Ali رضي الله عنه و أرضاه would have whipped the Shias of today



Download 2.18 Mb.
Page4/26
Date conversion15.02.2016
Size2.18 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26

تفسير القمي – (ج 2 / ص 97) واما قوله : ( ان الذين جاؤا بالافك عصبة منكم لا تحسبوه شرا لكم بل هو خير لكم ) فان العامة رووا انها نزلت في عائشة وما رميت به في غزوة بني المصطلق من خزاعة واما الخاصة فانهم رووا انها نزلت في مارية القبطية وما رمتها به عائشة والمنافقات .
 حدثنا محمد بن جعفر قال: حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن الحسن بن علي بن فضال قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن بكير عن زرارة، قال: سمعت أبا جعفر عليهما السلام يقول: لما مات إبراهيم ابن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله حزن عليه حزنا شديدا، فقالت عائشة: ما الذي يحزنك عليه؟ فما هو إلا ابن جُرَيْج. فبعث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله عليًّا وأمره بقتله، فذهب علي عليه السلام إليه ومعه السيف. وكان جريج القبطي في حائط، وضرب عليّ عليه السلام باب البستان، فأقبل إليه جريج ليفتح له الباب. فلما رأى عليا عليه السلام عرف في وجهه الغضب فأدبر راجعا ولم يفتح الباب. فوثب علي عليه السلام على الحائط ونزل إلى البستان واتبعه وولى جريج مدبرا.

Tafsir Al-Qummi (vol. 2) : “As for His saying : (11:Verily! Those who brought forth the slander are a group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you), then the ‘Aammah (‘the commoners’ i.e. the Sunnis) have narrated that this verse was revealed for Aisha, when she was accused (of adultery) in the battle of Bani Mustalaq from Khazaa’ah. As for the Khaassah (‘the special ones, the Shia), then they narrated that this verse was revealed in regards to Maria the Coptic , when she was accused (of adulter) by Aisha and the hypocrite.  [chain of narrators up to chemical Zurarah] Zurarah [ زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى ومن قال ان الله ثالث ثلاثة - كذب علي والله، لعن الله زرارة] said: I heard Abu Ja’far (Al-Baqir) (ع) saying: “When Ibrahim the son of the Messenger of Allah (ص) demised, the Messenger of Allah (ص) felt deep sorrow for him so Aaisha said : What is it that makes you sad about him? He was just the son of Jurayh [i.e. Maria the mother of Ibrahim betrayed the Prophet with Jurayh!]. Thereupon the Messenger (ص) sent Ali (ع) to kill him [Jurayh], so Ali (ع) while carrying a sword went to him and Jurayh the Qibti (the Coptic) was in his garden so Ali (ع) struck the gate of the garden thereupon Jurayh embraced him and was about to open the door. When Jurayh saw Ali (ع) he knew by looking at Ali’s (ع) face that he (Ali) was up to something bad (i.e. angry) so Jurayh turned back and did not open the gate, so Ali (ع) jumped over the wall and entered the garden and followed him while Jurayh was running and was scared that Ali (ع) might make him tired so he decided to climb up a palm tree and Ali (ع) followed him up there. When Ali (ع) was about to catch him, Jurayh threw himself off the palm tree and as a result his ‘Awra (private part) got exposed. [Ali saw] that he [Jurayh] did not have what males have and neither what females have [i.e. he was a Mukhannath/hermaphrodite]. So Ali (ع) went back to the Prophet (ص) and  asked him: “O Messenger of Allaah, if you send me in regards to an issue, should I carry it out without hesitating or should I first verifiy it? He said: “No, verify first”  So he said: “By the One that sent you with truth, he doesn’t have what men have nor does he have what women have.” He (Prophet) said: “All praise is due to Allaah the One that keeps evil away from us Ahl Al-Bayt“.



Source: Al-Qummi Tafseer Al-Qummi, vol. 2, pg. 99 (under tafseer of 24:11), Hadith is Muwaththaq (Reliable).
NOTE: The same Ibrahim Al-Qummi is an OPEN Qur’an denier who according to Shia scholars themselves want into extremes in regards to the belief of Tahrif, yet he’s still regarded as one of their biggest scholars, he is  their Ibn Kathir! just like Kulayni is their Imam Ahmad, yet the Rafidha scholars openly believed in the distortion of the Qur’an:

They are satisfied with those who disbelieved in the main Thaql

Have you read it? This Kafir Mushrik Al-Qummi (and Al-Majlisi the Safavid who narrated the same)  i.e. their Ibn Kathir, their Tabari (imagine such things were in our Tafsir books!) has FILLED his Tafsir with RAFIDHI TAHRIF narrations, to such an extent, that Shia scholars themselves were shocked. This Kafir is the same who narrated the “Al-Ifk” version that the ignoramus Nakhjawani quotes. Says alot about these devil’s, doesn’t it? But wait, it get’s worse, for the Kafir Al-Qummi also narrated that Aisha (on her way to Basra) committed fornication (Zina) with the Sahabi Talha (تفسير القمي ج2 ص377 Tafsir Al-Qummi, vol. 2, p. 377), may the curse of Allah be upon the Rafidha, from Kulayni to Khomeini.

To dissapoint those who think that perhaps, only the ancient, rotten ‘scholars’ of Shiism accused the wive of the Prophet, Aisha, the Mother of the Believers of having accused Maria the Coptic of adultery, here a contemporary Tafsir, Al-Mizan fi tafsiri’l-Qur’an, popularly known as Tafsir al-Mizan written by “Ayatullah” Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai, the wrinkle face of Shirk:



16c92b5e5992261718d2cb4c5f5ca948250

And here is what Tabatabai has said concerning the Tafsir of this (Surah Maidah, verse 11) verse:

“The ayah refers to the incident of al-Ifk. And (according) to the narration of the Ahl Al-Sunnah that a story of al-Ifk (big slander/audeltery) was thrown against Umm Al-Mu’minin Aishah, and (according) to narrations of the Shiah this was revealed for Maria the Coptic, mother of Ibrahim”.
Source: Tabatabai, Al-Meezaan fee Tafseer al-Qur’aan, vol. 15, pg. 89

Note how this Shaytan does not mention that his sect believes that Aisha (the one he called ‘Umm Al-Mu’minin for Taqiyyah reasons) accused Maria of adultery!

Finally we shall bring some proper, authentic narrations he desperately tried to undermine (they’ll be followed by a short and tidy refutation of the doubts Nakhjavani raised at some of the Ahadith/narrators):

From ‘Abdullah Ibn ‘Ubayd who said: “Ibn Abbas (Bani Hashimi of the Ahl Al-Bayt) sought permission to enter upon Aaisha during her sickness which she died from (i.e. shortly before hear demise!). So she refused. And he continued to persist and seek permission until she agreed for him to enter. He entered and heard her saying: ‘I seek refuge by Allah from the fire. ‘He – Ibn Abbas – said: ‘ O Mother of the Believers, indeed Allah, the Most Glorious, The Most Mighty has exempted you from the fire. You are the first women whose excuse was revealed from the heavens“. [No. 1636, Fadha'il Al-Sahabah by Imam Ahmad :Rehmaullah: with the checking of Shaykh Al-Muhaddith Wasiyullah al-'Abbas Al-Hindi who said it is Sahih.]

From ‘Asim Ibn Kulayb, from his father who said: ‘We went to Ali :ra anho:and Aishah was mentioned. So he [Ali] said:”The Khaleelah (the most beloved female) of the Messenger of Allah :[s.a.w.w]:“. [Hadith Hassan, Dhahabi said it's chain is authentic]

Here Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir in regards to the incident of Al-Ifk

Ammar happily accepts weak narrations – like the one that includes Abu Bakr and Omar into the slander – yet he rejects the Sahih narrations by Aisha and Ibn Abbas the HASHIMI. That tells alot about this man, for those who really seek the truth.

Additional rebuttals:

It would take ages to refute every point in Ammar’s video for several reasons. The first is that he barely cites his sources. At times, he mentions specifics that one not find in the narrations. Take for example the part in which he says that Ali was trying to beat a confession out of Buraira. We couldn’t find this, this is because this is absolutely made-up, to stir the emotions of his followers (just like he made-up some extra additions in the part where Aisha refused to take back her accusation, there is no such thing mentioned in any Sunni or Shia Hadith!). There is also a problem with his approach on history. He assumes that there is an agreement over everything that he says. For example, he argues that Saad bin Muadh died before the event, and that there is a consensus among historians that the event of Al-Ifk happened in the year 6 AH. However, Musa bin Uqbah, whose Tarikh is arguably better than Ibn Ishaaq, suggests that Al-Ifk happened in the year 4 AH. So, there is room for the questioning of historical dates pertaining to these matters and nothing is completely set in stone with the existence of these differences of opinion. However, the view of the majority seems to be that the event did take place in the year 6 AH, and that is fine since mistakes do happen in these kinds of narrations.

It is also interesting to note that the problem with such contradictions in the narration seems to go back to the fact that it is narrated by several Tabi’een who heard it from Aisha. Al-Zuhri narrates this hadith through all of them together without differentiating each narration from each other. It seems that this is one of the reasons why the scholars didn’t isolate a certain narrator as the person that made the mistake. Most importantly, none of these contradictions imply any form of foul play. These are mistakes at best. Of course, the biggest issue with Ammar’s lecture is the alternative he gives. If he just stayed quiet it would have been a better lecture. However, instead he quoted Tafsir Al-Qummi, with weak chains (a good number of Shia scholars completely reject that book) are also weak and do not come close to the authenticity of the narration of Aisha or Ibn Abbas. Also to argue that Ibn Abbas wasn’t there are the time is a weak argument. There is no reason to believe that because he didn’t witness these actions that he assumed wrong for a total of 50+ years without clarifying with other witnesses.

Confusion in regards to some narrators:

Another Shubha by Ammar (old and cheap one which he has taken from Rafidhi websites) is in regards to a certain Sahabi who has been mentioned in the famous (and lenghty) Al-Ifk narration (NOTE, the narration itself nukes Rafidhism for it proves that the wives ARE of the AHL AL-BAYT of the Prophet according to the Prophet HIMSELF)

«يَامَعْشَرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مَنْ يَعْذِرُنِي مِنْ رَجُلٍ قَدْ بَلَغَنِي أَذَاهُ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي، فَوَاللهِ مَا عَلِمْتُ عَلَى أَهْلِي إِلَّا خَيْرًا، وَلَقَدْ ذَكَرُوا رَجُلًا مَا عَلِمْتُ عَلَيْهِ إِلَّا خَيْرًا، وَمَا كَانَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَى أَهْلِي إِلَّا مَعِي»
……….
فقام سعد بن معاذ الأنصاري فقال أنا أعذرك منه يا رسول الله إن كان من الأوس ضربنا عنقه وإن كان من إخواننا الخزرج أمرتنا ففعلنا أمرك

“… so Allah’s Messenger got up (and addressed) the people (after Aisha had been accused of adultery by the HYPOCRITES) and asked for somebody who would take revenge on Abdullah Ibn Ubay Ibn Salool. Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “Who will relieve me from a man who has hurt me by slandering my AHL AL-BAYT? By Allah, I know nothing EXCEPT good about my Ahl (family)“.

[...] so (Saad Ibn) Muaadh stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I defend your honour against him. If he belong to the tribe of Aus we would strike his neck and if he belongs to the tribe of our brother Khazraj and you order us we would comply with your order [...]

[A very long Hadith in Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6673, Chapter 10: HADITH PERTAINING TO THE LIE ABOUT 'A'ISHA SIDDIQA (ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HER) AND ACCEPTING OF REPENTANCE OF THOSE WHO BROUGHT FALSE ALLEGATION ABOUT HERBook 037]

Nakhjavani makes a big deal out of that and mentions the mistakes in the narration by stating that the Sahabi Saad Ibn Muaadh was dead long time before, to be precice, he was dead after the battle of Khandaq which was in 5AH, according the majority of Sunni historians, hence Saad Ibn Muaadh was not alive when the incident of Al-Ifk 5/6AH occured, for the incident of Al-Ifk was after the Ghazwa of Bani Mustalaq (which was AFTER the battle of Khandaq were Muaadh died!). How can then Saad Ibn Muadh be mentioned in the narration (NOTE, he is NOT a narrator!)

Sounds funky and exciting, but be asured that the Rafidhi did nothing but recycling old (repeated) Shubuhat by his fellow Rafidha propagandists, that have been refuted (although not in English) thousands of times in Arabic, but he (just like his “Ayatullahs”) keeps recycling rubbish in the hope that most Rafidha (anyway) and even Sunni laymen have no clue about these contradictions/mistakes and the answers to them, so he just mentions as much as he can to finally reach his goal, which is discarding the whole Sahih narration and basically accusing Aisha of being a liar.



Rebuttal:

Firstly some scholars like Musa Ibn Uqba said that the Ghazwa of Al-Mustalaq (after which the incident of Al-Ifk happened) occured in the year 4AH and not as the Jumhoor (majority) say in the year 5/6AH, i.e. he argues that it happened BEFORE the battle of Khandaq, hence the presence of Muaadh is not problematic at all (since he died in 5AH).

Besides that, the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim (actually a RIWAYAH/NARRATION, since it is not a saying of the Prophet) is a very long Hadith, and mistakes do happen in these kinds of narrations. It is also interesting to note that the problem with such contradictions in the narration seems to go back to the fact that it is narrated by several tabi’een who heard it from A’isha. Al-Zuhri narrates this hadith through all of them together without differentiating each narration from each other. It seems that this is one of the reasons why the scholars didn’t isolate a certain narrator as the person that made the mistake. However, the problem lies most probably in Alqama bin Waqqas, since we haven’t seen any other narrations that mention Saad bin Muadh except for the ones that he is in.

Very long Hadith, with lots of details, are a difficult task in terms of memorisation, even for people with a strong Hifdh (memory) it is problematic, so these mistakes do happen but certainly do not change the major issues of an event/incident i.e. in our case the fact that without a shred of doubt Aisha was the one being accused and the fact that the ayahs about the innocence of the one being accused were definately revealed  (acc. to all major and notable historians) before MARIA could have ever become the Prophet’s wife i.e. they were revealed for the Mother of the Believers Aisha.

Ibn Ishaq mentions the incident and clarifies the issue about Saad Ibn Muadh:

. وقال محمد بن إسحاق إن غزوة بني المصطلق كانت في سنة ست بعد الخندق وذكر فيها حديث الإفك إلا أنه قال عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله بن عتبة عن عائشة فذكر الحديث .فقال فقام أسيد بن الحضير فقال أنا أعذرك منه فرد عليه سعد بن عبادة ولم يذكر سعد بن معاذ . قال أبو محمد بن حزم : وهذا هو الصحيح الذي لا شك فيه وذكر سعد بن معاذ وهم لأن سعد بن معاذ مات إثر فتح بني قريظة بلا شك وكانت في آخر ذي القعدة من السنة الرابعة وغزوة بني المصطلق في شعبان من السنة السادسة بعد سنة وثمانية أشهر من موت سعد وكانت المقاولة بين الرجلين المذكورين بعد الرجوع من غزوة بني المصطلق بأزيد من خمسين ليلة .

Summary:

Ibn Ishaaq (like the absolute majority) mentions that the incident of Al-Ifk happened in the year 6AH, after the battle of Khandaq, he also mentions the Hadith of Al-Ifk, with a slight but important difference than in the Sahihayn:

[...] so Asyad Ibn Al-Hudhayr (instead of Saad Ibn Mu’adh) stood up and said: Allah’s Messenger, I defend your honour against him [...]

As you can see, he did not mentioned Saad Ibn Muaadh and Ibn Hazm agreed with him, this is (as explained before) because Saad Ibn Muaadh had passed away (at least) a year ago.

Also remember that the only narration mentioning Saad Ibn Muaadh is the narration of where Alqama Ibn Waqqas is in the chain, so he most propably made the mistake.

Nasibis in the chain?

26:00. He says that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib (the major Tabi’i, also known as the leader of the Tabi’is!) didn’t give a damn about Zayn Al-Abidin and when being asked if he attends (Ali Ibn Al-Hussein) Zayn Al-Abidin’s (Rafidha believe him to be their “4th infallible Imam”, according to us Muslims he was a major Tabi’i, the son of Al-Hussein Ibn Ali) funeral, he replied that two mustahhab/recommended units of prayer are more beloved to him than praying for Zayn Al-Abidin. Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib is one of the Tabi’i narrators of the incident of Al-Ifk, so this the deceiver Nakhjavani wants to get rid of him and simply declare him unreliable. The huge accusation Nakhjavani made against Imam Al-Musayyib is of course done without any reference (as usual), hence we do the job for him, Sunnis and Shias so all can see and judge how literally shamelessly Shia scholars and preachers lie:

Nakhjavani quoted accusation against a top scholars of the Salaf (Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib) from one of their greatest “Shaykhs”, a master of lies and fabrications i.e. Al-Mufeed (the lunatic who claimed to have refuted Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in a DREAM!)

وقال المفيد في الأركان: وأما ابن المسيب فليس يدفع نصبه وما اشتهر عنه


من الرغبة عن الصلاة على زين العابدين عليه السلام قيل له: ألا تصلي على
هذا الرجل الصالح من أهل البيت الصالح؟ فقال: صلاة ركعتين أحب إلي من
الصلاة على الرجل الصالح من أهل البيت الصالح، وروي عن مالك أنه كان
خارجيا إباضيا، والله أعلم بحقيقة الحال

In any case, Rafidha schlolars themselves doubt the authenticity of the above (i.e. what Nakhjavani said about Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyab), here a Shia website:

http://qadatona.org/…ربي/الرجال/5190

فإن كتاب الأركان وإن ذكره النجاشي والشيخ في كتب


الشيخ المفيد إلا أنه ليس من كتبه المعروفة، ومن ثم لم يصل إلى الشيخ المجلسي
ولا إلى صاحب الوسائل ولا إلى الشيخ النوري (قدس الله أسرارهم) مع
حرصهم الشديد على تتبع الكتب والرواية عنها، إذن لم يثبت أن طريق الشهيد

Summary:


The book where Al-Mufid mentioned that incident (about the funeral of Zayn Al-Abidin) is not realible, since it is not even established if it was Al-Mufid’s book!

Besides, the Rafidha scholars themselves potray Saeeb Ibn Al-Musayyib in a good light, they claimed he was a sort of hidden/undercover Rafidhi and student of Imam Al-Zayn Al-Abidin, others say that he was a sincere (misguided) Sunni who loved Al-Zayn Al-Abidin. source.

Here an excerpt from the source above:

A young man from Quraysh was sitting in an assembly with Sa’id b. al-Musayyib and saw Ali b. al-Husayn, peace be on them. “Who is that, Abu Muhammad?” the Qurash; asked Sa’id b. al- Musayyib. “That is the lord of worshippers (Abidin), Ali b. al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib, peace be on them,” he answered.

Allah exposes them at their own hands! This vile Rafidhi “Nakshawani” accused the major Tabi’i (Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib) of being an enemy (i.e. Nasibi) of Imam Al-Sajjad/Zayn Al-Abidin, yet (ironically) most likely it was Saeed Al-Musayyib (some say Al-Zuhri) who first called him (Ali Ibn Al-Hussein Ibn Abi Talib) the “Lord/master of worshippers” (Zayn Al-Abidin)!

It was narrated from Salih ibn Hassan that a man said to Said ibn Mussaib: “I haven’t seen anyone more godfearing that such and such”. He asked: “Have you seen Ali ibn al-Hussain?” He answered negative. Said said to him: “You didn’t seen anyone more godfearing than him” (“Sifatus saffa” p 417.)

Most of Imam Zayn Al-Aabidin’s narrations are from Abu Hurayrah and Sa’eed ibn al-Musayyib. They did not even let political rivalries impede their persuit of knowledge. That’s why we have Imam Muhammad al-Baqir narrating Hadeeth from the Ummawi Khalifah Marwan bin al-Hakam.

It has been reported in SUNNI AND SHIA books that Saeed Ibn Al-Musayyib said about Zayn Al-Abidin:

قال سعيد بن المسيب: ما رأيت أورع منه.

“I have not seen anyone more pious than him”!

Even Rafidha scholars use this quote, so now Ammar knows better?

“Ayatullah” Al-Milani quotes the same saying above on his website (his source is a SHIA book!):



(Ibn Shihab) Al-Zuhri (also Tabi’i) (d. 124/742) was a well known jurist and traditionist and is credited with being the first to call the Imam by the title ‘Zayn al-’Abidin’.

And there are generally many statements by the Salaf in praise of the great Imams of the Ahl Al-Bayt, who were all Sunnis and innocent of the Rafidha:

Zaynalabidin, al-Baqir and as-Sadiq

there are so many deceptions and blatant lies in his lecture, the more we watched it the more we found out (we probably still missed alot, due to the huge number of lies), and how truthful the Salaf and their followers were:

Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. the thorn in the throat of the Rafidha had already said:

ولهذا كانت الرافضة من أجهل الناس وأضلهم كما أن النصارى من أجهل الناس. والرافضة من أخبث الناس كما أن اليهود من أخبث الناس ففيهم نوع من ضلال النصارى ونوع من خبث اليهود.


منهاج السنة 2/65)

The Rafidah (“Shias”) are from among the most ignorant and misguided people just as the Nasara (“Christians”) are from among the most ignorant people. And the Rafidah are one of the filthiest people as the Jews are one of the filthiest people, for among them [the Rafidah] are the types of the miguidance of the Nasara and the filth of the Jews”. [Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2/65]

And before someone jumps up and claims that what Ibn Taimiyyah said is a “Wahhabi” thing, then know, o Muslim, may Allah have mercy on you, that the giants of the Salaf had the same opinion in regards to the the Rafidha arch liars:

قال الإمام الشافعي: ما رأيت أحدًا أشهد بالزور من الرافضة



Imam Al-Shafi’i said: “I have not seen anyone among the people of desires more famous for falsehood (bearing witness to more lies) than the Rafidha“.(narrated by Imam Al-Lalaka’ie, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah in his Minhaj, Ikhtisaar Uloom Al-Hadeeth, by Ibn Katheer and many other books)

___________________________

PS: Every single Shubha of Nakhjavani (and Yasser Al-Khabith) and other Rawafidh use have been answered a long time ago, here some links refuting every single doubt of them, it’s really so much, we try our best to update this thread, so keep visiting it, Inshaallah:
Arabic:

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=181901

http://bayanelislam.net/Suspicion.aspx?id=03-02-0048&value=&type=

English:


Related to this topic: Part 1: Defence of Ahlelbayt[wives of Prophet/mothers of believers] from the Religious Slanderers

For those who understand Arabic, here a lecture by one of Shaykh Dr Othman Al-Khamis’ students, respdonding to similar doubts by the Kafir Yasser Al-Habib, who holds the SAME belief as Ammar the NakhJAVANI:

Nakhjavani, Yasser Al-Khabith, Khomeini (who called Aisha more impure than a dog) are all on the same Kafir Deen, the only difference is their approach:

finally for those who can ponder:



Verily! Those who brought forth the slander (against ‘Aishah the wife of the Prophet SAW) are a group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you. Unto every man among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be a great torment. (An-Nur 24:11)

Why then, did not the believers, men and women, when you heard it (the slander) think good of their own people and say: “This (charge) is an obvious lie?” (An-Nur 24:12)

Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses! Then with Allâh they are the liars. (An-Nur 24:13)

Had it not been for the Grace of Allâh and His Mercy unto you in this world and in the Hereafter, a great torment would have touched you for that whereof you had spoken. (An-Nur 24:14)

When you were propagating it with your tongues, and uttering with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you counted it a little thing, while with Allâh it was very great. (An-Nur 24:15)

And why did you not, when you heard it, say? “It is not right for us to speak of this. Glory be to You (O Allâh) this is a great lie.” (An-Nur 24:16)

Allâh forbids you from it and warns you not to repeat the like of it forever, if you are believers. (An-Nur 24:17)

Lie or ignorance from Mufid and muhaqiq of his book

October 10, 2012 at 5:15 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Defence of sunnah, Exposing shia lies | 1 Comment

 

 



 

 

 



 

i

 



Rate This

quantcast
Bismillah.

Salam Alaikum.

I’d like to share with small observation from the book of one of the top shia shaykhs known as Mufid. In his book “Risala hawla hadith Nahnu Muasharul Anbiya la Nuwarith” (page 4), thk: Malik al-Mahmudi, al-Mufid said:

http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/nahnu-muasharat-anbiya-cover.png?w=185&h=300

http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/nahnu-muasharat-anbiya.png?w=182&h=300

 

Translation:



and Abu Bakr also rejected this inquiry from her by hadith which he narrated alone, that messenger of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said: We group of messengers are not to be inherited from and all that we leave should be spend for charity.

and along with all, THIS REPORT IS WAHID, IT WAS NOT KNOWN, HEARD, AND REPORTED AT THAT DAY BY ANYONE EXCEPT ABU BAKR.

In the footnote you can see muhaqiq says:

and even if chains of this report are many after that, and they increased to level of mutawatir in the days of Muawiya.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page