Just quick comments since you never wrote anything useful.
Quote
We can play the rijal and manuscript game all you like
Rijal is not a game, the fact that you said this shows your low-class level, your bias and your extremism.
Then like a twelve year old kid you copy and paste some list from a website thinking that it would impress us?
Quote
وى أحمد عن أبي البختري عن علي عليه السّلام قال: «بعثني رسول الله صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم إلى اليمن وأنا حديث السن قال: قلت: تبعثني إلى قوم يكون بينهم أحداث ولا علم لي بالقضاء قال: انّ الله سيهدي لسانك ويثبت قلبك، قال: فما شككت في قضاء بين اثنين بعد»(1).
وروى الحاكم باسناده عن أنس بن مالك: «ان النبي صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم قال لعلي: أنت تبين لأمتي ما اختلفوا فيه بعدي»(2).
وروى الشبلنجي عن ابن مسعود، قال: «أفرض أهل المدينة وأقضاها علي»(3).
.
.
.
You quote a cocktail of narrations as if we think that `Ali is a bad judge or sumthing, SubhanAllah what a grasshopper. Heck half of this list is the exact same report being repeated.
Quote
You tried to attack the hadith from umar by saying that "he could of meant it only when abu bakr was dead" using ad hoc argument with no proof whatsoever that abu bakr was a better judge than Ali.
Already addressed this, He doesn't need to be a better judge, he can be a less better judge and still get it right.
Quote
This hadith says that Allah guides the tongue of Ali when it comes to judgement, this is actually stronger than the hadith we've been trying to argue over.....
Also already addressed, he gave him more confidence to make his judgement since he was too scared due to his inexperience. Doesn't mean all his judgments will be right.
Man you repeat yourself a lot.
Quote
And Lastly, Imam Ali [as] himself says in authentic narrations in your books that he there would not be anything in the book of Allah that he did not know the minute details of.
We believe `Ali was from the most knowledgeable men, and maybe even the most knowledgeable man in his own reign. Doesn't mean that others didn't know anything or weren't close or near to his level if not better in certain sciences. Ibn Mas`oud died before `Ali and it has been authentically reported from him that he said that nobody alive knew more about Allah's book than himself.
I've never seen somebody try to dodge and wiggle as much as you.
1- Do you accept that Allah guided the tongue of Imam Ali [as] when he made judgement?
2- Do you accept that Umar called Ali [as] the best judge of the companions?
3- Do you accept that the narration with Ali [as] is the best judge is mutawatir? (btw I didn't claim it is mutawatir your "expert" scholars did).
I don't believe any of this which makes you a sinful liar. The Prophet (saw) said: The Muslim does not lie.
If you're not a salafi and you don't believe that Allah has fingers and hands (that are "unimingable") then the majority of your scholars do, including Ibn baz, albani, and the rest of the Sunnah ulema.
And actually the person sinning is you, making a disgraceful website like this creating sectarian hate between Sunnah and Shia, you should be ashamed of yourself. You attack Allah [swt] religion day and night.
1- There's two opinions: A- All prophets do not offer inheritance. B- Only our prophet did not wish to offer it. Either way doesn't work for you.
Lets not play, we know you believe in B because A obviously doesn't work.
So lets talk about B, the prophet [saw] never gave away ownership of Fadak.
The waqf you keep mentioning here is not only irrelevant to the argument, its completely wrong.
Why?
You just admitted that the prophet [saw] owned Fadak personally but "gave it away", you're contradicting Abu Bakr who said that prophets don't inherit, meaning that his argument would only be valid if Muhammad [saw] had Fadak, otherwise AB would of just said "your father doesn't own it, he gave it away".
قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ
This is referring to when they went to Abu Bakr, this is actual evidence that it wasn't a "gift" for if it were then `Umar would have instead said: "And you both went to Abu Bakr asking for your property" Instead he said: "Asking him for the inheritance of your nephew and you asking for the inheritance of your wife etc..."
So?
Imam Ali [as] is clearly asking again for "inheritance" of Fatima from her father again from Umar.
قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ
Umar says Abu Bakr said " I am the the Wali of the prophet,so you both came asking you asking for your inheritance from your npehew and this person asking inheritance for his wife from her father."
Then he says....
"So Abu bakr said the prophet said we are not inherited from, what we leave is charity".
Then he continues and say essentially "you both came back asking for me to pay/give you Fadak".
فَوَلِيتُهَا ثُمَّ جِئْتَنِي أَنْتَ وَهَذَا وَأَنْتُمَا جَمِيعٌ وَأَمْرُكُمَا وَاحِدٌ ، فَقُلْتُمَا : ادْفَعْهَا إِلَيْنَا
"So you both again then come to me, you and this person together with the same issue, and you both say "give it (fadak) to us".
This clearly shows that they still believe they have a right to Fadak even after Umar, as umar puts it...
Then umar clarifies as to what they are asking for :
فَقُلْتُ : إِنْ شِئْتُمْ
دَفَعْتُهَا إِلَيْكُمَا ، عَلَى أَنَّ عَلَيْكُمَا عَهْدَ اللَّهِ أَنْ تَعْمَلَا فِيهَا بِالَّذِي كَانَ يَعْمَلُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
"If you both wish I will give it (fadak) to you both on the condition that you do with it what the prophet [saw] did with it during his time".
^
This clearly shows that they are asking for the land back, and not just the produce of the land.
Then umar says..
"You both thought him a liar etc etc etc"...
"Now you both think of me the same etc etc etc"
Because they are rejecting what they are ruling in regards to the land so Umar is telling them basically...
"Do you both think us as liars and thieves"!?
This is 100 percent clear, you're trying to make these little side sleight of hands that aren't going to help you.
You mean al-Hakim al-Haskani? Here's a tip, NEVER say al-Hakim whithout clarifying who it is unless it's al-Hakim al-Nisabouri, otherwise it would be Tadlees (like the author of al-Muraja`aat does). Now According to your scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani the man was a Shiite.
آقا بزرالطهراني في الذريعة إلى تصانيف الشيعة ج 4 ص 194
The author of this book often quotes from the Rafidi Tafseer Furat so all in all his book Shawaahid al-Tanzil is not a Hujjah.
Actually the shawahid I gave you is fine, this is what Dhahabi says about Al hakim the dirty rafidhi...
الحسكانى القاضى المحدث أبو القاسم عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن احمد بن محمد بن احمد بن محمد بن حسكان القرشي العامري النيسابوري الحنفي الحاكم ويعرف بابن الحذاء الحافظ شيخ متقن ذو عناية تامة بعلم الحديث وهو من ذرية الأمير عبد الله بن عامر بن كريز الذي افتتح خراسان زمن عثمان وكان معمرا عالي الإسناد
“Al-Haskani, the judge, the muhadith, Abu al-Qasim Ubaidllah bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Haskan al-Qurashi al-Ameri al-Nisaburi al-Hanafi al-Hakim, popularly known as ibn al-Heda, Hafiz, a preserved Sheikh, very careful with the knowledge of hadith, he is from price Abdullah bin Amer bin Kuraiz decent, who conquest Khurasan during Uthman’s time, and he led along life and his chain (isnaad) was highly (preserved)”
Tadkirat al-Hufaz, Volume 3 page 1200 Translation No. 1032
No genius, Ibn Hajar listed Tadlees separately genius. Otherwise he would have said "Katheer-ul-Tadlees".
Ibn Hajar was referring to his tadlees!
This is what he was talking about, 99 percent of the accusations against Atiya is that he is a mudallas.
It's actually your translation which is faulty ya abuJay. When they say "Sadaqatihi bil-Madinah" this always refers to the Sawafi that he left as Sadaqah in Madinah, I don't know how the heck you invented this ((Fadak and the charities from it's city)) if anything it shows that you haven't opened a book of Amwal and Tarikah in your life nor do you even know what the Prophet (saw)left behind. The property gifted by the Jewish man in addition to the Fay' taken from Banu al-Nadeer are referred to as "Sadaqat Rasul-Allah fil-Madinah" and most were possessions of Salam bin Mushkim al-Nudayri.
The reason people called them Sadaqat was because he made them a Waqf and offered them as charity.
The Arabic says that she asked for the Tarikah, Tarikah is everything left behind, then it specifies what Tarikah she meant, it says "What Rasul-Allah (saw) left behind from Khaybar and Fadak as well as his Sadaqat in al-Madinah."
Now as for the tree hasty conclusions:
1- No he wasn't and this is written nowhere in the Arabic text you provided above.
2- No he didn't and this is written nowhere in the Arabic text you provided above.
3- No he didn't and this is written nowhere in the ARabic text you provided above.
« Last Edit: Today at 09:13:52 PM by Hani »
Lets start with point one I said
1- Ali (as) was still asking for inheritance even after abu bakr died.
You said..
1- No he wasn't and this is written nowhere in the Arabic text you provided above.
First..
ةِ فَدَفَعَهَا عُمَرُ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ وَعَبَّاسٍ فَغَلَبَهُ عَلَيْهَا عَلِيٌّ وَأَمَّا خَيْبَرُ وَفَدَكُ فَأَمْسَكَهُمَا عُمَرُ وَقَالَ هُمَا صَدَقَةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم
"So Umar paid/gave it to Ali and Abbas, so Ali got the better of Umar. As for khaybar and Fadak then Umar held on to them etc etc "
This hadith is in reference to....
قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : أَنَا وَلِيُّ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَجِئْتُمَا تَطْلُبُ مِيرَاثَكَ مِنَ ابْنِ أَخِيكَ وَيَطْلُبُ هَذَا مِيرَاثَ امْرَأَتِهِ مِنْ أَبِيهَا ، فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : مَا نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَاهُ صَدَقَةٌ
So yes, Ali [as] is clearly still asking for inheritance.
2- Ali (as) asked for payment from the produce of the land and was given it.
Wrong, both hadith when taken together show clearly he was asking for Fadak.
Why would someone ask for the produce of Fadak if he knows he clearly doesn't even have a right to the land?
This is like saying someone like Imam Ali [as] was told that this house doesn't belong to him, he admits it but is asking for food from the fridge......
3- Ali (as) asked for Fadak/Khaybr but was denied.
Again this is proven when the two hadith are put together.
No for the love of God man, abu Zur`ah says its from Fudayl from `Atiyyah only, it has no mention of abu Sa`eed
"قَالَ: ليس فيه ذكر أَبِي سَعِيد" Meaning it's a Mursal from `Atiyyah. Why else would it be a `Illah? A narrator mistakenly inserted abu Sa`eed in this chain to make it Muttasil, it's actually Mursal. This narrator is probably Sa`eed bin Khaytham who makes mistakes and isn't even a Thiqah, the one abu Zur`ah narrated from abu Nu`aym who is a Thiqah-Thabt is the actual chain and has no abu Sa`eed. In other words this story about Fadak being gifted is no more than a story circulating among the Koufans.
You're repeating what I said !
Also I gave you the shawahid above from the dirty Shii Al Hakim.
142 Replies
49071 Views
December 28, 2014, 10:51:40 PM
