TwelverShia.net Forum

Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #80 on: May 11, 2016, 11:49:54 AM »
Quote
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .

I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)

Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given

Qalander Rafidhi

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #81 on: May 11, 2016, 11:52:33 AM »
Quote
The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork

You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ? The Shia guesswork is far more reliable for me that mutazilli lies.

And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias. 

Quote
Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Look at reply 70.
Quote
It is a reply to post#70 since it had no sound argument, what all it has are views of Shia scholars, which are just assumptions and hold no weight, when they are countered with established facts.

(i). More than a 100 year old source than Nahjul balagha clearly mentioning name of Umar.

(ii). Foul play in Nahjul balagha by making the sermon ambiguous. I.e SUCH AND SUCH person.

(iii). Ibn Hadid who was neither Sunni or a Twelver Shia, that is a neutral source, testifying that it was regarding Umar(RA).

"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140)

Identical, isn't it ?
Ya Ali (as) Madad

Qalander Rafidhi

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #82 on: May 11, 2016, 11:54:41 AM »
Quote
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .

I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)

Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given

Umar said when Abu Bakr said " The prophets don't inherit " you both thought him to be a liar but he was well guided. Brother, for the last time, don't start where you want to. Just name the one who was a liar and the one who was well guided.
Ya Ali (as) Madad

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #83 on: May 11, 2016, 12:07:36 PM »

You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
I have a Sunni report which clearly states that it was for Umar(RA0

Quote
The Shia guesswork is far more reliable for me that mutazilli lies.
  That's why you guys remain on misguidance. What a pity.


"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140).

Identical, isn't it ?

5+5 = 10
7+3 = 10 .

It doesn't need to be identical, what both sermons show is that these wordings were said, regarding Umar(RA), unless you accuse Ali(RA) of stealing the words of the daughter of Abu Haythama and applying it to Malik al-Ashtar.

In the below report we find the detail that Ali(RA) not just approved the wording of that woman, but used the same to praise Umar(RA).

Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #84 on: May 11, 2016, 12:11:46 PM »
Quote
If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .

I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol. :)

Anyone who reads the discussion can see that, I did address these points in a satisfactory manner. Alhamdulillah. And you missed the gist of the issue, I bring the wordings of Umar(RA) inorder to show you that, THEY BOTH CAME to Umar(RA) with a different request, that is they wanted to be ENTRUSTED OVER THEIR SHARES. They didn't ask ownership. So learn the difference between being a trustee and a owner. Again for the the rhetoric which Umar(RA) used, due to Abbas(RA) first USING the wording against Ali(RA), then read the previous explanation given

Umar said when Abu Bakr said " The prophets don't inherit " you both thought him to be a liar but he was well guided. Brother, for the last time, don't start where you want to. Just name the one who was a liar and the one who was well guided.
LOL, Grow up, your arguments have already been destroyed. So keep repeating the refuted arguments. Umar(RA) copied those words from Abbas(RA) who said it to Ali(RA). WHy? To defend Ali(RA). How? Read the explanation in previous posts.

I leave this issue for the readers to judge.

Qalander Rafidhi

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #85 on: May 11, 2016, 12:23:13 PM »
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
Quote
I have a Sunni report which clearly states that it was for Umar

I don't doubt that. If it wasn't for sunni books, all these people wouldn't be misguided.
Quote
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140).

Identical, isn't it ?

Quote
5+5 = 10
7+3 = 10 .

It doesn't need to be identical, what both sermons show is that these wordings were said, regarding Umar(RA), unless you accuse Ali(RA) of stealing the words of the daughter of Abu Haythama and applying it to Malik al-Ashtar.

Why say such and such if there was no problems between Ali (as) and Umar ? The guesswork is far more convincing than the supposed lies of your kind that Ali (as) said that Umar revived the sunnah by innovating the prayers of taraweeh ? Which weren't practiced in the days of Abu Bakr ( Not trying to change the subject ). It is unlikely of Ali (as) to praise an innovator. And, as for who stole the words of whom, the hadith has been merely attributed to Ali (as) while in the other three books it says that Ali (as) didn't say any of that, he merely made the statement that she was made to say it.



« Last Edit: May 11, 2016, 12:38:36 PM by Qalander Rafidhi »
Ya Ali (as) Madad

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #86 on: May 11, 2016, 12:45:27 PM »
You rely on a mutazilli to say the truth ?
In this case yes, because he is not alone, there are other supporting evidences.



 
Quote
I don't doubt that. If it wasn't for sunni books, all these people wouldn't be misguided today.
LOL, so you should stop following the current recitation of Quran, since it comes from Sunni sources too.

Or are you saying that people should just follow Shia sources, where we find Imams misguide people due to being Taqiyyah and we really don't know when Imam is in Taqiyyah and when he isn't.

As for the reality of Shia sources, then refer this article:Why Islamic teachings should NEVER be taken from Shia Sources?
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/



Why say such and such if there was no problems between Ali (as) and Umar ?
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.

Quote
The guesswork is far more convincing than the supposed lies of your kind that Ali (as) said that Umar revived the sunnah by innovating the prayers of taraweeh ? Which weren't practiced in the days of Abu Bakr ( Not trying to change the subject ).  It is unlikely of Ali (as) to praise an innovator.
I won't mind because your whole madhab is based on guesswork. Because people who believe in the fairy tales of an non existing Imam, then this claim from such people isn't surprising.

As for Taraweeh then it was done for three days by Prophet(SAWS), so when a thing has its origin proven from Prophet(SAWS),  it won't be considered an innovation in shariah.

Quote
And, as for who stole the words of whom, the hadith has been merely attributed to Ali (as) while in the other three books it says that Ali (as) didn't say any of that, he merely made the statement that she was made to say it.
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.

Qalander Rafidhi

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #87 on: May 11, 2016, 01:39:20 PM »
Quote
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.
LOL you believe it to be tempered when it comes to the missing name but don't think it might be tempered that the mention of Umar has made it in the book, even though the book was compiled by a rafidhi ?

Quote
As for Taraweeh then it was done for three days by Prophet(SAWS), so when a thing has its origin proven from Prophet(SAWS),  it won't be considered an innovation in shariah.

He (sawa) prayed alone and not in a congregation. He disliked it when people started gathering behind him to pray so he stopped coming to the mosque. If he wanted to instill that practice, he wouldn't have gone to the mosque alone the first night and quit going after he saw people gathering.


Quote
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.

Means the whole narration being there is suspicious since you don't take anything from the rawafid.
Ya Ali (as) Madad

Hani

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #88 on: May 11, 2016, 08:09:39 PM »
Oh so much written while I was away, where to start.  ;D

Brother, in you response it clearly say that Abbas was accusing Ali (as) and had also done the same at the time of Abu Bakr and Umar. Umar interviened by saying " You though him ( Abu Bakr ) to be a liar and trecherous." Same thing has taken place here meaning it was Abbas who wanted the land for himself, not Ali (as). He made the claim and Ali (as) didn't contest him in front of Abu Bakr and neither did he stop himslef from talking back to Abbas.

That just goes to prove that they neither believed the shaykhain to be truthful and neither did they agree to what he said in regarda to hearing the hadith of Prophet Muhammad (sawa).


Let me break it for you, the first time `Abbas and Fatimah went to ask for inheritance. They were reminded of the prophetic report so they went back and never asked for inheritance again but they still asked to be placed in charge of the properties. They returned to `Umar and he handed them a part of that property, then they differed on how to manage it and both went to `Umar to judge between them so that each one may be in charge of his own part.


`Abbas and `Ali were both fighting over it, it wasn't only from `Abbas's side, `Ali was talking back to him but the narration never declares what `Ali said only what `Abbas said "Judge between me and this liar, traitor, sinner!" This is the only time these words were uttered and it was from `Abbas towards `Ali. `Umar in order to defend `Ali used a rhetorical argument basically telling `Abbas that you both acted as if Abu Bakr was a traitor and a sinner when he made his judgement concerning the land, and you both acted like I was a traitor and a sinner when I judged, so by Allah I won't change my judgement. This is because `Abbas and `Ali had great respect for Abu Bakr and `Umar and would never call them that, so by doing so `Umar had placed both on the spot especially al-`Abbas who called `Ali names simply because he differed with him in judgement.


As for you claiming they didn't view the Shaykhayn to be truthful, the Hadith does not imply this, it clearly implies that they differed in their understanding of the Hadith simply because they were pleased to be in charge of the Sadaqat. If they found them to be liars they wouldn't be seeking their judgement and opinions on the matter. If you thought a guy was a traitor, a sinner and a liar you wouldn't go and ask him to be a judge between you and your cousin in a family matter.


I add, both `Ali and `Abbas admitted to hearing the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) when `Umar asked. The biggest evidence that they never accused anyone of lying.


Quote
Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.


I do not believe based on my research that `Ali went to ask for inheritance nor was he entitled for any inheritance in the beginning, he simply accompanied his wife so she may ask Abu Bakr herself and see his answer. Later in the narration, `Umar says "You both returned to me, your word was one, this one asking for his share from his nephew and the other was asking for his wife's share from her father."


We interpret this, that al-`Abbas and `Ali, each was asking to be in charge of this land. They believed they had a right to do so since they insisted on their opinion that the land must be under their supervision even if they don't own it. `Ali was asking to be in charge through his wife's share and `Abbas through his own share. At this point they weren't asking for ownership and upon this basis `Umar gave it to them and placed some conditions as well.


Now the narration above confused you because it is flipped, I believe the narrators flipped a section and this is why it caused confusion. The correct version of the narration is ordered like this:


Abu Bakr said, 'I am the successor of Allah's Apostle so, Abu Bakr took over that property and managed it in the same way as Allah's Apostle used to do, and Allah knows that he was true, pious and rightlyguided, and he was a follower of what was right. Then Allah took Abu Bakr unto Him and I became Abu Bakr's successor, and I kept that property in my possession for the first two years of my Caliphate, managing it in the same way as Allah's Apostle used to do and as Abu Bakr used to do, and Allah knows that I have been true, pious, rightly guided, and a follower of what is right. Then you both came to talk to me, united upon the same word, `Abbas, came to me asking for his share from his nephew's property, and this man, i.e. `Ali, came to me asking for his wife's share from her father's property.


It is only during `Umar's time where `Ali came to ask through his wife's share not in Abu Bakr's time. None of the authentic narrations state that `Ali was asking for anything at the time of Abu Bakr's reign since Fatimah was alive. All narrations stated that it was al-`Abbas and Fatimah that went and `Ali may or may not have accompanied them, Fatimah was the one speaking and `Ali had no role (Which shows that either he knew they weren't entitled for any inheritance or that he wasn't even present).


The evidence that this is the correct version is because it is narrated through multiple chains in this form:


حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْفَرْوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ النَّصْرِيُّ


The flipped one you quoted is weaker in terms of narrators and it is weaker since it comes through one chain as far as I can see:


وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ


Quote
You have made no mention of why Abbas and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar and it's evident from reading the hadith that they did that. As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ? Don't tell me that Abbas and Ali (as) weren't familiar with this hadith. If they were familiar then they wouldn't have gone to ask for their share and if they weren't it's clear from the hadith they disagreed with Abu Bakr.


They never thought he was a liar, based on `Umar's words the Hashemites were not pleased with Abu Bakr's judgement so they acted as if the man was a traitor a sinner. My friend don't forget that in this same narration `Abbas calls `Ali a traitor and a sinner and a liar, therefore we can flip this back and ask you: Why do you trust a man if he's a traitor, a sinner and a liar according to his own uncle!?


Our opinion is that `Ali was familiar with the Hadith, he said so himself, he never asked for inheritance, he only asked to be in charge of it in `Umar's time. `Abbas had heard it and forgotten it so when reminded he accepted but still insisted to be in charge as `Ali did. Fatimah was not familiar with it.


Quote
Don't try to tell me that Bibi Fatima (sa) was informed by Ali (as) about this hadith and yet, she still went to Abu Bakr because she didn't believe Ali (as) lol.


That's not necessarily true, we have narrations were `Ali and Fatimah differ or even fight (as is natural). Fatimah never viewed `Ali as the ultimate infallible like you lot claim, if she heard it from him she may have went to further investigate, that doesn't mean she thinks he's a liar. It's also possible she went with al-`Abbas and never discussed the matter with `Ali since this all happened in a hurry after the passing of the Prophet (saw).


You also have in your books that `Ali asked Fatimah why she did something, she told him the Prophet (saw) ordered us, so he went to the Prophet (saw) to complain about what she did and verify if it was true:


فقال : ما هذا يا فاطمة ؟ فقالت :أمرنا بهذا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فخرج علي عليه السلام إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله مستفتيا محرشا على فاطمة عليها السلام


(Check Tahdheeb-ul-Ahkam and `Ilal-ul-Shara'i`)



Quote
Perhaps, you would like to tell me why did Abbas and Ali (as) thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he declared that the Prophet didn't have any hiers for his materialistic possession ?


They themselves must be liars then when they claimed they heard the Prophet (saw) say so.




Quote
That's the level of humility of Ali (as). Don't take it so literally. You must be aware of the election that took place where they had already chosen a leader for themselves ? At hearing this, both Abu and Ummu left the funeral of Prophet Muhammad (sawa) and rushed to the election and told them what they're doing is wrong ? Does that ring a bell ? Care to tell me if people really thought Abu Bakr to be the most deserving then why did the election start in their absence ?


They left a funeral to stop a Fitnah that could have ravaged the entire nation and ended Islam altogether.


Quote
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 1 :
Narrated by Abdullah bin Umar
Allah's Apostle said, "It is not permissible for any Muslim who has something to will to stay for two nights without having his last will and testament written and kept ready with him."


Why did he give away whatever he had in charity without even giving anything to his children even if giving one third is too much in charity ?



The Prophet (saw) willed many things before his death, he willed for them to hold on to the book of Allah, he willed for them to treat their women well etc... and he reminded them of the teachings of Islam. This is sufficient and actually counts as a written Will.


Then comes a second part, we read in Sahih al-Bukhari the Hadith:


ما حق امرئ مسلم ، له شيء يوصي فيه ، يبيت ليلتين ، إلا ووصيته عنده مكتوبة
[“It is the duty of a Muslim who has any matter to entrust not to let two nights pass without writing a will about it.”]


In Islam, the scholars popularly agree that a Will can either be oral, offered to people of trust, or it can be written. A Will may contain several things, such as:


1- Advice and wisdom. (Optional & Recommended)
2- Any debts or trusts that one owes people. (Obligatory)
3- What each of his legitimate heirs are to receive after his death. (Optional & Disliked)
4- A donation for anyone who isn’t entitled to inherit him. (Optional & Conditional)


The advice and wisdom is recommended because it is an act of goodness and he shall be rewarded for it by Allah as it encourages his relatives to do good and avoid evil, this needs not be written and he can say it on his death-bed or even before that as was the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) who always advised everyone around him.


As for debts, it is recommended to write it because it is a sensitive topic related to people’s rights, one can also offer it orally to people of trust and responsibility. This is obligatory as one may be punished in the after-life for usurping people’s rights even after his death.


He can also write exactly what each of his legitimate heirs are supposed to receive but this is not obligatory, some even dislike it because Rasul-Allah (saw) said in the Hadith of Ibn Majah:
إن الله تعالى قد أعطى كل ذي حق حقة , فلا وصية لوارث
[“Allah most high had given for every person deserving of inheritance his right, so do not address an heir in your Wills.”]


Meaning, that in the Qur’an and the Sunnah Allah had already described how the wealth is to be divided among heirs, you can say that Allah wrote their Will concerning their heirs, this leaves no need for the person himself to do so unless he wishes to calculate it for them if they cannot do it themselves, or maybe in a special case and by agreement of all heirs that some of them would offer their rights to others heirs.


Finally, the donation to the non-heir and according to the Sunnah of Rasul-Allah (saw) one cannot give more than a third of his wealth, as he must leave the rest for the legitimate heirs.


Al-Tabari in his Tafsir and `Abdul-Razzaq in his Musannaf both narrate in the authentic narration from `Urwah from `Ali ibn abi Talib when one of his servants asked him about the Wasiyyah, regarding the verse:
{Prescribed for you when death approaches [any] one of you if he leaves wealth [is that he should make] a bequest(al-Wasiyyah)} [2:180]


دَخَلَ عَلِيٌّ عَلَى مَوْلًى لَهُمْ فِي الْمَوْتِ، وَلَهُ سَبْعُ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ أَوْ سِتُّ مِائَةِ دِرْهَمٍ، فَقَالَ: أَلا أُوصِي؟ فَقَالَ: لا، إِنَّمَا قَالَ اللَّهُ: إِنْ تَرَكَ خَيْرًا، وَلَيْسَ لَكَ كَثِيرُ مَالٍ
[`Ali entered on a servant of his while on his deathbed, he only possessed seven hundred Dirhams or six hundred, he asked: “Should I make a Will?” `Ali replied: “No, He only said: {if he leaves wealth}, and you do not have much.”]


This is what we mean by conditional above, in that it depends on the circumstances of a person and his financial situation.


Since Rasul-Allah (saw) had already spent his entire wealth, he had even less than this old servant and whatever was left was worth nothing, such as his walking stick or his turban, then there was no need for him to announce a Will concerning these matters, neither a written or oral one as he had nothing to bequeath. He (saw) did Will a couple of matters, such as dispatching Usamah’s army, and to care for his household, and to treat the foreign delegations with kindness and many other similar matters.


Quote
Volume 4, Book 51, Number 5 :
Narrated by Sad bin Abu Waqqas
The Prophet came visiting me while I was (sick) in Mecca, ('Amir the sub-narrator said, and he disliked to die in the land, whence he had already migrated). He (i.e. the Prophet) said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on Ibn Afra (Sad bin Khaula)." I said, "O Allah's Apostle! May I will all my property (in charity)?" He said, "No." I said, "Then may I will half of it?" He said, "No". I said, "One third?" He said: "Yes, one third, yet even one third is too much. It is better for you to leave your inheritors wealthy than to leave them poor begging others, and whatever you spend for Allah's sake will be considered as a charitable deed even the handful of food you put in your wife's mouth. Allah may lengthen your age so that some people may benefit by you, and some others be harmed by you." At that time Sad had only one daughter.


Why is inheritance is being given such emphasis, yet, when it comes to the Prophet of Allah (swt) you all believe everything he had was to be given in charity, even though you admit that his family was eating from it during his lifetime ?


Because Allah willed that the Prophet (saw) should not leave behind wealth for his relatives BECAUSE HE'S A PROPHET and this may cause doubts in the future about his legitimacy and some may claim he lies in order to acquire wealth for himself and his family.


Quote
Imam Ali (as) was told to not contest them for Khilafa if they usurp his rights (as per rafidhi narrations ). Also, he was told that if he could gather enough people then he should fight them, if not, he should save his blood and not make the ummah turn against him by revolting against Abu Bakr since that would throw everything into chaos and Imam Ali (as) would have the same amount of respect that Abu Bakr has in the eyes of us rafidhis.


That's a bit silly, how can they usurp his right if he has already received Bay`ah at Ghadeer like you guys claim? Why would the Muslims give Two Bay`ahs? That's unheard of in Arabia. Why would the Ummah turn against him when you guys claim that Abu Bakr didn't have the support of most people and that he did what he did privately in Saqifah without consulting since the people wouldn't accept him? On the other hand, you also claim that the people all preferred `Ali and united on `Ali as opposed to Abu Bakr. `Ali didn't seem to mind thic chaos when he fought three large armies, people of Jamal, people of Siffin and people of Nahrawan on the othar hand his son let the Imamah go to save the Muslims from this same exact chaos.



Quote

Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.


Really? SO he broke Fatimah's ribs with a broken nose? He broke his nose then he let him tie him up with ropes and force him to give Bay`ah?



Quote

Umar used to say that had it not been for Ali (as) Umar would be dead and we are all aware that Umar wasn't bright enough to rule the people, hence the appointment of Imam Ali (as) as his and Abu Bakr's advisor.


SO he broke his nose and the other guy killed his infant and wife, then promoted him to level of adviser because he's very dumb and couldn't rule. So let's recap, according to you guys `Umar is a coward and now you're saying he's extremely dumb YET he managed to prevent `Ali from taking authority. Wow `Ali must be pretty dumb and useless himself if his right was usurped by such a dumb coward.



Quote

English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as


No it's neither known nor true, authentic narrations state that `A'ishah never asked for anything rather she reminded those of them that asked of the Hadith.



« Last Edit: May 11, 2016, 09:15:10 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Qalander Rafidhi

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #89 on: May 12, 2016, 05:30:41 AM »

Quote
Let me break it for you, the first time `Abbas and Fatimah went to ask for inheritance. They were reminded of the prophetic report so they went back and never asked for inheritance again but they still asked to be placed in charge of the properties. They returned to `Umar and he handed them a part of that property, then they differed on how to manage it and both went to `Umar to judge between them so that each one may be in charge of his own part.

You're saying this while you're of the belief that Abbas and Ali (as) both knew of the hadith yet they still went back to ask Umar during his reign ? Why wasn't a similar claim made during the reign of Abu Bakr if Abbas and Ali (as) both accepted that the land was sadaqa and they wanted none of it ?

You're telling me that Ali (as) didn't accompany his wife the first time but he went and asked again during the caliphate of Umar
 
Quote
`Umar in order to defend `Ali used a rhetorical argument basically telling `Abbas that you both acted as if Abu Bakr was a traitor and a sinner when he made his judgement

It is clear from this that they both made a claim for it when they went to see Abu Bakr during his reign. Either that or that they didn't agree with his statement regarding the inheritance of Prophet Muhammad (sawa). Had it been they way you're describing it to be, they wouldn't even go to Umar during his reign if they had accepted the words of Abu Bakr.


Quote
As for you claiming they didn't view the Shaykhayn to be truthful, the Hadith does not imply this, it clearly implies that they differed in their understanding of the Hadith simply because they were pleased to be in charge of the Sadaqat. If they found them to be liars they wouldn't be seeking their judgement and opinions on the matter. If you thought a guy was a traitor, a sinner and a liar you wouldn't go and ask him to be a judge between you and your cousin in a family matter.

They became incharge during the reign of Umar and they had the dispute therein. The narrations clearly states that they both thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he claimed such a thing took place and such statements had been made.


Quote
I add, both `Ali and `Abbas admitted to hearing the Hadith of the Prophet (saw) when `Umar asked. The biggest evidence that they never accused anyone of lying.

How come they didn't hear it during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and went on to ask for their share ? Let's say Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't hear it but Abbas didn't hear it either ? Please present the speech of Bibi Fatima (sa) at the time she went to ask for her share.


Quote
Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father.said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.[/color]

Again, it says they believe him to be a liar the first time they heard it because they contested this matter and you know that they both had not heard what Abu Bakr claimed and neither did they believe it. Had they heard it and accepted it, they would've never gone to ask for it to be entrusted with them during the reign of Umar and it is not even clear in you narrations whether the land Umar " Entrusted " with both of them was Fadak.


Quote
I do not believe based on my research that `Ali went to ask for inheritance nor was he entitled for any inheritance in the beginning, he simply accompanied his wife so she may ask Abu Bakr herself and see his answer. Later in the narration, `Umar says "You both returned to me, your word was one, this one asking for his share from his nephew and the other was asking for his wife's share from her father."

This is where you're wrong again brother. If he wasn't there or merely accompanied Bibi Fatima (sa) he wouldn't need to go back and ask Umar to entrust the land's upkeep and maintainance. Meaning the claim was made for the entrustment mainly by Abbas. If Ali (as) didn't want it the first time for his wife, why is he asking for it again aftet her death and the death of Abu Bakr ? Why wasn't such an agreement been made during the caliphate of Abu Bakr ?

Quote
Now the narration above confused you because it is flipped, I believe the narrators flipped a section and this is why it caused confusion. The correct version of the narration is ordered like this:

Bukhari and Muslim have weak narrations ? Up until you showed up, no one made such a claim. Neither did amyone say it was flipped or otherwise.


Quote
It is only during `Umar's time where `Ali came to ask through his wife's share not in Abu Bakr's time. None of the authentic narrations state that `Ali was asking for anything at the time of Abu Bakr's reign since Fatimah was alive. All narrations stated that it was al-`Abbas and Fatimah that went and `Ali may or may not have accompanied them, Fatimah was the one speaking and `Ali had no role (Which shows that either he knew they weren't entitled for any inheritance or that he wasn't even present).

Exactly! If he didn't believe they had a right over the ownership then why go back to ask Umar ? If he didn't accompany her then on what do you base the argument that he heard the hadith yet, both Abbas and Ali (as) went back to Umar to ask for the share or authority to look after it. If they had let go of it the first time, why go back after Abu Bakr died and there was no need for it ?


Quote
The evidence that this is the correct version is because it is narrated through multiple chains in this form:


حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي اللَّيْثُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْفَرْوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكُ بْنُ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، عَنْ عُقَيْلٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسِ بْنِ الْحَدَثَانِ


حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا اللَّيْثُ، حَدَّثَنِي عُقَيْلٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مَالِكُ بْنُ أَوْسٍ النَّصْرِيُّ


The flipped one you quoted is weaker in terms of narrators and it is weaker since it comes through one chain as far as I can see:


وَحَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَسْمَاءَ الضُّبَعِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا جُوَيْرِيَةُ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، أَنَّ مَالِكَ بْنَ أَوْسٍ.

Please point out the weak narrator.


Quote
They never thought he was a liar, based on `Umar's words the Hashemites were not pleased with Abu Bakr's judgement so they acted as if the man was a traitor a sinner. My friend don't forget that in this same narration `Abbas calls `Ali a traitor and a sinner and a liar, therefore we can flip this back and ask you: Why do you trust a man if he's a traitor, a sinner and a liar according to his own uncle!?

Again you've pointed out that Hashimites ( Although I don't know whom, since you claimed the only hashimites present were Bibi Fatima (sa) and Abbas who claimed for their share. If he was a liar then why did the uncle even agree to share the duties with a liar ?


Quote
Our opinion is that `Ali was familiar with the Hadith, he said so himself, he never asked for inheritance, he only asked to be in charge of it in `Umar's time. `Abbas had heard it and forgotten it so when reminded he accepted but still insisted to be in charge as `Ali did. Fatimah was not familiar with it.

He didn't ask for his wife yet he asked for himself ?



Quote
That's not necessarily true, we have narrations were `Ali and Fatimah differ or even fight (as is natural). Fatimah never viewed `Ali as the ultimate infallible like you lot claim, if she heard it from him she may have went to further investigate, that doesn't mean she thinks he's a liar. It's also possible she went with al-`Abbas and never discussed the matter with `Ali since this all happened in a hurry after the passing of the Prophet (saw).

Did she ever disagree with anyone to the point that She never spoke to them after their disagreement ? Do we have any hadith stating she died angry with Ali (as) as she did with Abu Bakr ?

Quote
They themselves must be liars then when they claimed they heard the Prophet (saw) say so.

According to you they heard it yet they still went back to ask Umar to be entrusted with the management even though they acknowledged that the land was sadaqa and out their hands ?


Quote
They left a funeral to stop a Fitnah that could have ravaged the entire nation and ended Islam altogether.

A brother pointed out that Muhajireen and ansar had the right to choose and they already had chosen until Abu Bakr and Umar heard about it and left the funeral, while Ali (as) stayed back and didn't even go after the funeral.

Quote
The Prophet (saw) willed many things before his death, he willed for them to hold on to the book of Allah, he willed for them to treat their women well etc... and he reminded them of the teachings of Islam. This is sufficient and actually counts as a written Will.

That means we all have a part in his inheritance and bayt al maal belongs to us. You bring the argument that Ahlul Bayt (as) inherited his (sawa) knowledge, so is the knowledge of Prophet (sawa) and his progeny equal ? Are there rules to how knowledge is devided ? Lol.

Quote
Because Allah willed that the Prophet (saw) should not leave behind wealth for his relatives BECAUSE HE'S A PROPHET and this may cause doubts in the future about his legitimacy and some may claim he lies in order to acquire wealth for himself and his family.

Allah (swt) willed for Prophet Muhammad (sawa) to give away all his remaining possessions to charity , yet Prophet Muhammad (sawa) told people to give away even 1/3 of their inheritance to charity is too much ?



Quote
That's a bit silly, how can they usurp his right if he has already received Bay`ah at Ghadeer like you guys claim? Why would the Muslims give Two Bay`ahs? That's unheard of in Arabia. Why would the Ummah turn against him when you guys claim that Abu Bakr didn't have the support of most people and that he did what he did privately in Saqifah without consulting since the people wouldn't accept him? On the other hand, you also claim that the people all preferred `Ali and united on `Ali as opposed to Abu Bakr. `Ali didn't seem to mind thic chaos when he fought three large armies, people of Jamal, people of Siffin and people of Nahrawan on the othar hand his son let the Imamah go to save the Muslims from this same exact chaos.

Refer to sermon 6 of Nahj Al Balagha. By the time of Jamal and Siffeen and Nehrawan, he had enough people to support him so he fought them. Imam Al Hussain (as) didn't let go of the Imamah, he saved his blood by not fighting due to the lack of supporters. The same people that said he has turned an apostate by not fighting the umayyads.



Quote
Really? SO he broke Fatimah's ribs with a broken nose? He broke his nose then he let him tie him up with ropes and force him to give Bay`ah?

Perhaps you would like to tell me  he had his nose broken after he broke the door or before it ? According to rafidhi narrations.


Quote
SO he broke his nose and the other guy killed his infant and wife, then promoted him to level of adviser because he's very dumb and couldn't rule. So let's recap, according to you guys `Umar is a coward and now you're saying he's extremely dumb YET he managed to prevent `Ali from taking authority. Wow `Ali must be pretty dumb and useless himself if his right was usurped by such a dumb coward.

The cowardice of Umar has been narrated in many a history books and hadith alike. Ask yourself if Imam Ali (as) had killed all of them that night, what would've happened to Islam ? Ali (as) would be the same as the two cowards Abu Bakr and Umar in the eyes of the world. Today instead of Abu Bakr and Umar, we would be calling Ali (as) a bloodthirsty, innovator and liar.



Quote
No it's neither known nor true, authentic narrations state that `A'ishah never asked for anything rather she reminded those of them that asked of the Hadith.

Did any other wives say the same thing regarding the hadith ?
Ya Ali (as) Madad

Hani

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #90 on: May 12, 2016, 07:15:51 AM »
Quickily relply


Quote
You're saying this while you're of the belief that Abbas and Ali (as) both knew of the hadith yet they still went back to ask Umar during his reign ? Why wasn't a similar claim made during the reign of Abu Bakr if Abbas and Ali (as) both accepted that the land was sadaqa and they wanted none of it ?
You're telling me that Ali (as) didn't accompany his wife the first time but he went and asked again during the caliphate of Umar


They went back to ask about being placed in charge of it which is different then what al-`Abbas and Fatimah went to do during Abu Bakr's reign. It's quite admirable that they insisted on this and never dropped what they believe is their legitimate right. (unlike Imamah Ahem!)


They did not wish to ask Abu Bakr about this matter again during his reign so when he passed they went to `Umar and asked to be placed in charge of the Sadaqat, they convinced him so he handed it to them. Then they came back while fighting with each other so `Umar never changed his judgement. Later in `Uthman's reign they had another fight which ended in `Abbas dropping his share.


As for `Ali, either he accompanied them but had no part in the discussion or he never even accompanied them. It's not like they were going anywhere, Fatimah's house is literally inside the Masjid where Abu Bakr sits.



Quote

It is clear from this that they both made a claim for it when they went to see Abu Bakr during his reign. Either that or that they didn't agree with his statement regarding the inheritance of Prophet Muhammad (sawa). Had it been they way you're describing it to be, they wouldn't even go to Umar during his reign if they had accepted the words of Abu Bakr.


They did not accept that the lands of Sadaqah be taken away from them nor did they accept Abu Bakr's division of the Khums. It is unclear whether they asked to be simply placed in charge of it during Abu Bakr's reign and were denied or if that was just a matter they thought of in `Umar's reign. What is established is that `Abbas and Fatimah asked for inheritance in Abu Bakr's reign as well as Khums, they were denied this. Then they asked to be in control of the charity properties in `Umar's time. `Ali during his own reign never changed any of this and stuck to what Abu Bakr and `Umar judged.



Quote

They became incharge during the reign of Umar and they had the dispute therein. The narrations clearly states that they both thought Abu Bakr to be a liar when he claimed such a thing took place and such statements had been made.


`Umar used the expression "liar traitor etc..." as a rhetorical argument, because al-`Abbas was using those same words to refer to `Ali, none of those words were actually mentioned in Abu Bakr's time. How can they claim he's a liar if they admit the Prophet (saw) said what he said? In fact we know what Fatimah told Abu Bakr word for word, she said: "You know best what you heard from Rasul-Allah (saw)."


An academic analysis of all texts clearly shows what the situation was and what each side had in mind. The children of `Ali all dealt with those lands similarly, they never used them as inheritance but each time they'd appoint one of their own to be in charge of those lands. If you read the tail of the narration it states:


كانت هذه الصدقة بيد علي، منعها علي عباسا فغلبه عليها، ثم كان بيد حسن بن علي، ثم بيد حسين بن علي، ثم بيد علي بن حسين وحسن بن حسن، كلاهما كانا يتداولانها، ثم بيد زيد بن حسن، وهي صدقة رسول الله حقا


[These charities were with `Ali and he prevented al-`Abbas, then in the hands of al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then in the hand of both `Ali bin Husayn and Hasan bin al-Hasan as they managed it, then in the hand of Zayd bin al-Hasan]


As you can see, they weren't passing laws of inheritance on it, they were just taking care of it generation after generation. If they took it as inheritance it would have been divided between their children instead of being managed by some individuals.



Quote

How come they didn't hear it during the caliphate of Abu Bakr and went on to ask for their share ? Let's say Bibi Fatima (sa) didn't hear it but Abbas didn't hear it either ? Please present the speech of Bibi Fatima (sa) at the time she went to ask for her share.


They had heard it during the life of the Prophet (saw), they were only reminded of it. As for Fatimah's words I'd have to go through the narrations to find what she said but here's the main argument:


Umm Hani' bint abi Talib narrated:


[...That Fatimah told Abu Bakr: “Who inherits you if you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Why then do you inherit the messenger (saw) without us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah (saw), I never inherited from your father a house or wealth neither gold nor silver.” She said: “Yes you did, our share that Allah mentioned for us and the land which was purely owned by us in Fadak.”...]


He replies with the report that the Prophet (saw) did not wish to leave inheritance.


They also discussed the Khums, Anas narrated that Fatimah told Abu Bakr that he should know the right that Allah bestowed upon them (The household) from the war booty and she recited verse 41 of Surat-ul-Anfal.


Abu Bakr responded by saying:


[...I read from the book of Allah as you do and it did not reach my attention that this entire share (meaning the fifth of the fifth) is entirely spent on the close relatives of the messenger of Allah (saw)...]


Meaning, he believed that the one in charge may spend as much as he sees fit on the relatives of the Prophet (saw) based on their numbers and need.


Quote
and you know that they both had not heard what Abu Bakr claimed and neither did they believe it. Had they heard it and accepted it, they would've never gone to ask for it to be entrusted with them during the reign of Umar and it is not even clear in you narrations whether the land Umar " Entrusted " with both of them was Fadak.


They said they did so I believe them. As for Fadak, they never asked for it, who told you they went to ask `Umar for Fadak? They asked for the property of banu al-Nadeer in Madinah.


Quote
If he wasn't there or merely accompanied Bibi Fatima (sa) he wouldn't need to go back and ask Umar to entrust the land's upkeep and maintainance.


He actually could and would and there's nothing wrong with that. He thought he could be in control of it without it opposing the prophetic tradition.



Quote

Bukhari and Muslim have weak narrations ? Up until you showed up, no one made such a claim. Neither did amyone say it was flipped or otherwise.


Among scholars of knowledge it's very popular that the Sahihayn have weak chains in them. I'm not saying the narration is weak, I'm saying that version of the narration is weak. The same narration is being narrated five times in the same book, each time by a different narrator. One of these five has flipped the text slightly because he wasn't as good as the others, he was "Saduq" not "Thiqah".


Quote
If he didn't believe they had a right over the ownership then why go back to ask Umar ?


He went back to assume control of the charity, not to own it as inheritance. Big difference. If `Ali insisted on it being an inheritance then your argument would be valid, but they asked for it as a trust and they promised to use it as the messenger (saw) did.



Quote

Please point out the weak narrator.


There's no weak narrator. There's strong reliable narrators, and one honest narrator who isn't strong. The Shaykh of al-Duba`i in the last report is Saduq whereas the rest are Thiqaat and they narrate it differently. So we assume the four reliable narrators are right and the single less reliable narrator got it wrong and this is common.



Quote

Again you've pointed out that Hashimites ( Although I don't know whom, since you claimed the only hashimites present were Bibi Fatima (sa) and Abbas who claimed for their share. If he was a liar then why did the uncle even agree to share the duties with a liar ?


Well they were fighting about it weren't they? He shared it because there's no other way. Our belief as Ahlul-Sunnah is that `Abbas loved and respected `Ali but he said what he said in a moment of anger. Unlike the unrelialistic Shia approach to history that makes mountains from molehills.



Quote

He didn't ask for his wife yet he asked for himself ?


He asked for it for himself AFTER she passed away. When she was alive, she asked for inheritance and `Ali asked for nothing. Inheritance would be essentially split between children, wives and uncles, `Ali was a cousin who isn't entitled for anything.



Quote

Did she ever disagree with anyone to the point that She never spoke to them after their disagreement ? Do we have any hadith stating she died angry with Ali (as) as she did with Abu Bakr ?


Here's the thing, she did speak to Abu Bakr according to the authentic narration of `Amir al-Sha`bi. He came and spoke to her and she was pleased.



Quote

According to you they heard it yet they still went back to ask Umar to be entrusted with the management even though they acknowledged that the land was sadaqa and out their hands ?


They didn't see anything wrong with being placed in charge of the Sadaqah? A Sadaqah is a Sadaqah no matter who divides it and distributes it.



Quote

A brother pointed out that Muhajireen and ansar had the right to choose and they already had chosen until Abu Bakr and Umar heard about it and left the funeral, while Ali (as) stayed back and didn't even go after the funeral.


You might wanna elaborate. Abu Bakr and `Umar left right at the beginning, they returned later and attended the rest of the funeral, the Prophet (saw) died on Monday, he was prepared and buried on the evening of Tuesday as I recall. Secondly, nobody was even allowed to enter when the Prophet (saw) was being washed and shrouded, Abu Bakr himself was standing at the door telling people "This is his family's right, leave them in privacy."


A large portion of the Ansar from both the Aws and Khazraj had gathered around Sa`d. They were going to give him a pledge of allegiance if the Mouhajiroun hadn't shown up and intervened.



Quote

That means we all have a part in his inheritance and bayt al maal belongs to us. You bring the argument that Ahlul Bayt (as) inherited his (sawa) knowledge, so is the knowledge of Prophet (sawa) and his progeny equal ? Are there rules to how knowledge is devided ? Lol.


I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. It seems you don't exactly understand what is a Wasiyyah (Will) in Islam. Wasiyyah is of many kinds and what you're going for is not what Islam instructed.



Quote

Allah (swt) willed for Prophet Muhammad (sawa) to give away all his remaining possessions to charity , yet Prophet Muhammad (sawa) told people to give away even 1/3 of their inheritance to charity is too much ?


Exactly, not only that but his family can't even receive charity. All of this is from Allah's divine wisdom to stop the doubters from claiming the man was after wealth and power. All things that Shia claim are things that would cause anybody to doubt prophet-hood, that he appointed his own son-in-law as leader, he left vast rich lands for his children, he ordered everybody to pay 1/5th of their earning as a divine tax to his family members etc... This would EASILY cause anyone with a sense of intelligence to conclude this man was a fraud.


If you read the Seerah, you'd know that the Prophet (saw) never kept any possessions, he gave all his money away, he kept his family barely alive and offered the lands Muslims acquired in war for charity. That's the man we know and respect.



Quote

Refer to sermon 6 of Nahj Al Balagha. By the time of Jamal and Siffeen and Nehrawan, he had enough people to support him so he fought them. Imam Al Hussain (as) didn't let go of the Imamah, he saved his blood by not fighting due to the lack of supporters. The same people that said he has turned an apostate by not fighting the umayyads.


You can't say Hasan didn't have support, `Ali's army which he used to fight is the exact same army al-Hasan had rallied behind him. The moment al-Hasan too charge of his father's army he sought peace with Mu`awiyah and NO it's not to save his own blood, he himself said "I had the skulls of the Arabs in my hand, they'd fight my enemy and make peace with my ally, I left it all for the sake of Allah and so no blood would be shed."


He saved Muslim blood, not his own blood. You people claim Mu`awiyah is an evil tyrant and a liar, how would al-Hasan save his own blood by handing his neck to Mu`awiyah? If you read history you'd know that it's historically established that al-Hasan had a gigantic army who could have easily settled the fight, he just wasn't interested in fighting. Al-Husayn would have followed his father's footsteps, that's his personality and `Ali was right in his war.


PS. please stop quoting al-Nahj, nobody quotes this book, it's chainless and inaccurate, the author only chose those sermons because they sounded good, not because they're authentic or accurate.



Quote

Perhaps you would like to tell me  he had his nose broken after he broke the door or before it ? According to rafidhi narrations.


You said the moment he stepped near the door `Ali broke his nose. So I ask, did `Umar break Fatimah's rib according to your Iraqi stories after he had his nose broken?


Quote
The cowardice of Umar has been narrated in many a history books and hadith alike. Ask yourself if Imam Ali (as) had killed all of them that night, what would've happened to Islam ?


According to the Shia version, if he had killed all of them it would have been great, then he could rule and establish correct "Shia Islam" and we'd all be twelvers.


Quote
Ali (as) would be the same as the two cowards Abu Bakr and Umar in the eyes of the world.


So if `Ali killed the two evil tyrants who stole his divine right he'd be a coward? But if he let them rule and destroy Islam and misguide the nation and he gives Bay`ah as Taqiyyah he'd be brave?


I think you got it upside down bro.



Quote

Did any other wives say the same thing regarding the hadith ?


It is established that two of his wives knew, `A'ishah and Juwayriyyah. The rest is unclear, it seems a group of his wives did not know that's why they sent `Uthman to ask for inheritance but we don't know who they were.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Noor-us-Sunnah

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #91 on: May 12, 2016, 11:09:41 AM »
Quote
LOL, tubelight, what it implies, is that someone tampered the sermon of Nahjul balagha. And this is what Ibn Abil hadeed was trying to say.
LOL you believe it to be tempered when it comes to the missing name but don't think it might be tempered that the mention of Umar has made it in the book, even though the book was compiled by a rafidhi ?
Yes, I don't because of the reasons mentioned regarding the character of Sharif Al-Razi in the following article:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/12/21/al-radi-distorting-nahj-ul-balaghah/

P.S: It's not tempered its TAMPERED. :p

Quote
He (sawa) prayed alone and not in a congregation. He disliked it when people started gathering behind him to pray so he stopped coming to the mosque. If he wanted to instill that practice, he wouldn't have gone to the mosque alone the first night and quit going after he saw people gathering.
Dude you have been fed with false information by your Mullahs. The fact is that Prophet(SAWS) prayed in congregation for THREE NIGHTS. But he didn't come out the fourth night because he feared that this might become a obligatory prayer on the Ummah.  Prophet(SAWS) didn't say I disliked congregation. If this was the case then he would have done this in the second night itself or He would have said this after ending the prayer on first day itself that, this was not allowed. Prophet(SAWS) used to be in the forefront when it came to correcting the people.

Here is the evidence from the hadeeth:

Narrated 'Urwa: That he was informed by `Aisha, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out in the middle of the night and prayed in the mosque and some men prayed behind him. In the morning, the people spoke about it and then a large number of them gathered and prayed behind him (on the second night). In the next morning the people again talked about it and on the third night the mosque was full with a large number of people. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came out and the people prayed behind him. On the fourth night the Mosque was overwhelmed with people and could not accommodate them, but the Prophet (ﷺ) came out (only) for the morning prayer. When the morning prayer was finished he recited Tashah-hud and (addressing the people) said, "Amma ba'du, your presence was not hidden from me but I was afraid lest the night prayer (Qiyam) should be enjoined on you and you might not be able to carry it on." So, Allah's Apostle died and the situation remained like that (i.e. people prayed individually). " [Sahih al-Bukhari #2012]

Moreover, the criticism of innovation doesn't suit the people who have filled their Madhab with innovations. Take example of Salat al-Fatima or Salat al-Abbas or Salat al-Ayat.  If you don't know what this is, see the example of Shia innovation of Salat al-Ayat



Quote
Lol, if you say those words were said by a woman for Umar(RA), then if you believe that the same words were found in Nahjul balagha said by Ali(RA) for someone, then obviously Ali(RA) took these words from a woman, who used it before ALi(RA). Because Umar(RA) died many years before Malik al-Ashtar.

Means the whole narration being there is suspicious since you don't take anything from the rawafid.
I believe that the honest Rafidi, Sharif al-Razi did mention the name of Umar(RA), but the dishonest ones tampered the sermon.

Optimus Prime

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #92 on: May 12, 2016, 07:10:09 PM »
Hani, I'd very much love to read this narration.

Quote
Umm Hani' bint abi Talib narrated:


[...That Fatimah told Abu Bakr: “Who inherits you if you die?” He said: “My children and family.” She said: “Why then do you inherit the messenger (saw) without us?” He said: “O daughter of the messenger of Allah (saw), I never inherited from your father a house or wealth neither gold nor silver.” She said: “Yes you did, our share that Allah mentioned for us and the land which was purely owned by us in Fadak.”...]


He replies with the report that the Prophet (saw) did not wish to leave inheritance.


They also discussed the Khums, Anas narrated that Fatimah told Abu Bakr that he should know the right that Allah bestowed upon them (The household) from the war booty and she recited verse 41 of Surat-ul-Anfal.


Abu Bakr responded by saying:


[...I read from the book of Allah as you do and it did not reach my attention that this entire share (meaning the fifth of the fifth) is entirely spent on the close relatives of the messenger of Allah (saw)...]


Meaning, he believed that the one in charge may spend as much as he sees fit on the relatives of the Prophet (saw) based on their numbers and need.

If you can share the source, and text, please.

Jazak'Allah.

Hani

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #93 on: May 12, 2016, 09:00:11 PM »
Source is al-Tarikah by Nu`aym bin Hammad.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Optimus Prime

Re: Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2016, 12:13:56 AM »
Source is al-Tarikah by Nu`aym bin Hammad.

Jazak'Allah.

Do you mind confirming the entire narration, please? Even if it's Arabic.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
21 Replies
6147 Views
Last post June 13, 2016, 12:07:29 PM
by scusemyenglish
1 Replies
1790 Views
Last post April 20, 2015, 01:24:08 AM
by MuslimK
5 Replies
2177 Views
Last post April 14, 2016, 10:20:11 PM
by Abu Jasim Al-Salafi
28 Replies
2534 Views
Last post October 10, 2017, 08:45:36 PM
by Noor-us-Sunnah