Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)

[muslim720]

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?

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! 

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

[NaveenHussain]

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?

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.

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

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.

[NaveenHussain]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[muslim720]

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].

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].

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!

[muslim720]

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!

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.

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.

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

WHERE?

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?! 

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.

[muslim720]

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

[NaveenHussain]

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]

[muslim720]

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!

[NaveenHussain]

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.

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.

[muslim720]

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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].

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.

[NaveenHussain]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

[muslim720]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"   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!

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

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)

[Hani]

@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.

[muslim720]

^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!

[NaveenHussain]

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?

[NaveenHussain]

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).

Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

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.

[NaveenHussain]

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.

[NaveenHussain]

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.

[Ibn Yahya]

^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

[Hadrami]

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