  This is the problem with your deceiving ways.  You pass one narration as many and you count a single scholar in plural to substantiate your lies. 

Coming to the verse, you had the audacity to say "Qur'an 17:26" without even posting the verse.  How does the verse pertain to Fadak?  But since all your references have backfired, let me help put your case to rest.

The narration used by all Shia websites is the following:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

    Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177
    Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
    Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
     Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid
    Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

First of all, the Shias use this to prove that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra].  But the verse says to give the "haq" of the relative.  A gift is not your "haq".  Secondly, as I keep reminding you, this is a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina.  Even Shia tafseers agree that Surah Al-Israa was a Meccan surah (I can provide you references but I would rather stay away from your texts as much as I can).  And thirdly, one of the narrators (in the chain of the above-mentioned hadith) is Atiyah who is considered weak.  There is a list of 43 scholars weakening him.  Please let me know and I can provide you that list.

Now, back to square one!  Please provide me the Qur'anic verses pertaining to Fadak.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 03:11:00 AM
I think only an amateur wouldn't understand that some ahadeeth can be taken, while some cannot. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, as it's said a broken clock is correct twice a day. Think about it.

A broken clock can be correct twice a day but rest assured, a Rafidhi can never be right, not even once in a lifetime (as we have seen in your case).

Quote
Very clever. Still, we have 5 prior A'immah (as) from whom we took Fiqh, via Rasool (saww), Jibra'eel (as), and ultimately, from Allah (swt), whereas your chain is broken and full of known liars.

Those 5 A'immah wouldn't even spit on you.  To put things in perspective for you, we took from them and another 124,000 Companions [ra] (more or less).  Qualitatively and quantitatively, you lose!

Quote
What a weak argument, and nice way to sidestep what I wrote.

Not a weak argument but I was letting your stupidity slide unnoticed.  The son of Nuh [as] was a disbeliever.  Allah [swt] explains why his son was not part of his family.

"He said: 'O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous.  So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge!  I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!' "

Comparing apples and orange!

Quote
Didn't `A'ishah mention about a goat eating certain verses from the Quraan?

Wow, peak of ignorance!  Was Qur'an not an oral tradition?  In other words, what was the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an?  And do you not know that the same Aisha [ra] was consulted repeatedly by Uthman [ra] when the Qur'an was being compiled?  There were many Companions [ra] who had memorized the Qur'an that were alive when the Mushaf was preserved in script.  Also, visit the following link:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html

Lastly, let us talk about your scholars.  Al-Tabrasi for example!  He wrote a book to prove tahreef of the Qur'an.  When rebuked, he authored another book to defend his kufr. 

Want more examples?  Shaykh Sudooq, Shareef Murtadha, on and on!

Quote
It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

Who are you to set the importance of a certain matter?  Furthermore, how are you qualified to make that call on behalf of Zayd [ra]?  Lastly, how can you be so sure what Zayd [ra] remembered and what he had forgotten?

Quote
As for the opposers, of course, you'll tend to agree with the interpretation of the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Enemies of Ahlul Bayt [ra]?  Our books are replete with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra] (when I say Ahlul Bayt [ra] I mean the wives, Ahlul Kisa [ra], et cetera).  If not for our books, you would not have known most narrations that you use against us like Hadith of Pen and Paper, for example (although it has nothing to do with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra]).

Quote
I already shared your Sunni scholar's interpretation of the said verse. Enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) love to pick and choose when to follow Islam. Didn't Quraan warm about those who pick and choose certain parts of faith/book?

Already refuted!  And what do we say about those who lie upon the Qur'an?  Like when people use Qur'an 17:26 in relation to Fadak when it has nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 06:36:06 AM
I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.

Correction, reply 22.  In that post, you only alluded to Fadak once when you said:
"As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak."

Fakhrudeen Razi [rah] is not Sunni scholars; he is, or was, a Sunni scholar.  This is the problem with your deceiving ways.  You pass one narration as many and you count a single scholar in plural to substantiate your lies. 

Coming to the verse, you had the audacity to say "Qur'an 17:26" without even posting the verse.  How does the verse pertain to Fadak?  But since all your references have backfired, let me help put your case to rest.

The narration used by all Shia websites is the following:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

    Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177
    Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
    Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
     Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid
    Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

First of all, the Shias use this to prove that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra].  But the verse says to give the "haq" of the relative.  A gift is not your "haq".  Secondly, as I keep reminding you, this is a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina.  Even Shia tafseers agree that Surah Al-Israa was a Meccan surah (I can provide you references but I would rather stay away from your texts as much as I can).  And thirdly, one of the narrators (in the chain of the above-mentioned hadith) is Atiyah who is considered weak.  There is a list of 43 scholars weakening him.  Please let me know and I can provide you that list.

Now, back to square one!  Please provide me the Qur'anic verses pertaining to Fadak.
It was my reply, #22. At first you denied [on Facebook] the verse being about Fadak, then when I mentioned your own scholar, you had to backtrack. Alhamdulillah. You had to eat your words. How did it taste? Good, I bet. Anyhow, There are many references, as you've posted, that point to that verse being about Fadak. That should suffice to anyone with a good level of sincerity. As for verses revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, I showed you proof, on Facebook, that some Surahs have verses that were said to have been revealed in Makkah and/or Madeenah. As for Fadak, it can be a right given by Allah (swt).

Here's another hadeeth we can use to prove :

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 07:04:01 AM
Quote
Those 5 A'immah wouldn't even spit on you.  To put things in perspective for you, we took from them and another 124,000 Companions [ra] (more or less).  Qualitatively and quantitatively, you lose!
It wasn't from the ways of our A'immah (as) to spit on people. We know who your ilk follow -- the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as)

Quote
Not a weak argument but I was letting your stupidity slide unnoticed.  The son of Nuh [as] was a disbeliever.  Allah [swt] explains why his son was not part of his family.

"He said: 'O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous.  So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge!  I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!' "

Comparing apples and orange!
If I brought up all the unrighteous acts your leaders did to our beloved Ahlul Bayt (as), the impartial observer may also call your leaders disbelievers, in the true sense of the word.

Quote
Wow, peak of ignorance!  Was Qur'an not an oral tradition?  In other words, what was the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an?  And do you not know that the same Aisha [ra] was consulted repeatedly by Uthman [ra] when the Qur'an was being compiled?  There were many Companions [ra] who had memorized the Qur'an that were alive when the Mushaf was preserved in script.  Also, visit the following link:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html

Quraan can be orally transmitted, or via written records, hence why many mention the accursed Mu`awiyyah as a scribe of the Prophet (saww). It's said Imam Ali (as) compiled the Quran in written form, after the passing of Rasool (saww).

Quote
Lastly, let us talk about your scholars.  Al-Tabrasi for example!  He wrote a book to prove tahreef of the Qur'an.  When rebuked, he authored another book to defend his kufr. 

Want more examples?  Shaykh Sudooq, Shareef Murtadha, on and on!
Please refer back to my argument about one of your main leaders, `A'ishah, and the story of goats eating verses of Quran, etc.

Quote
Who are you to set the importance of a certain matter?  Furthermore, how are you qualified to make that call on behalf of Zayd [ra]?  Lastly, how can you be so sure what Zayd [ra] remembered and what he had forgotten?
I can throw that question right back at you. I don't understand why you even brought it up. It's a weak argument.

Quote
Enemies of Ahlul Bayt [ra]?  Our books are replete with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra] (when I say Ahlul Bayt [ra] I mean the wives, Ahlul Kisa [ra], et cetera).  If not for our books, you would not have known most narrations that you use against us like Hadith of Pen and Paper, for example (although it has nothing to do with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra]).
Wives aren't a part of the specific term Ahlul Bayt (as). If it weren't for your books, we wouldn't need to know about the incident of the Pen and Paper.

Quote
Already refuted!  And what do we say about those who lie upon the Qur'an?  Like when people use Qur'an 17:26 in relation to Fadak when it has nothing to do with it.
Oh, you mean like how the Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi did?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
At first you denied [on Facebook] the verse being about Fadak, then when I mentioned your own scholar, you had to backtrack. Alhamdulillah.

Allah [swt] is My Witness; when I pressed you to present the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak - which you still have not been able to do - you said "Qur'an 17:26".  In fact, you even said something to the effect, “if I am not mistaken” after giving me the (wrong) reference.  Of course you were mistaken and it is a shame that after having been refuted on more than one basis – it is not a Madani surah, the verse speaks about “haq” (right) not gift, and the fact that the narrations that support your conclusion are all weak – you are still holding on to it.  You did not even bother to quote the verse, neither on Facebook nor here.  Again, to repeat myself for a third time, what does the verse have to do with Fadak?

Quote
You had to eat your words. How did it taste? Good, I bet. Anyhow, There are many references, as you've posted, that point to that verse being about Fadak. That should suffice to anyone with a good level of sincerity.

Wow!  Many references?  Yes, many references pointing to a single narration which has been weakened by at least 43 scholars.  And here is the elephant in the room.  I presented that (weak) report and then gave you its grading. 

Thus far, Alhamdulilah, every single reference you have shared with us has backfired.  Rest assured, the future (for you) will be just as gloomy as the skies have been over Washington DC for the past few days.  And I will ask you then, "how did it taste?" 

Quote
As for verses revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, I showed you proof, on Facebook, that some Surahs have verses that were said to have been revealed in Makkah and/or Madeenah. As for Fadak, it can be a right given by Allah (swt).

You did not even post Qur'an 17:26 on Facebook, let alone show me proof that it was revealed in Mecca.  Here is proof that state otherwise:

Shia Tafsir mizan states:
الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah[/u].

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

Quote
Here's another hadeeth we can use to prove :

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

I was ready for this one before you even reached out to it.

The author of the above book is a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  Also, it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer “Furat al-Kufi” that al-Hasakani, in his book, mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents (they lean towards Shia beliefs).  The chain of this narration is weak anyways since we do not know who this Adam who narrates from al-Thawri is nor who ibn Munay`is.

While I will address the remainder of your verbal diarrhea later today, inshaAllah, please provide us the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak.  You have till tomorrow. 
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 03:25:23 PM
It wasn't from the ways of our A'immah (as) to spit on people. We know who your ilk follow -- the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as)

Really?  But they encouraged it, according to your books.  Far are the Imams [ra] from what you attribute to them.  In other words, they [ra] are innocent of your Shia-ism!

From Hasan ibn Ali: “This matter that you are waiting for, wouldn’t happen until some of you (shia) wouldn’t disown from others from you, and some of you would curse others from you, and some of you would spit in the faces of others from you, and some of you would testify to disbelief of others from you.”  (Kitab al-Ghaybah p 438)

Quote
If I brought up all the unrighteous acts your leaders did to our beloved Ahlul Bayt (as), the impartial observer may also call your leaders disbelievers, in the true sense of the word.

Well, let us start with Fadak.  So far, all your references have been refuted.  As for the rest of the "unrighteous acts", line them up.  We will go through all of your propaganda in an afternoon leaving you with nothing to hide behind.

Quote
Quraan can be orally transmitted, or via written records, hence why many mention the accursed Mu`awiyyah as a scribe of the Prophet (saww). It's said Imam Ali (as) compiled the Quran in written form, after the passing of Rasool (saww).

And your point is.....

Quote
Please refer back to my argument about one of your main leaders, `A'ishah, and the story of goats eating verses of Quran, etc.

I take it that you did not even read my rebuttal let alone visit the link I provided you.  Since your comprehension skill is poor - to put it very nicely - let me explain it to you differently.  While you are as smart as a goat, what goat can eat someone's brain?  The Qur'an was memorized by many Sahabas [ra].  Eating the parchment on which verses were written does not delete those verses from the memory of those who had memorized the Qur'an.  Are you usually this stupid or is it a special occasion today?

Quote
I can throw that question right back at you. I don't understand why you even brought it up. It's a weak argument.

You can throw it right back at me and I will embarrass you again because while you are fixated on one narration by Zayd [ra] regarding this matter - and here we go back to who presents half the story (not the whole) - I presented all the narrations by Zayd [ra] (regarding the status of the wives of the Prophet [saw]). 

As I said, we make a decision after we have exhausted all the verses, hadiths and scholarly opinions.  If you read all the narrations by Zayd [ra], it is clear that he did not exclude the wives [ra] from being part of the household of the Prophet [saw].  He was only making a special case for blood relatives since wives can be divorced.  I have already explained this so no need to repeat myself.

Quote
If it weren't for your books, we wouldn't need to know about the incident of the Pen and Paper.

But what an embarrassment that is!  The Rawaafidh use that narration to prove that the Prophet [saw] was about to dictate the Imamat of Imam Ali [ra].  Yet, your own Imams [ra] missed such an important event.  We narrated it but it slipped your Imams' [ra] attention and they failed to narrate such a "monumental event".

Quote
Oh, you mean like how the Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi did?

Absolutely no shame!  Not even an apology lying blatantly.  Khair, your buffoonery is a reflection of your Rawaafidh madhhab.  We are not laughing with you but at you!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 03:37:00 PM
Quote
Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

The author of the above book is obviously a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  On top of it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer Furat al-Kufi that al-Hasakani in his book mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat, meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents.  The chain of this narration is weak anyway since narrator Abdullah bin Manee’ is majhool(anonymous), and same is the case of Adam who narrates from al-Thawri , since his status too is unknown.

I have addressed two different chains from which we have this report.  Both are problematic for the following reasons:

1.  Author of the book is a Shia.

2.  Adam (in the chain) is an unknown narrator so are Adam, ibn Munay' and bin Manee'.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 08:52:11 PM
These Wahhabi-Nasibi literalists...no wonder you guys are so misguided. According to Saheeh chains, according to the grading standards of Bukhari and Muslim, your Abu Bakr (la), Umar (la), and other hypocrites tried to kill our beloved Prophet (saww):

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/02/companions-attempt-to-kill-prophet.html
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 08:54:36 PM
These misguided Bakris. May Allah (swt) guide you all back to true Islam. You guys follow the accursed `A'ishah when even she lied to the Prophet (saww) about his wife Zaynab and the "honey-drink." If she (la) is brave enough to lie to him (saww), what makes you think you can trust her. I feel bad for the naive Sunnis.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 10, 2016, 09:04:11 PM
These Wahhabi-Nasibi literalists...no wonder you guys are so misguided. According to Saheeh chains, according to the grading standards of Bukhari and Muslim, your Abu Bakr (la), Umar (la), and other hypocrites tried to kill our beloved Prophet (saww):

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/02/companions-attempt-to-kill-prophet.html

This is called changing goalposts.  Since the above has nothing to do with Fadak and you have till tomorrow to find the Qur'anic verses, let me re-cap what you have failed to achieve thus far.

1.  You could not prove that the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] are not part of his household.  The Qur'an, the Prophet [saw] and even the Companions [ra] recognized them as "Ahlul Bayt".  As bitter of a pill that is for you, choke on it.

2.  You have not presented one authentic narration which writes Fadak for Fatima [ra].  On the contrary, the Qur'anic verse you presented has nothing to do with Fadak.  One of the two narrations tying the verse to Fadak was weak and the other was a fabrication by a Shia.  To make matters worse for you, without the need to entertain those forged narrations, I refuted you when I schooled you regarding the verse.  The verse, in fact the entire Surah, is Meccan whereas Fadak fell in Muslim hands years later in Madina.

Now, with your tail tucked between your legs, you want to shift the debate to Companions [ra] conspiring to kill the Prophet [saw].  Accept defeat on the above-mentioned points and we can proceed with your third soon-to-be failure.  Until then, you have no where to run. 

By the way, here is your refutation: http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

PS - I hope your boy on Facebook - the love child of Yasser Al-Khabees and Hassan Shaytanyari who was boasting that he is giving dawah to an Afghan family - is reading all this (since you have shared your bravado there but the coward that he is, he can insult us behind our backs but won't dare present himself here).  Tell him to come see this Afghan.  Enough selfies for him; time for him to man up or cover himself up like a woman!

I will give him a taste of history; what Mirwais Khan Hotak, the brave Afghan, did to his Safavvid Shias :D
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 10:57:21 PM
Quote
Allah [swt] is My Witness; when I pressed you to present the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak - which you still have not been able to do - you said "Qur'an 17:26".  In fact, you even said something to the effect, “if I am not mistaken” after giving me the (wrong) reference.  Of course you were mistaken and it is a shame that after having been refuted on more than one basis – it is not a Madani surah, the verse speaks about “haq” (right) not gift, and the fact that the narrations that support your conclusion are all weak – you are still holding on to it.  You did not even bother to quote the verse, neither on Facebook nor here.  Again, to repeat myself for a third time, what does the verse have to do with Fadak?

You didn't refute anything. Even your own Bakri scholars mention the verse is about Fadak. Fadak was Fatimah's Haqq. You can call it gift, Haqq, etc., and it won't contradict. Check Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi's commentary on the verse. I know Sunni scholars are naive, but are you implying your own scholars didn't know the whereabouts of the verse's revelation?

Quote
Wow!  Many references?  Yes, many references pointing to a single narration which has been weakened by at least 43 scholars.  And here is the elephant in the room.  I presented that (weak) report and then gave you its grading. 
43 scholars? That's it? Your WHOLE Bakri faith has fooled billions via the known liar Abu Hurayrah, yet you lot consider him reliable, when even your Umar (la) even hit him and didn't trust him. You don't follow Umar (la) in that. Why not? lol...

Quote
You did not even post Qur'an 17:26 on Facebook, let alone show me proof that it was revealed in Mecca.  Here is proof that state otherwise:
I did mention the verse. It seems you're forgetful.

Quote
Shia Tafsir mizan states:
الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah[/u].

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

Keep in mind that it's said Quran has many layers. This is why we follow Quraan and Ahlul Bayt (as), else we'd be like Bakri ISIS terrorists that interpret the Quran as they want. Ahlul Bayt (as) are the ones to explain the Quran, and no, we don't rely on enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) such as `A'ishah, for interpretation of Quran. That being said. In regard to the verse 17:26, it's reported Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as) said: "The right of Ali ibn abi Talib [as] which has been due to him, has been succession to the Messenger [saww] of Allah [swt] and having prophetic sciences." -al-Kafi vol.1 pg 294.

Quote
I was ready for this one before you even reached out to it.

The author of the above book is a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  Also, it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer “Furat al-Kufi” that al-Hasakani, in his book, mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents (they lean towards Shia beliefs).  The chain of this narration is weak anyways since we do not know who this Adam who narrates from al-Thawri is nor who ibn Munay`is.

It looks like he was a Sunni scholar and Dhahabi explicitly states in Tadkirat al-Hufaz that he was a follower of Abu Hanifa. For this reason, he has introduced him as "Abul Qasim Ubaidullah al-Hanafi".
In this connection, Ya'qub Ja'far says: The author of the book is Abul Qasim Hakim Haskani; he is one of the great Sunni traditionists and Hufaz who came from Neishabour and, as his student Abdul Ghafir says, he is the follower of the Hanafi religion. Some say that he may've been Sunni, but converted to Shiism, after finding the truth.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 10, 2016, 11:17:35 PM
Quote
This is called changing goalposts.  Since the above has nothing to do with Fadak and you have till tomorrow to find the Qur'anic verses, let me re-cap what you have failed to achieve thus far.

1.  You could not prove that the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] are not part of his household.  The Qur'an, the Prophet [saw] and even the Companions [ra] recognized them as "Ahlul Bayt".  As bitter of a pill that is for you, choke on it.

2.  You have not presented one authentic narration which writes Fadak for Fatima [ra].  On the contrary, the Qur'anic verse you presented has nothing to do with Fadak.  One of the two narrations tying the verse to Fadak was weak and the other was a fabrication by a Shia.  To make matters worse for you, without the need to entertain those forged narrations, I refuted you when I schooled you regarding the verse.  The verse, in fact the entire Surah, is Meccan whereas Fadak fell in Muslim hands years later in Madina.
I already explained to you the general and specific terms; it's just too bad Wahhabi-Nasibi types are inclined to take everything literally. Your Sunni scholars lied to you yet again, and you, believe them. The naivety...

Quote
By the way, here is your refutation: http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/
How is it a refutation? It doesn't refute anything. Did the "refutation" mention the hadeeth from Saheeh Muslim? If not, why not? They couldn't refute it? "Refutation..." lol...maashaa'llah

Quote
PS - I hope your boy on Facebook - the love child of Yasser Al-Khabees and Hassan Shaytanyari who was boasting that he is giving dawah to an Afghan family - is reading all this (since you have shared your bravado there but the coward that he is, he can insult us behind our backs but won't dare present himself here).  Tell him to come see this Afghan.  Enough selfies for him; time for him to man up or cover himself up like a woman!

I will give him a taste of history; what Mirwais Khan Hotak, the brave Afghan, did to his Safavvid Shias :D
Call Fadak TV so they can destroy your whole fabricated sect, just like I am. He challenges people like all the time. Call, if you dare.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 11, 2016, 02:56:58 AM
You didn't refute anything. Even your own Bakri scholars mention the verse is about Fadak.

I did not refute anything?  I reckon you cannot read or have no shame.  By the way, do you follow "Bakri" scholars that you hold on to their opinion so fiercely? 

Quote
Fadak was Fatimah's Haqq. You can call it gift, Haqq, etc., and it won't contradict.

Just when I think you cannot be any more stupid, you raise the bar.  Although logic and Rawaafidh do not mix, let me explain this to you in simpler terms.  Your "haqq" is like your paycheck.  A gift would be annual bonus.  Your employer cannot refuse you a paycheck but they can refuse to give you a bonus (depending on the financial circumstances of the company). 

Quote
Check Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi's commentary on the verse.

Had you spent time with someone knowledgeable, you would have known that majority of scholars of tafseer list almost all the narrations - weak and strong - in regards to a matter.  After mentioning them, they give their opinion as to which ones are accepted and which ones are not.  Ibn Kathir [rah] is a prime example because he does the same in his tafseer.

Quote
43 scholars? That's it?

Bring me 10 that authenticate Attiya!  Heck, you would not even dare share the verse, let alone the narration.  Now, all of a sudden, 43 scholars become too little for the one who could not even dare open his mouth.

Quote
Keep in mind that it's said Quran has many layers.

Agreed but before you peel away the layers, the verse was revealed in Mecca and is part of a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina (years after the 17:26 was revealed).  Full stop!

Quote
It looks like he was a Sunni scholar and Dhahabi explicitly states in Tadkirat al-Hufaz that he was a follower of Abu Hanifa. For this reason, he has introduced him as "Abul Qasim Ubaidullah al-Hanafi".

Really?  If having "al-Hanafi" in your name makes you Hanafi, then are we to assume that the former Prime Minister of Iraq - Nouri Al-Maliki - was Maliki?

Having said that, even if he was Sunni, the narration is still weak as I have shared.  You have two to three narrators that are completely unknown.  Maybe they were hidden guides sending knowledge from some cave!

Quote
Some say that he may've been Sunni, but converted to Shiism, after finding the truth.

Shot yourself in the foot!  Thank you!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 11, 2016, 03:03:39 AM
Your Sunni scholars lied to you yet again, and you, believe them. The naivety...

On one hand you want me to accept weak narrations in our texts (reported by our scholars for various reasons) and on the other, you tell me that they lied to us.  Make up your mind!  Were they honest (and that I should side with their opinion) or did they lie to us?

Quote
How is it a refutation? It doesn't refute anything. Did the "refutation" mention the hadeeth from Saheeh Muslim? If not, why not? They couldn't refute it? "Refutation..." lol...maashaa'llah

Clearly you did not even click on the link! 

Quote
Call Fadak TV so they can destroy your whole fabricated sect, just like I am. He challenges people like all the time. Call, if you dare.

Surely you must know their arguments.  Bring them, one by one.  Besides, why call Fadak TV when I can make their representatives look stupid?  If anything, they should come to your aid :D
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 11, 2016, 04:29:28 PM
Quote
On one hand you want me to accept weak narrations in our texts (reported by our scholars for various reasons) and on the other, you tell me that they lied to us.  Make up your mind!  Were they honest (and that I should side with their opinion) or did they lie to us?
Your whole sect is full of lies and betrayals. Should I not use any of your sect's arguments? lol...it's like debating a Christian or Jew. How can you see when the heart is blinded?
Quote
Clearly you did not even click on the link!

It looks like the same link Abu Muslim Khorasani tried to use on me, but it failed. Ask him why he didn't reply after my mention of the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim.

Quote
Surely you must know their arguments.  Bring them, one by one.  Besides, why call Fadak TV when I can make their representatives look stupid?  If anything, they should come to your aid :D
You can't even handle my arguments, yet you want me to seek assistance? I did this whole discussion without anyone assisting me. Alhamdulillah. It's good practice for me, but I feel like it's a waste of time, since I don't see any sincerity in your arguments. I apologize if that offends you.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 11, 2016, 04:53:03 PM
Quote
I did not refute anything?  I reckon you cannot read or have no shame.  By the way, do you follow "Bakri" scholars that you hold on to their opinion so fiercely? 
I have no shame, yet it seems you tried to hide [initially on Facebook] the hadeeth that I showed about Ahlul Bayt (as), from Saheeh Muslim. I wonder why you only gave part of the story, but I'm used it coming from the sect of Abu Bakr.

Quote
Just when I think you cannot be any more stupid, you raise the bar.  Although logic and Rawaafidh do not mix, let me explain this to you in simpler terms.  Your "haqq" is like your paycheck.  A gift would be annual bonus.  Your employer cannot refuse you a paycheck but they can refuse to give you a bonus (depending on the financial circumstances of the company). 
Let me give an example, as it seems you're incapable of thinking apart from your own cemented, partial beliefs. If I give someone a loan, they owe me [my Haqq], but if I choose to forgive the loan, I may gift the amount owed to me, to him. In shaa'llah it makes more sense to you now. Please try to think outside of the box.

Quote
Had you spent time with someone knowledgeable, you would have known that majority of scholars of tafseer list almost all the narrations - weak and strong - in regards to a matter.  After mentioning them, they give their opinion as to which ones are accepted and which ones are not.  Ibn Kathir [rah] is a prime example because he does the same in his tafseer.
Lie? You mean like Abu Hurayrah? Had you sat with scholars that actually have knowledge, you'd understand Ilm al-Rijaal isn't a foolproof method. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, while an honest person can be mistaking.

Quote
Agreed but before you peel away the layers, the verse was revealed in Mecca and is part of a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina (years after the 17:26 was revealed).  Full stop!
Hence why I also gave a hadeeth reportedly from Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as), about that verse as well. This is why we trust Ahlul Bayt's (as) narrations, and not enemies of theirs. Even ISIS can give you reasons why they attack civilians. Look at the lives of Sunni select Sahabah, and you'd see the similar ways of ISIS.
Quote

Quote
Really?  If having "al-Hanafi" in your name makes you Hanafi, then are we to assume that the former Prime Minister of Iraq - Nouri Al-Maliki - was Maliki?
No, it's just one of the reasons why it's stated the said scholar was Hanafi.

Quote
Shot yourself in the foot!  Thank you!
Dude, you'd be surprised how many Bakris are converted to Shiism, after realizing the lies of their Sunni idols.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 11, 2016, 05:56:34 PM
Your whole sect is full of lies and betrayals.

Says the one who cannot even produce one tangible proof which is authentic that writes Fadak for Fatima [ra].

Quote
It looks like the same link Abu Muslim Khorasani tried to use on me, but it failed. Ask him why he didn't reply after my mention of the hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim.

Does the hadith in Sahih Muslim mention any names?  It only makes mention of 12 hypocrites!  Imagine if the Khawaarij, on the opposite end of spectrum as you Rawaafidh, use that to insinuate that those 12 hypocrites were your 12 Imams [ra], naudhibillah.  They would be as justified in their deception as you except you both are known deceivers, blinded by hatred. 

The narration in Sahih Muslim makes no mention of any names.  By extrapolation, in an attempt to fan the flames of your emotions, you want us to believe that the 12 hypocrites were who you think they were.  While in truth, we find one of the same narrators praise Uthman [ra] and other Sahabas [ra].

Quote
You can't even handle my arguments, yet you want me to seek assistance? I did this whole discussion without anyone assisting me. Alhamdulillah. It's good practice for me, but I feel like it's a waste of time, since I don't see any sincerity in your arguments. I apologize if that offends you.

You have had no arguments.  It is like me presenting myself in court with a lawsuit.  It would be wishful thinking to expect compensation when I have no proof.  That is how idiotic your approach has been.  And I do not care if it offends you!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 11, 2016, 06:09:04 PM
I have no shame, yet it seems you tried to hide [initially on Facebook] the hadeeth that I showed about Ahlul Bayt (as), from Saheeh Muslim. I wonder why you only gave part of the story, but I'm used it coming from the sect of Abu Bakr.

If you want Sahih Muslim to speak on the issue as to who is Ahlul Bayt [ra] and who is not, allow it to speak in its entirety.  Same applies for Zayd [ra]!  You cannot pick-and-choose.  Zayd [ra] was one Companion [ra] and when we read all of his statements in this matter, it is pretty clear that he considered the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] to be part of his household.

Are you married?  Do you consider your wife not to be a member of your household?  Go on, raise the bar of cowardice and disown your own wife, if you are married!

Quote
Let me give an example, as it seems you're incapable of thinking apart from your own cemented, partial beliefs. If I give someone a loan, they owe me [my Haqq], but if I choose to forgive the loan, I may gift the amount owed to me, to him.

Okay and how is this related to Fadak?  Are you now bringing a third argument?  That Fadak was a loan?  What games are you playing, ya Rafidhi?  How can "gift" be the same as your "haqq"? 

Few years back, I heard they sealed Imam Ali Center because someone beat himself senseless (to the point that they had to take him to emergency room).  When fire and rescue arrived, they had to close the place because the place was over-crowded, dysfunctional bathrooms, et cetera.  I am starting to believe that that fool was you.  Only beating yourself into unconsciousness can make one this stupid.

Quote
Lie? You mean like Abu Hurayrah? Had you sat with scholars that actually have knowledge, you'd understand Ilm al-Rijaal isn't a foolproof method. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, while an honest person can be mistaking.

Who said anything about Ilm-ul Rijaal?  All I said was that Mufassireen would often narrate as many reports as they could and after doing so, they would highlight the authentic reports and explain (the Qur'anic verse or passage) based on those authentic reports.

Quote
Hence why I also gave a hadeeth reportedly from Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as), about that verse as well.

WHERE?

Quote
No, it's just one of the reasons why it's stated the said scholar was Hanafi.

But you saw how lame your argument was?! 

Quote
Dude, you'd be surprised how many Bakris are converted to Shiism, after realizing the lies of their Sunni idols.

Look around yourself, Shia boy, and see how many Shia-to-Sunni converts we have on this forum.  Now go hide in a cave.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 12, 2016, 01:42:04 AM
It has been nearly a week that I have been asking you for the verses regarding Fadak from Qur'an and you have danced around the point without actually coming through on the challenge.

The Shia way to approach Fadak is as follows: claim that it belonged to Fatima [ra] ---> find obscure narrations, even if proven weak, to support her claim (more like to support the Shia lie for Fatima [ra] is innocent of what you attribute to her) ---> mangle up the Qur'an in order to make Qur'an 17:26 - although Meccan - fit the agenda.

The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah way is to approach every issue through the Qur'an, Sunnah and then authentic historical reports.  From the Qur'an alone, the most basic student of religion can conclude that Fadak cannot be inherited by, or gifted to, an individual or a group.  Since your scholars never adopted this honest approach, I suggest you grab a notepad and a pen to take notes. 

By the way, I have a feeling that you will reject the Qur'an in order to maintain Fatima's [ra] "infallibility".  You have been warned yet you will do it.  Trust me, I will be the one - at the end of it - to say, "didn't I tell you?"

Without further adieu, here is Fadak from the Qur'an.

There are two types of "booty" mentioned in the Qur'an.  There might be more but these two are of our interest.  Booty of war (ghanimah) is booty taken in war whereas Fay is booty acquired without a fight.  It is common knowledge that Fadak was obtained without any battles or fighting.  In other words, its transfer to Muslims was peaceful.

The Qur'an clearly outlines the rules for Fay and its management (distribution).

Surah Al-Hashr (chapter 59), verses 6 through 10 deal with Fay and since Fadak is Fay, let us look at these verses.

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from them - for this ye made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry: but God gives power to His apostles over any He pleases: and God has power over all things." (Qur'an 59:6)

How do we know this verse pertains to Fay (and Fadak is considered Fay as per its peaceful mode of transfer)?  Because it clearly is talking about that which Allah [swt] bestowed on His Apostle [saw] while he (or Muslims in general) made no expedition, with cavalry or camelry, for it.  Hence, the verse is in connection to Fay and Fadak is Fay.

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to God,- to His Apostle and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear God; for God is strict in Punishment." (Qur'an 59:7)

After naming who the beneficiaries are from such properties, Allah [swt] says, "in order that it may not make a circuit between the wealthy among you".  In other words, this property must not be solely owned by one individual or an elite group.  Therefore, the Qur'an leaves no room for any further argument.  Gifting Fadak to anyone, or giving it away as inheritance, would be a violation of the Qur'an since it would have remained with one person (or a few) and its wealth would have made a circuit between them.

Let us read further.

"(Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding God and His Apostle: such are indeed the sincere ones

But those who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith,- show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls,- they are the ones that achieve prosperity.

And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 59:8-10)

Let us recap those to whom Fay belongs.  To make it more specific to our discussion, these are the rightful beneficiaries of Fadak since Fadak is Fay (due to its peaceful transfer to Muslims).

Allah [swt], His Apostle [saw], kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer (as per Qur'an 59:7), Muhajirs [as per Qur'an 59:8], Ansar (as per Qur'an 59:9) and even Tabi'een (as per Qur'an 59:10).

Now, Mr. Rafidhi, based on the fact that the Qur'an clearly forbids such properties to be exclusively owned (Qur'an 59:7) and it names various beneficiaries, on what basis do you write Fadak for Fatima [ra]? 

Also, why is it that your scholars never ever quote these verses in regards to Fadak?  Now you know who likes to present part of the picture, not the whole ;)
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 12, 2016, 02:40:39 AM
Quote

There is more to hadith grading than just its chain, such as matn, et cetera.  Obviously you do not know this because your madhab copied the science of hadiths from us and did a pretty bad job in doing so.

Do you know that there is a narration in Al-Kafi, with a sahih chain - not hasan but sahih - in which we have the Prophet's [saw] donkey, Ufair, telling a story?  Please do not come back and say that animals speak as per the Qur'an, like ants in the case of Sulaiman [as].  I am talking about sanad, not miracles.  When you have a narration in which a donkey is narrating a story, that donkey becomes part of the chain.  So how do you authenticate the donkey's story?  How do you establish the donkey's reliability?  Ilm-ul haiwaan?  Yet, there is a narration in Al-Kafi which narrates a story on the authority of Ufair, the Prophet's [saw] donkey.  But Shias are quick to weaken it.  That is your prerogative.  You can grade Al-Kafi however you want but I wanted to teach you the basics of the science of hadiths. 

Having a hasan chain means nothing just like your scholars distance themselves away from the hadith narrated by a donkey although its chain is sahih!
Narrated Abu Huraira (RadhiAllahu anhu): The Prophet (SAW) said, “While a man was riding a cow, it turned towards him and said, ‘I have not been created for this purpose (i.e. carrying), I have been created for sloughing.” The Prophet added, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar believe in the story.” The Prophet went on, “A wolf caught a sheep, and when the shepherd chased it, the wolf said, ‘Who will be its guard on the day of wild beasts, when there will be no shepherd for it except me?’
“After narrating it, the Prophet said, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too believe it.” Abu Salama (a sub-narrator) said, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not present then.” (It has been written that a wolf also spoke to one of the companions of the Prophet near Medina as narrated in Fatah-al-Bari: Narrated Unais bin ‘Amr: Ahban bin Aus said, “I was amongst my sheep. Suddenly a wolf caught a sheep and I shouted at it. The wolf sat on its tail and addressed me, saying, ‘Who will look after it (i.e. the sheep) when you will be busy and not able to look after it? Do you forbid me the provision which Allah has provided me?’ ” Ahban added, “I clapped my hands and said, ‘By Allah, I have never seen anything more curious and wonderful than this!’ On that the wolf said, ‘There is something (more curious) and wonderful than this; that is, Allah’s Apostle in those palm trees, inviting people to Allah (i.e. Islam).’ “Unais bin ‘Amr further said, “Then Ahban went to Allah’s Apostle and informed him what happened and embraced Islam.)” palm trees or other trees and share the fruits with me.”

[Al Bukhari, Book 39, Hadith 517]
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 12, 2016, 05:06:25 AM
Narrated Abu Huraira (RadhiAllahu anhu): The Prophet (SAW) said, “While a man was riding a cow, it turned towards him and said, ‘I have not been created for this purpose (i.e. carrying), I have been created for sloughing.” The Prophet added, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar believe in the story.” The Prophet went on, “A wolf caught a sheep, and when the shepherd chased it, the wolf said, ‘Who will be its guard on the day of wild beasts, when there will be no shepherd for it except me?’
“After narrating it, the Prophet said, “I, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too believe it.” Abu Salama (a sub-narrator) said, “Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were not present then.” (It has been written that a wolf also spoke to one of the companions of the Prophet near Medina as narrated in Fatah-al-Bari: Narrated Unais bin ‘Amr: Ahban bin Aus said, “I was amongst my sheep. Suddenly a wolf caught a sheep and I shouted at it. The wolf sat on its tail and addressed me, saying, ‘Who will look after it (i.e. the sheep) when you will be busy and not able to look after it? Do you forbid me the provision which Allah has provided me?’ ” Ahban added, “I clapped my hands and said, ‘By Allah, I have never seen anything more curious and wonderful than this!’ On that the wolf said, ‘There is something (more curious) and wonderful than this; that is, Allah’s Apostle in those palm trees, inviting people to Allah (i.e. Islam).’ “Unais bin ‘Amr further said, “Then Ahban went to Allah’s Apostle and informed him what happened and embraced Islam.)” palm trees or other trees and share the fruits with me.”

[Al Bukhari, Book 39, Hadith 517]

I wonder if you are helpless or retarded.  If it is the former, it is best for you to walk into the sunset.  If it is the latter, let me explain it again.

For the second time, I am not undermining the miracle.  I am not mocking the fact that an animal spoke.  In fact, I made mention of Qur'an speaking of Sulaiman [as] understanding the speech of ants.

But this is what I am talking about:
"Imam Alee (a.s) said, 'The first one of the animals which died was Ya’fur who died within the same hour that the Messenger of Allah (saw) died.  He brook off his bound until and began to run until he came to the well of Banu Khatma in Quba and threw himself into it and it became his grave.'  It is narrated that Ameer Al-Mo’mineen (a.s) said, 'That donkey spoke to the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, ‘May Allah (swt) take my soul and the soul of my parents in service for your cause!  My father related to me from his father from his grand father from his father who lived with Noah in the Ark.  Once Noah came to him and whipped him on his back and said, 'From the descendents of this donkey there will a donkey on whose back the master and the last of the prophets will ride.'  I thank Allah (swt) who has made me that donkey.' "

That, right there, the part I have highlighted, is a sub-chain.  What methodology do you have to verify that Ufair really heard that from his father who heard from his father......so on and so forth?  How do you authenticate that Ufair's ancestor was really on the Ark with Nuh [as]?

By the way, what is the life expectancy of a donkey?  The math does not even add up since there were thousands of years between Nuh [as] and our Prophet [saw] while the narration runs through a handful of donkeys, not even a dozen!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 12, 2016, 01:44:23 PM
Quote
For the second time, I am not undermining the miracle.  I am not mocking the fact that an animal spoke.  In fact, I made mention of Qur'an speaking of Sulaiman [as] understanding the speech of ants.
You have such weak arguments. SubhanAllah. You claim you're not undermining a miracle, but you mock the fact that animals speak? The irony. Ummm...hello! An animal speaking to people is miraculous. Think about that one for a few minutes. If you don't understand it, please try asking even an educated non-Muslim. In shaa'llah they can open your mind a bit more.

Quote
But this is what I am talking about:
"Imam Alee (a.s) said, 'The first one of the animals which died was Ya’fur who died within the same hour that the Messenger of Allah (saw) died.  He brook off his bound until and began to run until he came to the well of Banu Khatma in Quba and threw himself into it and it became his grave.'  It is narrated that Ameer Al-Mo’mineen (a.s) said, 'That donkey spoke to the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying, ‘May Allah (swt) take my soul and the soul of my parents in service for your cause!  My father related to me from his father from his grand father from his father who lived with Noah in the Ark.  Once Noah came to him and whipped him on his back and said, 'From the descendents of this donkey there will a donkey on whose back the master and the last of the prophets will ride.'  I thank Allah (swt) who has made me that donkey.' "

That, right there, the part I have highlighted, is a sub-chain.  What methodology do you have to verify that Ufair really heard that from his father who heard from his father......so on and so forth?  How do you authenticate that Ufair's ancestor was really on the Ark with Nuh [as]?

By the way, what is the life expectancy of a donkey?  The math does not even add up since there were thousands of years between Nuh [as] and our Prophet [saw] while the narration runs through a handful of donkeys, not even a dozen!
It's said Imam Ali (as) was taught by our beloved Rasoolullah (saww). If he (as) narrates a hadeeth, it's verified by our Prophet (saww), which is verified by Jibra'eel (as), which is verified by Allah (swt). Mind you, that is IF it's a correct hadeeth. I personally am not a "chain of narrators worshipper" as I think you may come across as, as I do know that rationally, even liars may tell the truth, and trustworthy people may make a mistake. That being said, if Imam (as) really said that, then I trust him, as he's Infallible, as is Rasool (saww). That is precisely how we verify. If I asked you how you verify your ahadeeth, with chains from known liars such as Abu Hurayrah, how was hit or beaten by Umar, because, evidently, even Umar didn't trust him [Abu Hurayrah], you're going to have trouble with your whole sect, as you follow many liars and enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as). As I mentioned previously, it's said the accursed `A'ishah lied to the Prophet (saww) in the event of the "honey-drink" with the Prophet's (saww) wife, Zaynab. If `A'ishah lied to the Prophet (saww), what makes you think she won't lie to someone like you?

I feel Sunnis lack common sense. No offense, but they're blinded by love of Dunyaa, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 12, 2016, 02:45:37 PM
You have such weak arguments. SubhanAllah. You claim you're not undermining a miracle, but you mock the fact that animals speak? The irony. Ummm...hello!

When did I mock the fact that animals speak?  Saying that animals can communicate is different than accepting a certain story, or narration, from an animal.  In the case of humans, among many things, you can use Ilm-ul Rijaal to verify the chain of the report.  What do you do in case of an animal?  Do you guys have Ilm-ul Haiwaan?  Do you guys have a book for animals and their reliability (as narrators)?

Quote
It's said Imam Ali (as) was taught by our beloved Rasoolullah (saww). If he (as) narrates a hadeeth, it's verified by our Prophet (saww), which is verified by Jibra'eel (as), which is verified by Allah (swt).

Actually, the narration, if we take it at face-value, suggests that Imam Ali [ra] was taught by a donkey, naudhibillah.  What he heard, he heard it from a donkey.  So, in simple terms, Imam Ali [ra] was informed of an event by a donkey.  Again, that is if we take the narration at face-value.

Quote
Mind you, that is IF it's a correct hadeeth.

That is your scholars' business.  If they weaken the hadith, more power to them.  Al-Kafi has no bearing on me or Islam so you can do whatever you want with it.  Just don't run your filthy mouth to belittle our Sahihain when your own hadith collections are a mess.

Quote
I personally am not a "chain of narrators worshipper" as I think you may come across as, as I do know that rationally, even liars may tell the truth, and trustworthy people may make a mistake.

This brings me to why I had to bring up this narration.  If you go back to your first post, you concluded it by sharing a narration and stating that Shaykh al-Arnaut said that it's chain is "hasan".  I had to show you how you have a narration - with an authentic chain - in Al-Kafi which your scholars do not accept as authentic.

In other words, as I told you then I say it again, chain of narrators (isnad) is not the only criteria for authenticating or rejecting a report.

Quote
That being said, if Imam (as) really said that, then I trust him, as he's Infallible, as is Rasool (saww).

Your Imam [ra] is not on par with the Prophet [saw].  Keep your corrupted beliefs to yourself.

Quote
That is precisely how we verify. If I asked you how you verify your ahadeeth, with chains from known liars such as Abu Hurayrah, how was hit or beaten by Umar, because, evidently, even Umar didn't trust him [Abu Hurayrah]


Ya jaahil, do you even know the fact that the same Umar [ra] offered, and appointed, Abu Hurairah [ra] as governor during his Caliphate?  How could Umar [ra] not trust Abu Hurairah [ra] and still offer him the post of governor?

Quote
As I mentioned previously, it's said the accursed `A'ishah lied to the Prophet (saww) in the event of the "honey-drink" with the Prophet's (saww) wife, Zaynab. If `A'ishah lied to the Prophet (saww), what makes you think she won't lie to someone like you?

Please reply to my post regarding Fadak or accept your defeat (in regards to Fadak) so that I can shatter your claim regarding Aisha [ra].

Quote
I feel Sunnis lack common sense. No offense, but they're blinded by love of Dunyaa, in my opinion.

Your opinion, your feels and your entire Madhhab is not worth the dust on Abu Bakr's [ra] feet.  Who the heck cares about what you think?  Your entire sect amounts to a small percentage within the ummah.  We can deal with your lot in an afternoon and not a single one of your lies will be left for the next day.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 12, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
Quote
When did I mock the fact that animals speak?  Saying that animals can communicate is different than accepting a certain story, or narration, from an animal.  In the case of humans, among many things, you can use Ilm-ul Rijaal to verify the chain of the report.  What do you do in case of an animal?  Do you guys have Ilm-ul Haiwaan?  Do you guys have a book for animals and their reliability (as narrators)?

I misread it as you saying you did mock. My mistake. Alhamdulillah, I'm not afraid to admit to my mistakes. In regards to verifying such a hadeeth, it's said to be from Imam Ali (as) narrating that a donkey spoke to our Rasool (saww). I don't see the big issue you're making out of this. Forget about the donkey, as we have our Prophet (saww) and Imam (as) verifying it, of course, that's if we take it as an authentic hadeeth.

Quote
Actually, the narration, if we take it at face-value, suggests that Imam Ali [ra] was taught by a donkey, naudhibillah.  What he heard, he heard it from a donkey.  So, in simple terms, Imam Ali [ra] was informed of an event by a donkey.  Again, that is if we take the narration at face-value.

I answered this in my above reply as well. The donkey teaching Imam Ali (as)? The donkey spoke with the Prophet (saww), according to that hadeeth, but that doesn't mean the donkey taught our Prophet (saww). I don't know where you get this interpretation.

Quote
That is your scholars' business.  If they weaken the hadith, more power to them.  Al-Kafi has no bearing on me or Islam so you can do whatever you want with it.  Just don't run your filthy mouth to belittle our Sahihain when your own hadith collections are a mess.
To Shias, we take Quraan as 100% Saheeh, and for ahadeeth books, it's subject to many variables. That's different from having Saheehayn, and all the misinformation/disinformation from all the liars that had an interest in that book. Even non-Muslims attack us because of the non-sense in "Saheehayn;" it's filled with fabrications. 

Quote
This brings me to why I had to bring up this narration.  If you go back to your first post, you concluded it by sharing a narration and stating that Shaykh al-Arnaut said that it's chain is "hasan".  I had to show you how you have a narration - with an authentic chain - in Al-Kafi which your scholars do not accept as authentic.

In other words, as I told you then I say it again, chain of narrators (isnad) is not the only criteria for authenticating or rejecting a report.
Yes, I know that we cannot just depend only on the Sanad or Matn, as both can be incorrect; we have to look at things holistically.

Quote
Your Imam [ra] is not on par with the Prophet [saw].  Keep your corrupted beliefs to yourself.
Imam Ali (as) isn't a prophet. I didn't say he's on par with the Prophet (saww). We have some ahadeeth that mention Prophet (saww) is higher ranked. He (as) is higher than the accursed Abu Bakr. We know that for sure.

Quote
Ya jaahil, do you even know the fact that the same Umar [ra] offered, and appointed, Abu Hurairah [ra] as governor during his Caliphate?  How could Umar [ra] not trust Abu Hurairah [ra] and still offer him the post of governor?
Umar wasn't the smartest of men. It's said he tried to bury his daughter alive, and he worshipped idols. He was an enemy of Ahlul Bayt (as) and Allah (swt). It doesn't matter if Umar appointed Abu Hurayrah, as the latter can prove distrustful [to Umar] after the appointment, as is said to be at least one of the cases, in which Umar hit or beat him for acquiring so many goods. Just because someone trusts another, it doesn't mean that trust cannot be betrayed afterwards. Did I seriously have to explain that to you, and you call me a Jaahil. Maashaa'llah. lol

Quote
Please reply to my post regarding Fadak or accept your defeat (in regards to Fadak) so that I can shatter your claim regarding Aisha [ra].
I already did. You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians. The Christians will keep talking nonsense, and think they won. It's similar to your weak tactics.

Quote
Your opinion, your feels and your entire Madhhab is not worth the dust on Abu Bakr's [ra] feet.  Who the heck cares about what you think?  Your entire sect amounts to a small percentage within the ummah.  We can deal with your lot in an afternoon and not a single one of your lies will be left for the next day.

Abu Bakr's feet should be in Hellfire, since he was an enemy of Allah (swt) and Ahlul Bayt (as). Quran teaches us that it's about quality, and not quantity. Do you ponder over the Quran? It doesn't seem like you do, sir. You can't even deal with the lies of your own books and leaders, and you want to debate Shias? Please...
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 12, 2016, 07:56:13 PM
I misread it as you saying you did mock. My mistake. Alhamdulillah, I'm not afraid to admit to my mistakes. In regards to verifying such a hadeeth, it's said to be from Imam Ali (as) narrating that a donkey spoke to our Rasool (saww). I don't see the big issue you're making out of this. Forget about the donkey, as we have our Prophet (saww) and Imam (as) verifying it, of course, that's if we take it as an authentic hadeeth.

I am not concerned about who spoke to who.  I just want to know how are we to verify what a donkey said when his story goes as far back as to Nuh [as]?  Of course you are rendered helpless.  So next time before you point a finger at our hadiths, remember that there are four pointing right back at you.

Quote
I answered this in my above reply as well. The donkey teaching Imam Ali (as)?

Yep, as per the narration.  You bragged Imam Ali [ra] was taught by so and so; well, in this narration, we know who the source of information was.  It was Ufayr (a donkey).

I am giving you a dose of your own medicine and I can already see you are coming undone quicker than I had anticipated.

Quote
To Shias, we take Quraan as 100% Saheeh, and for ahadeeth books, it's subject to many variables. That's different from having Saheehayn, and all the misinformation/disinformation from all the liars that had an interest in that book. Even non-Muslims attack us because of the non-sense in "Saheehayn;" it's filled with fabrications.

BS!  Big load of BS!  Your Akhbari scholars considered the Qur'an to have been tampered with.  The same Akhbari scholars considered Al-Kafi to be 100% authentic.  The title itself, "Al-Kafi" (sufficient), gives it away.  While your later scholars distanced themselves from their predecessors and labeled them as "Akhbaris", your madhhab owes nearly everything to these "Akhbari" scholars to the point that their beliefs still linger among your present-day (Usooli) scholars.  Precisely the reason why your present-day scholars cannot, and will not, give a fatwa declaring those believing in tahreef to be outside the fold of Islam.  So your present-day scholars have given them (Akhbaris) a new label in order to distinguish themselves from them but at the end of the day, not a single Shia scholar worth the name has passed a fatwa which considers those who believe in tahreef to be kaaffir.  Why?  Because issuing such a fatwa (on these Akhbari scholars) will be tantamount to passing the same judgment on your entire madhhab (since the foundations of your madhhab stand on these Akhbari scholars).

With Sunnis, you are automatically outside the fold of Islam if you have the slightest doubt regarding the authenticity, infallibility and purity of the Qur'an. 

By the way, speaking of modern-day Shia scholars, Imam Khomeini explicitly declared Nahjul Balagha - a book without a single chain of narration for anything within its covers - as the "Brother of the Qur'an".  He said that his declaration was not his ijtihad; it was in line with scholars of the past.  In other words, Imam Khomeini's praise for Nahjul Balagha - elevating it to the status of being the "Brother of the Qur'an" - was not just a one-off case.

Quote
Yes, I know that we cannot just depend only on the Sanad or Matn, as both can be incorrect; we have to look at things holistically.

Then why did you want us to accept a narration just because Shaykh Al-Arnaut said the chain was hasan?  Do you see your hypocrisy now?

Quote

Umar wasn't the smartest of men.

You accuse Umar [ra] of not being smart.  Also, as per your accusations, Umar [ra] usurped Fadak and stole the Caliphate from Imam Ali [ra].  So you believe that Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] were outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men" ;D  I wonder where that puts Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] in terms of smartness, to be outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men".

Rafidhi shot himself in the foot!

Quote
I already did. You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians. The Christians will keep talking nonsense, and think they won. It's similar to your weak tactics.

Did you even read the verses from Surah Al-Hashr?  Call your selfie-queen Facebook friend for help.  But knowing your lot, I am being reminded of Iblees.  He misguides people and then leaves them high-and-dry when they need help.  He did something similar to you when you reached out for help :D

Quote
Abu Bakr's feet should be in Hellfire, since he was an enemy of Allah (swt) and Ahlul Bayt (as).

Let us see whose feet are in Hellfire, as per Rasulullah [saw].

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222:
Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:
That he said to the Prophet (saw) "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf."  The Prophet (saw) said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: I heard Allah's Apostles when his uncle, Abu Talib had been mentioned in his presence, saying, "May be my intercession will help him (Abu Talib) on the Day of Resurrection so that he may be put in a shallow place in the Fire, with Fire reaching his ankles and causing his brain to boil." (Sahih Bukhari; Book #76, Hadith #569)



Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Hani on May 12, 2016, 08:50:09 PM
@muslim720,

I didn't read this whole thing, but knowing the Shia they'll keep debating for a very long time because they're extremely stubborn although their posts will have no content and they'll just jump around from topic to topic. Whenever you feel that this debate isn't going anywhere or has become a waste of time, let me know i'll close the thread.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 12, 2016, 09:14:16 PM
^JazakAllah khair brother!

I have no time to entertain them but sometimes it is fun to see them rendered helpless.  Give me a few more days with this Rafidhi.  He said he would convert me or get me to start doubting my beliefs.  Thus far, he has only assured me that like every Shia before him - and many more to come after him - he is fueled by emotions, not logic and proof.  Not a year goes by without them remembering Fadak but not one of their scholars - in all my visits to their mosques - has ever directed them to the verses that deal with Fay (since Fadak was Fay) found in Surah Al-Hashr.  And Naveen says we narrate a portion of the story, not the whole story!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 12, 2016, 09:34:38 PM
Dude is quoting the fabricated Bukhari trying to prove something. You don't realize that many enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) fabricated ahadeeth to take shots at Imam Ali (as), via his father (as).

Honestly, though, I truly believe Abu Bakr will be of the people of Hellfire. Here's some narrations about his daughter, it seems:

`A'ishah hanging in the Hellfire by her legs?

Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 12:45:09 AM
Quote
I am not concerned about who spoke to who.  I just want to know how are we to verify what a donkey said when his story goes as far back as to Nuh [as]?  Of course you are rendered helpless.  So next time before you point a finger at our hadiths, remember that there are four pointing right back at you.
It's not my fault you don't understand that the Prophet (saww) may've related it to Imam Ali (as). Oh, I forgot, you Bakris doubt the Prophet (saww), just as Umar (la) at Hudaybiyyah, right?

Quote
Yep, as per the narration.  You bragged Imam Ali [ra] was taught by so and so; well, in this narration, we know who the source of information was.  It was Ufayr (a donkey).

Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

Quote
BS!  Big load of BS!  Your Akhbari scholars considered the Qur'an to have been tampered with.  The same Akhbari scholars considered Al-Kafi to be 100% authentic.  The title itself, "Al-Kafi" (sufficient), gives it away.  While your later scholars distanced themselves from their predecessors and labeled them as "Akhbaris", your madhhab owes nearly everything to these "Akhbari" scholars to the point that their beliefs still linger among your present-day (Usooli) scholars.  Precisely the reason why your present-day scholars cannot, and will not, give a fatwa declaring those believing in tahreef to be outside the fold of Islam.  So your present-day scholars have given them (Akhbaris) a new label in order to distinguish themselves from them but at the end of the day, not a single Shia scholar worth the name has passed a fatwa which considers those who believe in tahreef to be kaaffir.  Why?  Because issuing such a fatwa (on these Akhbari scholars) will be tantamount to passing the same judgment on your entire madhhab (since the foundations of your madhhab stand on these Akhbari scholars).
Your Sunni scholars mention `A'ishah and the missing Quranic verses that were eaten by a goat, yet you have "Saheeh" books other than the Quran. It looks like the Nasibi-Bakri shot himself in the foot this time. Watch Nabeel Qureshi's debate on YouTube, and you'll learn about Sunni scholars' view on the Quran being changed. Your fabricated sect is weak; admit it.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 12:49:30 AM
Masood [Muslim720], you already lost the Fadak debate. Fatimah (as) either inherited property, or knowledge, both of which exposes the accursed tyrant Abu Bakr. If she inherited property, Fadak should be hers. If she inherited knowledge, it's another proof she knew more than Abu Bakr. If you try bringing the hadeeth you posted from al-Kafi, I'll refute you by teaching you that Imam Ali (as) also knew about Fadak being the property of Ahlul Bayt (as). That's why even the accursed Khulafah returned Fadak to the children of Fatimah (as) time and again.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 12:58:15 AM
Since you're confused about Haqq and gifts, let me try to explain it via logic. Some translators don't use the term "right," in the verse of Quran 17:26. Haqq has different meanings in Arabic. I'll share with you two translations of the verse:

17:26 PICKTHAL: Give the kinsman his due, and the needy, and the wayfarer, and squander not (thy wealth) in wantonness.
17:26 SHAKIR: And give to the near of kin his due and (to) the needy and the wayfarer, and do not squander wastefully.
----
From Imam Zayn al-`Abideen's (as) Risaalat al-Huqooq:

5) The Right of the Sight

The right of sight is that you lower it before everything which is unlawful to you and that you take heed whenever you look at anything. 1

5. حق البصر
وَأَمَّا حَقُّ بَصَرِكَ أن تُغْمِضَهُ عَمَّا لا يَحِلُّ لَكَ و تَعْتَبِر بالنَّظَرِ بِهِ.
-------
The sight has RIGHTS over us, and if one's eyes are getting weaker, the GIFT of eyeglasses can be given to them.



Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Ibn Yahya on May 13, 2016, 01:27:29 AM
^JazakAllah khair brother!

I have no time to entertain them but sometimes it is fun to see them rendered helpless.  Give me a few more days with this Rafidhi.  He said he would convert me or get me to start doubting my beliefs.  Thus far, he has only assured me that like every Shia before him - and many more to come after him - he is fueled by emotions, not logic and proof.  Not a year goes by without them remembering Fadak but not one of their scholars - in all my visits to their mosques - has ever directed them to the verses that deal with Fay (since Fadak was Fay) found in Surah Al-Hashr.  And Naveen says we narrate a portion of the story, not the whole story!

Well right now you're killing him akhi. You can just tell he's getting desperate as he's resorting to using videos and spamming
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Hadrami on May 13, 2016, 01:47:51 AM
It has been nearly a week that I have been asking you for the verses regarding Fadak from Qur'an and you have danced around the point without actually coming through on the challenge.

The Shia way to approach Fadak is as follows: claim that it belonged to Fatima [ra] ---> find obscure narrations, even if proven weak, to support her claim (more like to support the Shia lie for Fatima [ra] is innocent of what you attribute to her) ---> mangle up the Qur'an in order to make Qur'an 17:26 - although Meccan - fit the agenda.

The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah way is to approach every issue through the Qur'an, Sunnah and then authentic historical reports.  From the Qur'an alone, the most basic student of religion can conclude that Fadak cannot be inherited by, or gifted to, an individual or a group.  Since your scholars never adopted this honest approach, I suggest you grab a notepad and a pen to take notes. 

By the way, I have a feeling that you will reject the Qur'an in order to maintain Fatima's [ra] "infallibility".  You have been warned yet you will do it.  Trust me, I will be the one - at the end of it - to say, "didn't I tell you?"

Without further adieu, here is Fadak from the Qur'an.

There are two types of "booty" mentioned in the Qur'an.  There might be more but these two are of our interest.  Booty of war (ghanimah) is booty taken in war whereas Fay is booty acquired without a fight.  It is common knowledge that Fadak was obtained without any battles or fighting.  In other words, its transfer to Muslims was peaceful.

The Qur'an clearly outlines the rules for Fay and its management (distribution).

Surah Al-Hashr (chapter 59), verses 6 through 10 deal with Fay and since Fadak is Fay, let us look at these verses.

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from them - for this ye made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry: but God gives power to His apostles over any He pleases: and God has power over all things." (Qur'an 59:6)

How do we know this verse pertains to Fay (and Fadak is considered Fay as per its peaceful mode of transfer)?  Because it clearly is talking about that which Allah [swt] bestowed on His Apostle [saw] while he (or Muslims in general) made no expedition, with cavalry or camelry, for it.  Hence, the verse is in connection to Fay and Fadak is Fay.

"What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from the people of the townships,- belongs to God,- to His Apostle and to kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer; In order that it may not (merely) make a circuit between the wealthy among you. So take what the Apostle assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear God; for God is strict in Punishment." (Qur'an 59:7)

After naming who the beneficiaries are from such properties, Allah [swt] says, "in order that it may not make a circuit between the wealthy among you".  In other words, this property must not be solely owned by one individual or an elite group.  Therefore, the Qur'an leaves no room for any further argument.  Gifting Fadak to anyone, or giving it away as inheritance, would be a violation of the Qur'an since it would have remained with one person (or a few) and its wealth would have made a circuit between them.

Let us read further.

"(Some part is due) to the indigent Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding God and His Apostle: such are indeed the sincere ones

But those who before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith,- show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot). And those saved from the covetousness of their own souls,- they are the ones that achieve prosperity.

And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancour (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 59:8-10)

Let us recap those to whom Fay belongs.  To make it more specific to our discussion, these are the rightful beneficiaries of Fadak since Fadak is Fay (due to its peaceful transfer to Muslims).

Allah [swt], His Apostle [saw], kindred and orphans, the needy and the wayfarer (as per Qur'an 59:7), Muhajirs [as per Qur'an 59:8], Ansar (as per Qur'an 59:9) and even Tabi'een (as per Qur'an 59:10).

Now, Mr. Rafidhi, based on the fact that the Qur'an clearly forbids such properties to be exclusively owned (Qur'an 59:7) and it names various beneficiaries, on what basis do you write Fadak for Fatima [ra]? 

Also, why is it that your scholars never ever quote these verses in regards to Fadak?  Now you know who likes to present part of the picture, not the whole ;)


I suggest Hani deleted all posts after this one above. I dont think it has been answered, otherwise this thread will be just another question about topic A, reply about topic B
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 02:29:41 AM
.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Hani on May 13, 2016, 02:36:52 AM
But Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's son is al-Qasim, who is a lover of Abu Bakr and was raised by `A'ishah, he's the direct grandfather of Ja`far.

: p

I recommend you guys stick to one topic lol.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 02:42:04 AM
.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 02:46:49 AM
But Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's son is al-Qasim, who is a lover of Abu Bakr and was raised by `A'ishah, he's the direct grandfather of Ja`far.

: p

I recommend you guys stick to one topic lol.
Abu Lahab (la) was related to Prophet Muhammad (saww), but the former is of the people of Hellfire. Lineage won't save you when you have no piety. Hence, back to my main point: out of your 4 Bakri schools of Fiqh, all of them came after our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). Your new sect innovated after our Islam was already established.

Quote
Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).
This is from his book Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) And the Heart, Rending Episode of Fadak, in regards to Quran 17:26

Because this verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S), during his lifetime, gave Fadak to Fatimah (s.a.). **

**Al-Durr Al-Manthur [Sunni Tafsir] vol. 4 pg. 177 الدُرّ المنثور، مجلد 4، ص 177.
----
Your point, nullified.

Quote
I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].
This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la). Yes, thats our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 02:50:32 AM
.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 03:11:29 AM
Quote
Your post has two lies.  First, your allegation that I do not know the Qur'an.  Two, that the Prophet [saw] treated everyone equally, even the Kuffaar.  While your second lie has truth in it, it is the twist that I will address which is a by-product of you projecting your own ignorance on to something that I thought you would at least understand, if not admit!
Please open your eyes and heart. I didn't mention "equally." I wrote "justly." Big difference...

Quote
Let us see what is one of the most basic guidelines for marriage in the Qur'an.

"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."  (Surah An-Nur, verse 3)

I am not an Arab and my Arabic is zero but the Arabic word used there is "Mushrikat".  Now you believe that Abu Bakr [ra] was not a Muslim and by extension - plus fact that you consider Aisha [ra] to be an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] - you consider his daughter to be a disbeliever.  Therefore, you must concede that the Prophet [saw] married a "mushrika" and violated the Qur'an so as to show fairness to everyone, including kuffaar.

Our Prophet [saw] never married a disbeliever.  Doing so would be a violation of the Qur'an.  Either you did not know that or tried to morph my post into something you could respond to.
Please don't be like ISIS, trying to interpret Quran yourself. This is why we follow the people of Thaqalayn (as).

This is one Tafseer of Quran 24:3

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 24:3]
Islam prescribes a healthy and orderly sex life, for men and for women, at all times-before marriage, during marriage and after the dissolution of marriage-in order to maintain a respectable society. Those guilty of adultery or fornication are shut out of the marriage circle of chaste men and women so that the gross immoral contamination should not spread among the healthy and normal members of the society.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

This verse refers to the general trend and tendency of those men and women who can be described as habitual offenders. Hurrima implies that the believers dislike and detest such people. Nikah means wedlock as well as cohabitation. It is not a legislative ordinance, therefore there is no abrogation.
---
If `A'ishah did commit Zina, it would've happened after Rasool (saww) passed away, as we know of Talha's fondness for her. We can judge people on the apparent, and not what they hide in their hearts. Many people that have accepted Islam have become apostates; check the hadeeth of the Pond of Kawthar, in your "Saheeh" books, and you'll see how many Sahabah will be turned away and rejected.

As for bringing tribes together, Abu Bakr [ra] was from the Quraysh (no need to bring tribes together) and he was one of the first adults to accept Islam.  By marrying Aisha [ra], what severed ties did the Prophet [saw] mend with Abu Bakr [ra] except to strengthen his [saw] friendship with As-Siddeeq [ra]?
[/quote]

Quote
Really?  But they encouraged it, according to your books.  Far are the Imams [ra] from what you attribute to them.  In other words, they [ra] are innocent of your Shia-ism!

From Hasan ibn Ali: “This matter that you are waiting for, wouldn’t happen until some of you (shia) wouldn’t disown from others from you, and some of you would curse others from you, and some of you would spit in the faces of others from you, and some of you would testify to disbelief of others from you.”  (Kitab al-Ghaybah p 438)

Reread it until you understand it. It doesn't mean our A'immah (as) condoned such acts. You clearly have issues with contextual comprehension.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 04:06:25 AM
You accuse Umar [ra] of not being smart.  Also, as per your accusations, Umar [ra] usurped Fadak and stole the Caliphate from Imam Ali [ra].  So you believe that Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] were outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men" ;D  I wonder where that puts Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] in terms of smartness, to be outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men".

Rafidhi shot himself in the foot!

Quote
I already did. You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians. The Christians will keep talking nonsense, and think they won. It's similar to your weak tactics.

Did you even read the verses from Surah Al-Hashr?  Call your selfie-queen Facebook friend for help.  But knowing your lot, I am being reminded of Iblees.  He misguides people and then leaves them high-and-dry when they need help.  He did something similar to you when you reached out for help :D


Let us see whose feet are in Hellfire, as per Rasulullah [saw].

Quote
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222:
Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:
That he said to the Prophet (saw) "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf."  The Prophet (saw) said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: I heard Allah's Apostles when his uncle, Abu Talib had been mentioned in his presence, saying, "May be my intercession will help him (Abu Talib) on the Day of Resurrection so that he may be put in a shallow place in the Fire, with Fire reaching his ankles and causing his brain to boil." (Sahih Bukhari; Book #76, Hadith #569)

Your own Sunni scholars have recorded otherwise. This is what you run into when you follow the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as). From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, by Ibn al-Hadeed:

Abu Dharr al-Ghaffari thus says about Abu Talib:

والله الذي لا إله إلا هو ما مات أبوطالب رضى على عنه حتى أسلم.
“By Allah other than Whom there is no god! Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) did not depart this life without having accepted Islam.”

and

Imam al-Baqir (‘a) says:

لو وضع ايمان أبي طالب في كفّة وميزان إيمان هذا الخلق في الكفّة الأخرى لرجّح إيمانه."
“If the faith of Abu Talib is placed in one pan of a scale and the faith of this creation in the other pan, his faith will tip the scale in his favor.”

and

Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) narrates from the Messenger of Allah (S):

"إن أصحاب الكهف أسروا الإيمان وأظهروا الكفر فأتاهم الله أجرهم مرتين ، وإن أباطالب أسرّ الإيمان وأظهر الشرك فأتاه الله أجره مرّتين."
Verily, the Companions of the Cave {Ashab al-Kahf} hid their faith (on account of some expediency) and pretended to be infidels; so, Allah gave them double reward. Abu Talib also concealed his faith and (due to certain expediency) feigned polytheism; so, Allah granted him double reward.

Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 04:36:14 AM
This is from his book Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) And the Heart, Rending Episode of Fadak, in regards to Quran 17:26

Because this verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S), during his lifetime, gave Fadak to Fatimah (s.a.). **

**Al-Durr Al-Manthur [Sunni Tafsir] vol. 4 pg. 177 الدُرّ المنثور، مجلد 4، ص 177.
----
Your point, nullified.

Someone is in loser-denial.  The verse is Meccan - revealed years before Fadak fell into Muslim hands - and has no bearing on Fadak.  Your reference (from Al-Durr Al-Manthur) has already been refuted.

It amazes me to see you accept a weak narration (from Durr Al-Manthur) over Shia commentaries of the Qur'an which clearly rule the verse and the surah to be Meccan. 

Quote
This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la).

Another Rawaafidh lie without proof.  There is not a single authentic report which identifies the killers of Uthman [ra].  Now, time for a history lesson and some logical deduction.

The origin of Khawaarij was when the "First Fitnah" took place between Muslims over the successorship of Prophet Muhammad [saw].  These Khawaarij considered Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] were rightly guided but believed Uthman [ra] had deviated from the path of justice and they considered Uthman [ra] liable to be killed or displaced.  Therefore, while we may not know the specific individuals, it is quite clear that Khawaarij played a major role in the killing of Uthman [ra].

Now let us discuss why Shias and Sunnis loathe the Khawaarij.  Among many things, the Khawaarij are loathed for their hatred for Imam Ali [ra].  Yes, initially the Khawaarij fought alongside Imam Ali [ra] but they soon turned against him.  By suggesting that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] was responsible for the killing of Uthman [ra], you are placing him among the Khawaarij.  And do I have to remind you that Imam Ali [ra] was also killed by the Khawaarij?  Therefore, you are attributing nasb to an ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra].

Quote
The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

It is clear that when Imam Ali [ra] made arbitration with Muawiyah [ra], the Khawaarij turned on him.  So you are contradicting yourself here.  If Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra], then - by logic - he was a Khawaarij or had Khawaarij leanings.  In that case, he (Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr) could not have fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra].  But if you insist that he fought alongside Imam Ali [ra], then he was not a Khawaarij and therefore innocent of Uthman's [ra] murder.

That is called bursting your delusional bubble.  Had you known basic Islamic history, you would not have made a fool out of yourself on a public forum like you just did.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 04:49:38 AM
If `A'ishah did commit Zina, it would've happened after Rasool (saww) passed away, as we know of Talha's fondness for her.

Moderators, please do not admonish him for his comment.

Naveen, can you provide proof for this?  By the way, it is hurtful when I see children of mutah (like your scholars, et cetera) accuse one of the Mothers of Believers [ra] of zina!

On the contrary, read what Ammar [ra] said about her.

Sayyidah Ayesha (R.A) narrates: Jibril (A.S) came in my appearance on a piece of green silk cloth before the Prophet (PBUH) and said, “this is your wife in this world and the Hereafter”.
Source: Sunnan Tirimdhi, Hadith # 3880 & Grading: SAHIH.

2. Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al−Aasadi: When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al−Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al−Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, `Aisha has moved to Al−Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him or her (`Aisha).
Source: Sahih bukhari 9.220 & Grading: SAHIH.

3. Narrated Abu Wail: ‘Ammar stood on the pulpit at Kufa and mentioned ‘Aisha and her coming (to Busra) and said, “She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter, but you people are being put to test in this issue.”
Source: Sahih bukhari 9.221 & Grading: SAHIH

Care to explain how the Prophet [saw] would be with Aisha [ra] in the Hereafter after what you have accused her of?

Quote
Reread it until you understand it. It doesn't mean our A'immah (as) condoned such acts. You clearly have issues with contextual comprehension.

I understand that narration.  I am only holding a mirror to your face.  All of us can play the deception game that you are so bad at. 
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 05:05:23 AM
You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians.

There is not a single debater in your entire history like Ahmed Deedat [rah] who lived in apartheid South Africa and spoke against Christian missionaries.  It is funny that you should say such a thing when all the Rawaafidh I know watch his videos to refute Christians.  Our scholars taught your lot as to how to grow a spine and stand up to Christians and not even a thank you....you ungrateful brood of snakes!

Quote
Your own Sunni scholars have recorded otherwise. This is what you run into when you follow the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as). From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, by Ibn al-Hadeed:

Since when did Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah become a Sunni book? 

Ibn Kathir [rah] wrote, "Ibn Abil Hadid al-'Iraqi: the poet 'Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, 'Izz ad-Din al-Mada'ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi'i.  He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes.  He was born at Mada'in in the year 586.  Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah.  He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-'Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi'ism in common.(al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82))."

Also, read this: "The author of 'Rawdat Al-Jannat' (5/19) referred to him as: 'He is loyal to people of the Household of infallibility and purity (Ahlul Bayt Al-Isma’ wal Tahara) even though he used to appear in the costume of Ahlul Sunnah'.  In 'Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab', Al-Qumi outlines the staunch and fanatic Shiite background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in Al-Madain and then when he moved to Baghdad his fanaticism reduced and was inclined to Mutazilla."
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Hani on May 13, 2016, 05:07:03 AM
Don't worry bro, Shia have complete freedom here, he won't be admonished ... by us at least.

BTW, those narrations about abu Talib they contradict, one says he was a believer hiding his faith the other says he never died until he accepted Islam. So which was it? Was he hiding his faith the whole time OR did he accept Islam before he died?

PS. Ibn abi al-Hadid is a Mu`tazili with great Shia leanings.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 05:08:40 AM
Don't worry bro, Shia have complete freedom here, he won't be admonished ... by us at least.

BTW, those narrations about abu Talib they contradict, one says he was a believer hiding his faith the other says he never died until he accepted Islam. So which was it? Was he hiding his faith the whole time OR did he accept Islam before he died?

I didn't read past the point when he tried to pass Sharh Nahjul Balagha off as a Sunni text!
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 12:55:05 PM
This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la). Yes, thats our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

Since your lies are always so grotesque, there are numerous ways to shatter them.  Many a times, I forget one or two rebuttals since I get caught up in mentioning the rest.  But as I was driving to work this morning, I remembered one fact that I forgot to mention (regarding the killing of Uthman [ra] ).

You want us to believe that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra] and since he also fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra], therefore, he is worthy of your praise.  The picture you have painted of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] certainly makes him out to be a "lover of Ahlul Bayt [ra]" (per Shia standards).  Therefore, by applying logic to your own set standard, anyone that defended Uthman [ra] must have been an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] and harboring nasb.

So who tried to defend Uthman [ra]?  Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra].  Upon whose orders?  Upon the orders of Imam Ali [ra].

Now you have to choose.  Was Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr praiseworthy for allegedly killing Uthman [ra]?  If yes, then you must renounce Imam Ali [ra] (for ordering his sons to protect the third Caliph) and Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra] (for trying to protect the third Caliph) OR you should admit that protecting Uthman [ra] was something that even Ahlul Bayt [ra] and your first three Imams [ra] saw as a necessity in which case you have to concede that you contradicted your first three Imams [ra] (by praising someone for allegedly murdering the third Caliph whom your own three Imams [ra] tried to protect).

Pick one Rafidhi; it is a lose-lose situation for you :D
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 01:29:34 PM
Quote
Someone is in loser-denial.  The verse is Meccan - revealed years before Fadak fell into Muslim hands - and has no bearing on Fadak.  Your reference (from Al-Durr Al-Manthur) has already been refuted.

It amazes me to see you accept a weak narration (from Durr Al-Manthur) over Shia commentaries of the Qur'an which clearly rule the verse and the surah to be Meccan.
 
You like to pick and choose, but when I give you more from the Shia scholar you're trying to use as your proof, you deny it. I know these Bakri tactics. Whatever you don't agree with, even within your own so-called Sunni sect, you'd disagree with or call it weak. I already explained how Quraan has many layers. This is, again, why we stick to the interpretations of the people of Thaqalayn, and not the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Quote
Another Rawaafidh lie without proof.  There is not a single authentic report which identifies the killers of Uthman [ra].  Now, time for a history lesson and some logical deduction.
You want authentic from your fabricated Bukhari or Muslim?

Quote
The origin of Khawaarij was when the "First Fitnah" took place between Muslims over the successorship of Prophet Muhammad [saw]. These Khawaarij considered Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] were rightly guided but believed Uthman [ra] had deviated from the path of justice and they considered Uthman [ra] liable to be killed or displaced.  Therefore, while we may not know the specific individuals, it is quite clear that Khawaarij played a major role in the killing of Uthman [ra].

Now let us discuss why Shias and Sunnis loathe the Khawaarij.  Among many things, the Khawaarij are loathed for their hatred for Imam Ali [ra].  Yes, initially the Khawaarij fought alongside Imam Ali [ra] but they soon turned against him.  By suggesting that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] was responsible for the killing of Uthman [ra], you are placing him among the Khawaarij.  And do I have to remind you that Imam Ali [ra] was also killed by the Khawaarij?  Therefore, you are attributing nasb to an ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra].

The Khawaaij, I think, are very similar to your accursed Sunni leaders. They all betrayed our Ahlul Bayt (as). There were many Shias that were against Uthmaan's (la) unjust ways. People saw Uthmaan's (la) tyranny and his favoritism towards Bani Umayyah, the cursed tree, mentioned in Quran, according to many ahadeeth. Uthmaan (la) was killed because many Shias and Sunnis hated him.

When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad’s religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad’s religion.”Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman).

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184

Quote
It is clear that when Imam Ali [ra] made arbitration with Muawiyah [ra], the Khawaarij turned on him.  So you are contradicting yourself here.  If Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra], then - by logic - he was a Khawaarij or had Khawaarij leanings.  In that case, he (Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr) could not have fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra].  But if you insist that he fought alongside Imam Ali [ra], then he was not a Khawaarij and therefore innocent of Uthman's [ra] murder.

That is called bursting your delusional bubble.  Had you known basic Islamic history, you would not have made a fool out of yourself on a public forum like you just did.
You're conflating two separate issues. The killing of Uthmaan (la) doesn't make the suspects into Khawaarij. Making a fool out of myself? Please stop running your deceiving mouth. It's pretty evident you don't even know what Sunni historians have said about your accursed leader.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 01:38:29 PM
Quote
Naveen, can you provide proof for this?  By the way, it is hurtful when I see children of mutah (like your scholars, et cetera) accuse one of the Mothers of Believers [ra] of zina!
I can try to search later for any such proofs. We know how the children of Misyaar and Jihaad al-Nikaah "(like your scholars, etc.)" like to lie and be hypocrites.

Quote
Care to explain how the Prophet [saw] would be with Aisha [ra] in the Hereafter after what you have accused her of?
You don't even know how to debate. How can you use your own Sunni fabricated ahadeeth and try to use it as proof? I already shared a video, which alludes to your accursed `A'ishah hanging in Hellfire by her legs, etc.


Quote
I understand that narration.  I am only holding a mirror to your face.  All of us can play the deception game that you are so bad at.
Haha...this guy...

I may be bad at deceiving others, unlike you, who's seems to be a very good deceiver [Dajjal]. Oops. You slipped-up, didn't you?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 01:44:02 PM
Quote
There is not a single debater in your entire history like Ahmed Deedat [rah] who lived in apartheid South Africa and spoke against Christian missionaries.  It is funny that you should say such a thing when all the Rawaafidh I know watch his videos to refute Christians.  Our scholars taught your lot as to how to grow a spine and stand up to Christians and not even a thank you....you ungrateful brood of snakes!
I actually like Ahmed Deedat's debates against the Christians. I am a fan of his. This doesn't mean he died on the correct path [Shiism]. I respect his hard work. I don't like he'd do as well today, as he did back in the day, because nowadays, the weak Bukhari and Muslim are translated, and that's why you see Bakris [so-called Sunnis] being fiercely attacked for their inconsistencies, by Christian debaters. By the way, it's easy to debate Christians, in my opinion. He would surely lose if he debated a knowledgeable Shia scholar, but you insincere Bakri terrorist followers always seem unthankful to those who're most helpful to you. Look at the history of your accursed leaders. Astaghfirullah!


Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 13, 2016, 02:00:54 PM
Quote
You want us to believe that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra] and since he also fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra], therefore, he is worthy of your praise.  The picture you have painted of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] certainly makes him out to be a "lover of Ahlul Bayt [ra]" (per Shia standards).  Therefore, by applying logic to your own set standard, anyone that defended Uthman [ra] must have been an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] and harboring nasb.

So who tried to defend Uthman [ra]?  Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra].  Upon whose orders?  Upon the orders of Imam Ali [ra].

Now you have to choose.  Was Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr praiseworthy for allegedly killing Uthman [ra]?  If yes, then you must renounce Imam Ali [ra] (for ordering his sons to protect the third Caliph) and Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra] (for trying to protect the third Caliph) OR you should admit that protecting Uthman [ra] was something that even Ahlul Bayt [ra] and your first three Imams [ra] saw as a necessity in which case you have to concede that you contradicted your first three Imams [ra] (by praising someone for allegedly murdering the third Caliph whom your own three Imams [ra] tried to protect).

Pick one Rafidhi; it is a lose-lose situation for you :D
Is it really a lose-lose situation for me just like I cornered you with my Fadak arguments? Alhamdulillah. First of all, if Imam Hasan and Husayn (as) were really there guarding Uthmaan (la), what made `A'ishah and Co. (la) blame Imam Ali (as) for the killing of Uthmaan (la)? 

It looks like even the misguided Wahhabi Ibn Taymiyyah said the following in this regard:
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

If Imam Ali (as) sent his sons (as) to protect Uthmaan (la), it may've been to show the world that you cannot blame Imam Ali (as), as your accursed leaders did. Imam Ali (as) many a times tried to save unnecessary shedding of blood. Especially, if it would cause a lot of problems to the Ummah. That's even though Uthmaan (la) deserved it. You cannot oppress the Ummah and expect to be left untouched. The people were angry. It's like the story of the baby, the 2 mothers, and Prophet Sulaymaan (as); in this case the general Muslim Ummah was like the baby. Please read the parable, as you seem unaware of the wisdom behind such stances of our dear Imam Ali (as).

Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 02:23:06 PM
You want authentic from your fabricated Bukhari or Muslim?

Please!  More than your verbal diarrhea, I want you to quote our sources.  So far it has only landed you in embarrassing situations which you fail to acknowledge because you have no shame.

Quote
Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184

Here is another embarrassment for you.

Before copy-pasting from volume 15 of Tareekh at-Tabari, maybe you should have read his introduction in which he wrote, "This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it.  In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.  I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Translation, at-Tabari (rah) only reported all the narrations that arrived to him (on any matter) without authenticating them.  He left that task for those who specialize in the field.  In other words, it is pretty common to find weak narrations and fabrications in Tareekh at-Tabari.

Quote
You're conflating two separate issues. The killing of Uthmaan (la) doesn't make the suspects into Khawaarij.

For the time being, I will agree with you.  But what does that make you when Imam Ali [ra] sent his sons to protect him while you are cursing him?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 02:29:08 PM
I can try to search later for any such proofs. We know how the children of Misyaar and Jihaad al-Nikaah "(like your scholars, etc.)" like to lie and be hypocrites.

Well, the difference, Rafidhi, that you fail to grasp is this.  Our scholars do not encourage Misyar.  If not for Rawaafidh like you running their mouths, I would not have even known about Misyar.  But your scholars and madhhab encourage Mutah to the point that there is a narration which says that if you commit Mutah once, you attain the rank of Imam Hussain [ra].  Twice and you attain the rank of Imam Hassan [ra].  Thrice and you are at Imam Ali's [ra] level.  And if you do it four times, you are on par with the Prophet [saw].

So let us act on this.  I am willing to accept Shi'ism.  I will come to Imam Ali Center and let me see how many of your brethren there would offer me their sisters in Mutah.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 02:34:18 PM
I actually like Ahmed Deedat's debates against the Christians. I am a fan of his. This doesn't mean he died on the correct path [Shiism]. I respect his hard work. I don't like he'd do as well today, as he did back in the day, because nowadays, the weak Bukhari and Muslim are translated, and that's why you see Bakris [so-called Sunnis] being fiercely attacked for their inconsistencies, by Christian debaters. By the way, it's easy to debate Christians, in my opinion. He would surely lose if he debated a knowledgeable Shia scholar, but you insincere Bakri terrorist followers always seem unthankful to those who're most helpful to you. Look at the history of your accursed leaders. Astaghfirullah!

Of course you like Ahmed Deedat [rah].  After all, it must be nice to see a Muslim standing up for Islam when all your life you have experienced cowards hiding behind taqiyyah.  Having said that, I am sure you have not watched the Al-Mustakillah debates between Shias and Sunnis.  Your Shia bigshots like Qazwini, Al-Tijani, et cetera, ran with their tails tucked between their legs.  Those videos are on YouTube.  Your helpless brethren were sending letters to their marja'as begging for someone to save them some face but as your scholars kept disappearing (from the debates), the marja'as stopped responding. 

I mean this happened in our lifetime so have an ounce of shame before lying in broad daylight.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 13, 2016, 02:41:56 PM
Is it really a lose-lose situation for me just like I cornered you with my Fadak arguments? Alhamdulillah.

Cornered me?  With what?  You have not, and will not, dare comment on the verses from Surah Al-Hashr because you know it will expose you as someone who believes in "infallibility" of Fatima [ra] more than you obey the Qur'an.

Quote
It looks like even the misguided Wahhabi Ibn Taymiyyah said the following in this regard:
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

Source?

Quote
If Imam Ali (as) sent his sons (as) to protect Uthmaan (la), it may've been to show the world that you cannot blame Imam Ali (as), as your accursed leaders did.

It may have been?  If we were to take everything on "may have been", then it also may have been to protect Uthman [ra].  After all, your "may have been" is no more justified than mine except I come with authentic proof and you come with fabricated reports.

Quote
Imam Ali (as) many a times tried to save unnecessary shedding of blood.

Is that why he stood by and watched his wife get assaulted? 
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 14, 2016, 01:57:11 PM
Quote
Please!  More than your verbal diarrhea, I want you to quote our sources.  So far it has only landed you in embarrassing situations which you fail to acknowledge because you have no shame.
I have no shame? You're the one giving half-stories. SubhanAllah @ these people. Who do they think they're fooling?

Here is another embarrassment for you.

Before copy-pasting from volume 15 of Tareekh at-Tabari, maybe you should have read his introduction in which he wrote, "This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it.  In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.  I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Translation, at-Tabari (rah) only reported all the narrations that arrived to him (on any matter) without authenticating them.  He left that task for those who specialize in the field.  In other words, it is pretty common to find weak narrations and fabrications in Tareekh at-Tabari.[/quote]

If only you'd keep your mind open when it came to Bukhari and Muslim, but no, it seems you become irrational when it comes to your main books. Many fabrications are found in your main books, even according to Sunni scholars, I'll copy and paste it here:

a sunni Scholar argues that

653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.
His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).

Firstly I want to know considering Sahih Bukhari a 100% authentic Book by sunni scholars is true or not? and if yes is it an Islamic fitwa or it is mostly for policies of Sunni Kings during history and accepted as a rule today? or has other reason?

Here is an article but in Persian containing names of many sunni scholars with evidence critiquing Sahih Bukhari and not considering in 100% authentic:

http://hawzah.org/FA/articleview.html?ArticleID=79418

translating all of it takes much time. and maybe you can read it using google translator.

for example this article says Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Tahzib al-Tahzib volume 10 page 461 (تهذیب التهذیب، ج 10، ص 461) says there are some narrators in Sahih Bukhari that Muslim never consider them reliable and even critiqued them and did not narrate any hadith from them. for example one narrator Muslim never considered him reliable is نعیم بن حماد مروزی. some sunni scholars considered him reliable but still many not. I think evidences from sunni books mentioned in this article prove there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.

Quote
For the time being, I will agree with you.  But what does that make you when Imam Ali [ra] sent his sons to protect him while you are cursing him?
Imaam Ali (as) was an infallible, so he may be privy to certain knowledges that other laymen didn't know, of course, dependent upon Allah (swt). Perhaps it was willed that he show it as such, so that the enemies cannot blame him, yet they still did. Ironic, eh?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 14, 2016, 02:09:38 PM
Quote
Well, the difference, Rafidhi, that you fail to grasp is this.  Our scholars do not encourage Misyar.  If not for Rawaafidh like you running their mouths, I would not have even known about Misyar.  But your scholars and madhhab encourage Mutah to the point that there is a narration which says that if you commit Mutah once, you attain the rank of Imam Hussain [ra].  Twice and you attain the rank of Imam Hassan [ra].  Thrice and you are at Imam Ali's [ra] level.  And if you do it four times, you are on par with the Prophet [saw].
It's an honor that you call me Rafidhi, for I reject the main criminal Sunni leaders. Thank you, sir. I'm glad your scholars don't encourage Misyaar. ISIS is said to promote Jihaad al-Nikaah, and the women who do so allegedly attain paradise, yet they also force them into these "rape" relations? This is part of what happens, as a byproduct, when you betray Ahlul Bayt (as). I wish they'd promote Mut`ah, and not follow its banning from their accursed leader, Umar ibn al-Khattab. Keep in mind, our ahadeeth are not all Saheeh, and we also have contexts with which we're to keep consistent, unlike Bakri "Saheeh" fabricated texts.


Quote
So let us act on this.  I am willing to accept Shi'ism.  I will come to Imam Ali Center and let me see how many of your brethren there would offer me their sisters in Mutah.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd be willing to convert just for Dunyaa's pleasures. I wonder if you're currently getting Jihaadi Nikaahs from kidnapped women, for your following and promoting such Nasibi beliefs. Anything's possible with a Bakri, I think. By the way, we have ahadeeth that pretty much tell us that we cannot give our women to Bakris, just so you don't use these weak arguments again, in shaa'llah.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 14, 2016, 02:17:03 PM
Quote
Of course you like Ahmed Deedat [rah].

Be careful, sir, and please pay attention. I mentioned I like his DEBATES; it doesn't necessarily mean I like him. I don't hate him, either; I'm indifferent towards him. I do know that he does use some weak arguments, but overall, he is a good debater versus CHRISTIANS.

Quote
After all, it must be nice to see a Muslim standing up for Islam when all your life you have experienced cowards hiding behind taqiyyah.

We have narrations that show our A'immah (as) debating Christians. Nice try, but you fail, yet again.

Quote
Having said that, I am sure you have not watched the Al-Mustakillah debates between Shias and Sunnis.  Your Shia bigshots like Qazwini, Al-Tijani, et cetera, ran with their tails tucked between their legs.  Those videos are on YouTube.  Your helpless brethren were sending letters to their marja'as begging for someone to save them some face but as your scholars kept disappearing (from the debates), the marja'as stopped responding. 

I mean this happened in our lifetime so have an ounce of shame before lying in broad daylight.
I have never heard of this alleged debate. Is it available in English, so that I can refute it? Mind you, my Arabic isn't that strong, but I know the Bakri arguments are very weak. Alhamdulillah. You do realize Fadak TV was willing to even pay Bakri scholars to debate them, because it seems all Bakris are scared. Call them. They know Arabic, and they'll embarrass you and your leaders, in my opinion. If you want to lose more Bakri followers, I dare you to call them.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 14, 2016, 02:29:49 PM
Quote
Cornered me?  With what?  You have not, and will not, dare comment on the verses from Surah Al-Hashr because you know it will expose you as someone who believes in "infallibility" of Fatima [ra] more than you obey the Qur'an.
I can comment on that as I have to all your other allegations made thus far, unless I mistakingly miss something. I don't run from any topics. Alhamdulillah. Please bring forward the verses, so that I can explain to you what I get from it, according to the teachings of Quran and Ahlul Bayt (as).

Quote
Source?

Ras al-Hussain page 205:

كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

Quote
It may have been?  If we were to take everything on "may have been", then it also may have been to protect Uthman [ra].  After all, your "may have been" is no more justified than mine except I come with authentic proof and you come with fabricated reports.
Yes, I say "may've been" because I don't claim to know-it-all like you. I have some humility, alhamdulillah. Please know that just because you claim to be sure, you can surely be wrong. Be humble, sir.

Quote
Is that why he stood by and watched his wife get assaulted?
War involved the shedding of multiple lives, as `A'ishah (la) is said to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 17,000 people at Jamal. Fatimah (as) endured what she did, for the sake of Rasool's (saww) advice of remaining patient, etc., to Imam Ali (as). It's like the parable of Prophet Sulaymaan (as), the 2 mothers, and the baby. The open-enemies of Islam would've taken advantage of the situation, had Imam Ali (as) killed the accursed Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 14, 2016, 02:35:15 PM
They must know they're losing, hence his buddies TRYING to help. Maashaa'llah. You won't win, Masood. There are so many inconsistencies in your faith. I think you know it, too, but are afraid to admit it. Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it, in psychology. Anyhow, my semester is about to start in University, so to the onlookers, please pardon me as I won't be able to participate as much as I'd like. My time is short, and I have better things to do than to debate people who are, in my opinion, very insincere, and big deceivers. Alhamdulillah, I'm pretty confident I can refute all the false information they spread about Shiism as I have been doing thus far. I pray we all find the truth. I cannot hate this Muslim720 [Masood] guy, because I think he's just a victim of brainwashing and conditioning. May Allah (swt) be with us.

Let the people be the jury, and please don't erase this thread, lest you accept your defeat.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 09:23:56 PM
a sunni Scholar argues that

This is not the scope of our discussion.  Like I stray dog, you like to lick every thing that catches your eye so you brought up Tareekh at-Tabari.  I entertained your point but you have to do one of the following two things.

1.  Prove what you shared was authentic.

2.  Apologize for your failed attempt at lying.

Quote
Imaam Ali (as) was an infallible, so he may be privy to certain knowledges that other laymen didn't know

Your corrupted beliefs are best kept to yourself.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 09:29:44 PM
It's an honor that you call me Rafidhi, for I reject the main criminal Sunni leaders.

Good!  Now I wish you had elected another name for you guys.  You would have gladly adopted it.  The endless possibilities.....makes me chuckle.

Quote
Thank you, sir. I'm glad your scholars don't encourage Misyaar. ISIS is said to promote Jihaad al-Nikaah, and the women who do so allegedly attain paradise, yet they also force them into these "rape" relations?

Why do you keep bringing up ISIS?  Let me take you to my teachers who hate ISIS more than you and can refute them better than your entire madhhab can.

Quote
Keep in mind, our ahadeeth are not all Saheeh

Your Akhbari scholars believed in their authenticity, 100%.

Quote
It doesn't surprise me that you'd be willing to convert just for Dunyaa's pleasures.

No, imbecile, I am saying all that to appeal to your gheerah, to wake you up.  Why is it that your scholars encourage mutah but won't offer their own daughters and sisters?  This is like a person who urges people to give in charity while pocketing as much money as possible without giving a penny in charity himself.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 09:33:02 PM
I have never heard of this alleged debate. Is it available in English, so that I can refute it?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you have not brought an ounce of anything useful to counter, let alone refute, me and you want to "refute" those who made your scholars run for cover.  Top notch comedy!

Quote
If you want to lose more Bakri followers, I dare you to call them.

Do you watch Fadak TV?  Do you know their arguments?  Line them up!  So far you have been made look silly.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 09:49:25 PM

Ras al-Hussain page 205:

كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

Uthman [ra] had no issues with Imam Ali [ra].  Two refutations on logic and evidence.

1.  In fact, the association of the word "Shia" with Uthman [ra] makes me doubt the nature of these narrations.  The reason being the first time the term "Shia" came into play was when Imam Ali [ra] and Muawiyah [ra] clashed.  The two parties were "Shia of Ali" and "Shia of Muawiyah".  Even Imam Khomeini was of the opinion that Shia-Sunni divide took place when Imam Ali [ra] was nominated the Caliph, not at the time of the passing away of the Prophet [saw] (as is common belief). 

2.  As far as Minhaj ul-Sunnah is concerned, it was written by Ibn Taymiyyah [rah] to refute the Shias.  And he had a pattern in that book.  He would quote Shia allegations and then refute them.  It is quite possible that what you have shared from his book were not Ibn Taymiyyah's [rah] words....rather he was quoting the Shia charges in order to follow it up with a refutation.

Quote
Yes, I say "may've been" because I don't claim to know-it-all like you. I have some humility, alhamdulillah. Please know that just because you claim to be sure, you can surely be wrong. Be humble, sir.

I have nothing against you.  I consider Shias to be Muslims and a lot of them are better Muslims than me.  But a Rawaafidh....hard to be humble around one!

Quote
War involved the shedding of multiple lives, as `A'ishah (la) is said to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 17,000 people at Jamal.

You like to quote fabrications from the books of history.  Why don't you pay attention to the same books of history when they clearly, by way of sound proof, establish the fact that Aisha [ra] did not leave to wage war but to broker peace (because she was the Mother of Believers and all Muslims respected her).
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 09:55:37 PM
They must know they're losing, hence his buddies TRYING to help. Maashaa'llah. You won't win, Masood. There are so many inconsistencies in your faith. I think you know it, too, but are afraid to admit it. Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it, in psychology. Anyhow, my semester is about to start in University, so to the onlookers, please pardon me as I won't be able to participate as much as I'd like. My time is short, and I have better things to do than to debate people who are, in my opinion, very insincere, and big deceivers. Alhamdulillah, I'm pretty confident I can refute all the false information they spread about Shiism as I have been doing thus far. I pray we all find the truth. I cannot hate this Muslim720 [Masood] guy, because I think he's just a victim of brainwashing and conditioning. May Allah (swt) be with us.

Let the people be the jury, and please don't erase this thread, lest you accept your defeat.

Few points:

1.  You are not the only one to be busy.  I work full time and pursuing my masters degree.  I do not have all the time in the world but your lies are recycled.  Their refutations are all over the internet.  It takes me one minute to refute you but thirty to type it out.

2.  So far, you have exposed yourself as the deceiver.  You have quoted weak narrations and fabricated reports.  When refuted, you have not presented a counter argument nor have you issued an apology.

3.  Sure you can refute all the "lies" against Shiaism like you have done thus far (sarcasm).

4.  You were not busy last weekend but now you are, all of a sudden.  It is called "looking for an escape route".

5.  Well, you say I am brainwashed and that you (yourself) are on the true path.  You even said you would convert me.  Do it!

6.  You won't be missed.  And while you do not hate me, I have no liking towards a Rawaafidh.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 14, 2016, 10:00:32 PM
A few clips from those debates (the ones with subtitles).









Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 15, 2016, 09:34:01 AM
You're conflating two separate issues. The killing of Uthmaan (la) doesn't make the suspects into Khawaarij. Making a fool out of myself? Please stop running your deceiving mouth.

When I wrote the whole thing about Khawaarij and their involvement in killing of Uthman [ra], it was by logical deduction.  In other words, I knew bits of history and the pieces that were missing, I used logical deduction to plug those holes.  I did not do that out of desperation but because logical deduction - as it has been proven to me time and again - works just as well against liars.  But Alhamdulilah, I found proof to further substantiate what I had said.

Let us see if the killers of Uthman [ra] were Khawaarij or not.

"Al-Zubair [ra] described them (those who came to kill Uthman [ra]) as a mob from Egypt.  Aisha [ra] said it was tribal dispute [at-Tabari (4/461-462)].  Ibn Saad described them as scum of the society [Tabaqat (3/71)].  They were corrupt rebels (Khawarij mufsidoon), misguided transgressors as described by Ibn Taimiyya [Minhaj al-Sunnah 96/297)].  Imam Al-Nawawi [rah], in Sharh Muslim, stated that none of the Sahaba [ra] took part in the killing of Uthman (ra) and that he was unjustly killed by a mob that came from Egypt."

So congratulations on declaring the ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra] a Khawaarij murderer who took part in the killing of a leader whose nomination Imam Ali [ra] did not oppose.   Also, by making Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] to be a Khawaarij, you have also placed the burden of Imam Ali's [ra] murder on his shoulders as well.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: NaveenHussain on May 15, 2016, 05:48:03 PM
Quote
I am not concerned about who spoke to who.  I just want to know how are we to verify what a donkey said when his story goes as far back as to Nuh [as]?  Of course you are rendered helpless.  So next time before you point a finger at our hadiths, remember that there are four pointing right back at you.
It's not my fault you don't understand that the Prophet (saww) may've related it to Imam Ali (as). Oh, I forgot, you Bakris doubt the Prophet (saww), just as Umar (la) at Hudaybiyyah, right?

Yep, as per the narration.  You bragged Imam Ali [ra] was taught by so and so; well, in this narration, we know who the source of information was.  It was Ufayr (a donkey).[/quote]

Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

Quote
BS!  Big load of BS!  Your Akhbari scholars considered the Qur'an to have been tampered with.  The same Akhbari scholars considered Al-Kafi to be 100% authentic.  The title itself, "Al-Kafi" (sufficient), gives it away.  While your later scholars distanced themselves from their predecessors and labeled them as "Akhbaris", your madhhab owes nearly everything to these "Akhbari" scholars to the point that their beliefs still linger among your present-day (Usooli) scholars.  Precisely the reason why your present-day scholars cannot, and will not, give a fatwa declaring those believing in tahreef to be outside the fold of Islam.  So your present-day scholars have given them (Akhbaris) a new label in order to distinguish themselves from them but at the end of the day, not a single Shia scholar worth the name has passed a fatwa which considers those who believe in tahreef to be kaaffir.  Why?  Because issuing such a fatwa (on these Akhbari scholars) will be tantamount to passing the same judgment on your entire madhhab (since the foundations of your madhhab stand on these Akhbari scholars).
Your Sunni scholars mention `A'ishah and the missing Quranic verses that were eaten by a goat, yet you have "Saheeh" books other than the Quran. It looks like the Nasibi-Bakri shot himself in the foot this time. Watch Nabeel Qureshi's debate on YouTube, and you'll learn about Sunni scholars' view on the Quran being changed. Your fabricated sect is weak; admit it.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Farid on May 15, 2016, 05:55:56 PM
Alsalam alaykum,

It seems like this thread has reached its peak. If you brothers don't mind, I would appreciate it if we could have a final post from each of you guys with some sort of closing statement. After that, I will be locking the thread and making it read-only inshallah.

Once again, posts by anyone else will be deleted.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 15, 2016, 07:25:03 PM
Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

I am not confusing myself.  The story by Ufayr was shared by Imam Ali [ra] on the authority of the Prophet [saw] to whom a donkey spoke.  If you want to play semantics, then you must admit that Al-Kafi narrated something which could be used against you in the sense that we read the both the Prophet [saw] and Imam Ali [ra] were informed of an event by a donkey.  That was my second contention with that narration.  The first one was that the chain of the narration is sahih.  You wanted us to accept a Sunni hadith solely based on the fact that its chain was hassan.  So I asked you if you believe in the narration by Ufayr and thus far, you have danced around that point.

Quote
Your Sunni scholars mention `A'ishah and the missing Quranic verses that were eaten by a goat, yet you have "Saheeh" books other than the Quran.

For the Nth time - and I hope you have the decency to comprehend and respond to this point - the Qur'an was primarily preserved by memory.  Allah [swt] promises to protect its integrity and no goat, human and jinn (with every single one of them put together) can alter the Qur'an.  I also showed you that that particular narration is weak (obviously you did not read it).  Furthermore, even if the goat ate the parchment, there were many hufadh (those who have memorized the Qur'an) alive to fill in the missing pieces (the portions eaten by the goat).

Trouble with you Rawaafidh is that you do not have people who can properly recite the Qur'an, let alone those who have memorized it.  If you ever come to Adams Center, I will show you kids who are not even four feet tall but have memorized the Qur'an.  If you ever attend Taraweeh - and I always ask my Shia friends to do so (one does it religiously) - you will see that in the first row alone (other than the imam who is a hafidh), there are about two to three other hufadh making sure the imam does not even miss a letter.

As for having sahih books, your Akhbari scholars believed in the authenticity of Al-Kafi 100%.  Lastly, Imam Khomeini, on the authority of scholars before him, ruled Nahjul Balagha to be the "Brother of the Qur'an".

PS - speaking of tahreef and authentic hadiths, in one of those debates, the Sunni scholar quoted a narration from Al-Kafi which is considered "sahih" by Shias (regarding the Qur'an having 17,000 ayah).  The Shia scholar ruled the narration as "weak" so the Sunni debater challenged him to bring one narration from any Shia book - even if weak or rejected - which states that the Qur'an has not been altered.  The debate went on for multiple nights and the Shia could not bring one narration (not even a weak hadith) which said that the Qur'an is 100% tamper-free.
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 15, 2016, 07:33:39 PM
Alsalam alaykum,

It seems like this thread has reached its peak. If you brothers don't mind, I would appreciate it if we could have a final post from each of you guys with some sort of closing statement. After that, I will be locking the thread and making it read-only inshallah.

Once again, posts by anyone else will be deleted.

Walaykum as-salaam wa rahmatullah,
You can close the thread whenever you want.  Our Rafidhi friend here has a long list with missing check-marks next to each item.  He did himself a grave injustice by bringing up many issues and now their refutations are staring right back at him and he does not know what to do but to bring more lies and recycle the old ones (although they have been thoroughly refuted but if only he had eyes to read and the decency to admit it).
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 16, 2016, 04:53:42 AM
Given that our Rafidhi friend has continuously accused Abu Hurayrah [ra] to be a liar - though he would not dare move his lips in regards to Fadak - I thought I should bury his argument (although I gave him a history lesson which he has not acknowledged, let alone refute).

Shias use the following two narrations:

Quote
Abu huraria said: Umar said to me: o ENEMY OF ALLAH and enemy of Islam! you betrayed the money of Allah . He said: I said: I am not an enemy of Allah and not an enemy of Islam but an enemy to whoever is an enemy of them and I did not betray the money of Allah but they were the costs for a camel and spears added together. He said: return it and I said to him the same thing again. He said: he fined me 12 000 . He said: then I stood up for midday prayer and said: O Allah, forgive the commander of the faithful. And what was after that is that he wanted me to work and I didn’t do it. Then he said: not and Yusuf did ask to work and he was better than you. Then I said: verily Yusuf is a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet and I am son of Umaymah and I fear three and two. He said: don’t you say five? I said: no. He said: what are they? I said: I fear that I speak without knowledge, and issue ruling without knowledge, and that my back gets beaten , and that my representation/arguments gets insulted .

Imam Hakim says: sahih on the conditions of Sheikhain but not written
Dhabi says: sahih on the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim



Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0118:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Dharr that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) saying: No person who claimed knowingly anyone else as his father besides (his own) committed nothing but infidelity, and he who made a claim of anything, which (in fact) did not belong to him, is not amongst us; he should make his abode in Fire, and he who labeled anyone with unbelief or called him the enemy of Allah, and he was in fact not so, it rebounded on him.

The key things to note are the following:

1.  The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah is that the Companions [ra] were not infallible.  What made the Sahaba [ra] Sahaba were their belief in Islam, associating with the Prophet [saw] and dying upon Islam.  At the time when Umar [ra] made that charge, Abu Hurayrah [ra] was alive and his status as a Companion had not been finalized (since he was still alive and could leave Islam).

2.  In one narration (quoted above), it reads that Abu Hurayrah [ra] was fined.  In another narration, by way of Abdul Razzaq (sahih narration in Musanaf Abdulrazaq #20659), it is said that he was absolved.  The two narrations have been reconciled by believing that Abu Hurayrah [ra] was fined and later absolved (when allegations against him were proven to be false).

3.  Umar [ra], the strict leader that he was, would have certainly had the hands of Abu Hurayrah [ra] chopped off as is the punishment for stealing.  Never did such a thing happen.

4.  The same Umar [ra] appointed Abu Hurayrah [ra] the governor of present-day Bahrain.  Is it possible that Umar [ra] would appoint a thief as governor?  In fact, after Abu Hurayrah's [ra] name was cleared, Umar [ra] offered him his position again but he refused.

5.  Abu Hurayrah [ra] asked Allah [swt] to forgive Umar [ra].  This is the amount of love Companions [ra] had for each other.  It baffles me; how is it that the Shias quote the hadith but miss out on the part which reads, "O Allah, forgive the commander of the faithful"?
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on May 16, 2016, 09:13:05 PM
The accusation against Abu Hurayrah [ra] also backfires in the face of the Shias when we see how strict Umar [ra] was when it came to money.  In other words, Umar's [ra] justice knew no bounds.  Often Shias claim that the Sahabas [ra] collaborated to steal Imam Ali's [ra] Caliphate and Fatima's [ra] Fadak.  Well if that was the case, why did Umar [ra] punish Abu Hurayrah [ra] at the slightest suspicion of the latter having embezzled money?  If anything, Umar [ra] - if he was what the Shias portray him to be - should have made a deal with Abu Hurayrah [ra].  He should have asked for some money (bribe) from Abu Hurayrah [ra] to look the other way in order for Abu Hurayrah [ra] to continue stealing.  But we see that Umar [ra] punished Abu Hurayrah [ra].  When Abu Hurayrah's [ra] innocence was proven, Umar [ra] returned the confiscated money and offered Abu Hurayrah [ra] his position of governorship (which the Abu Hurayrah [ra] turned down).

The report establishes the innocence of Abu Hurayrah [ra] and the uprightness of Umar [ra].
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: muslim720 on June 17, 2016, 05:37:37 PM
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Our Rafidhi friend has gone M.I.A. and I do not blame him.  Plus it is the month of Ramadan.  But I wanted to take a look at his Facebook page to see if he has declared a victory for himself.  While he had not done such a thing, I noticed a lot of filth in regards to Aisha [ra], Umar [ra], et cetera.  In the midst of all that, our distinguished, genius friend had shared a parable with his dimwit followers.  Tell me if any of this makes any sense to anyone.

"Modern Medicine Parable:

To better paint a picture for those who don’t yet understand the medical system today, I’ll give an Islamic example:

Imagine if Ahlul Bayt (as) promoted natural medicine, and Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, etc. promoted mainstream [allopathic] medicines. Of course, the Caliphs will put out their own news/articles stating that they’re correct, even bashing Ahlul Bayt (as) and their followers [Shia]. Many groups will come out of this Shiism, with many being misguided. It may be similar with natural medicine; some will try to make a quick dollar at the expense of his customers. Sure, it happens even among Shias. Many groups claim to be Shia today. This doesn’t mean that ALL Shias are misguided.

Many will follow the government because it’s the path of lesser resistance. The same you often see happening with many choosing Sunnism over Shiism. I understand life gets tough. Many Shias cannot delve that DEEP. They cannot handle being Shia and going against the grain in almost EVERY aspect. I honestly understand why they choose to do as they do, although I don’t agree. May Allah (swt) give you, and us, more strength. It’s said that faith is like a weight scale, the more faith you have, the heavier it’ll be."
Title: Re: Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)
Post by: Sheikh on June 17, 2016, 05:40:05 PM
^ I love this. He equates pseudoscience with Shi'ism and evidence based medicine with Ahlul Sunnah  ;D

We have officially won.