Who would you have supported?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

[Abu Muhammad]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

[Abu Muhammad]

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

[iceman]

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

You know who it is or the group responsible. But you are going to bring about a twist here. I can see it coming.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

[Optimus Prime]

Mu'awiyah (RA) all the way! Obvious choice.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Mu'awiyah (RA) all the way! Obvious choice.

Ironic considering your name. I guess even the nasibi wishes he was you ya Ali ibn Abi Talib.

[Optimus Prime]

Mu'awiyah (RA) all the way! Obvious choice.

Ironic considering your name. I guess even the nasibi wishes he was you ya Ali ibn Abi Talib.

It's to show my respect for 'Ali. He's okay.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Mu'awiyah (RA) all the way! Obvious choice.

Ironic considering your name. I guess even the nasibi wishes he was you ya Ali ibn Abi Talib.

It's to show my respect for 'Ali. He's okay.

You're an antagonist just like najam, iceman etc

Different sides of the same coin.

Nasibi on one side, rafidhi other side.

[Abu Muhammad]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

Except, the Holy Qur'an says this:

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Hujurat]

It does not differentiate between sahabi or not.

[Abu Muhammad]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

Except, the Holy Qur'an says this:

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Hujurat]

It does not differentiate between sahabi or not.

So, what are you waiting for? Investigate and prove that Abu Ghadiyah lied upon Rasulullah (saw).

[Farid]

Abu Muhammad, I looked into Abu Ghadiya's narrations yesterday. He only has one hadith. It was reported verbatim by others like Jareer Al Bajali, Ibn Omar, Ibn Abbas, and Abu Bakra.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

Except, the Holy Qur'an says this:

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Hujurat]

It does not differentiate between sahabi or not.

So, what are you waiting for? Investigate and prove that Abu Ghadiyah lied upon Rasulullah (saw).

Nice argument, what a great point. Lol. Do you not understand what I am saying? As a fasiq - all his narrations (and it turns out only one he has) should be viewed with suspicion and not accepted because man is a sahabi. In anyway, I am arguing against the broader belief of adalat al sahaba and not just against one sahabi.

[Optimus Prime]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

Except, the Holy Qur'an says this:

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Hujurat]

It does not differentiate between sahabi or not.

So, what are you waiting for? Investigate and prove that Abu Ghadiyah lied upon Rasulullah (saw).

Nice argument, what a great point. Lol. Do you not understand what I am saying? As a fasiq - all his narrations (and it turns out only one he has) should be viewed with suspicion and not accepted because man is a sahabi. In anyway, I am arguing against the broader belief of adalat al sahaba and not just against one sahabi.

A person can be a fasiq for different reasons, and someone's fisq can be on different levels. It doesn't mean, his testimony should be completely shunned.

Imam Bukhari has accepted narrations from second generation Tabi'uns who were Shia on certain conditions.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

@Zlatan,

What is your understanding with regard to adalat sahabah?

That what that they narrate is thiqa and do not intend to narrate lies about the Prophet - and therefore are not liable for jarh and ta'dil.

What do you say?

I decided to return to this topic for further discussion.

1) Ammar will be killed by the baghi group

And we know that

2) Killer of Ammar is a sahabi

So we can say

3) Killer of Ammar is a baghi

And therefore we conclude that the

4) Killer of Ammar is a baghi who is adil at the same time??? (What?!)

Another thing, may I know who was that sahabi whom you claimed had killed Ammar?

Abu Ghadiyah

So, maybe in the case of Abu Ghadiyah, what you should actually do to put doubt into his adalah is to gather all the hadiths narrated by him and try to prove from those hadiths that he has lied upon Rasulullah (saw). Because that's what Sunnis actually claim: they didn't lie upon Rasulullah (saw).

Not by trying to relate his adalah to bugha. Because bugha or whatever, no Sunnis claim that sahabahs were error-free and yet Sunnis accept them as trustworthy. Trustworthy in narrating the words of Rasulullah (saw).

Except, the Holy Qur'an says this:

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. [Hujurat]

It does not differentiate between sahabi or not.

So, what are you waiting for? Investigate and prove that Abu Ghadiyah lied upon Rasulullah (saw).

Nice argument, what a great point. Lol. Do you not understand what I am saying? As a fasiq - all his narrations (and it turns out only one he has) should be viewed with suspicion and not accepted because man is a sahabi. In anyway, I am arguing against the broader belief of adalat al sahaba and not just against one sahabi.

A person can be a fasiq for different reasons, and someone's fisq can be on different levels. It doesn't mean, his testimony should be completely shunned.

Imam Bukhari has accepted narrations from second generation Tabi'uns who were Shia on certain conditions.

Thanks

[Optimus Prime]

The Sahaba by default are regarded as reliable, as Allah (SWT) has praised them for their dedications towards the Deen on numerous occasions in the Qu'ran.

No Hadith scholar since inception has said otherwise.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

The Sahaba by default are regarded as reliable, as Allah (SWT) has praised them for their dedications towards the Deen on numerous occasions in the Qu'ran.

No Hadith scholar since inception has said otherwise.

The sahaba who are thiqa by default should not remain thiqa by default if they commit fisq.

[Optimus Prime]

The Sahaba by default are regarded as reliable, as Allah (SWT) has praised them for their dedications towards the Deen on numerous occasions in the Qu'ran.

No Hadith scholar since inception has said otherwise.

The sahaba who are thiqa by default should not remain thiqa by default if they commit fisq.

Then, I suppose we should throw all the narrations that have reached us through Shias (your ancestors interestingly enough) in the trash?

That rule only extends to narrators after the companions because their entire lifestyle needs to be examined, and scrutinised.

Allah (SWT) has divinely confirmed they are reliable in the Qur'an. This is the interpretation the entire orbit of Ahlus Sunnah extrapolate from the various verses.

You'll also come across statement from the students of the Sahaba, how many of them were at times reluctant to narrate Ahadith unless they could remember it word-for-word 100%. This is further indication, how they took great care in narrating Ahadith.