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

The last part is actually the part that pulverises Rafidism completel

Download 2.18 Mb.
Size2.18 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26

The last part is actually the part that pulverises Rafidism completely, hence you find Rafidha scholars simply OMITTING the last part, the most CRUCIAL part of the narration, for it refutes their ENTIRE sect:
[...] By Allah he would fulfill what he promised so be men of wisdom and FLEE FROM YOUR OPINION and never come back (until you have given Bay’ah).” So they never returned until they gave Abu Bakr the Baya’ah. Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 7/432. This proves that Fatimah shared Omars view, in fact she WARNED Ali and Zubayr (who according to other Sahih sources did delay the Bay’ah and finally gave the Bay’ah, as proven before) to FLEE from their OPINION. This is indeed the most beautiful part of the narration, proving that Fatimah was a Bakriyyah (Abu Bakr follower) even before her husband. She being upset LATER because of Fadak is a whole other issue, for she never renounced the authority of Abu Bakr (hence she went to him in the first place!). Ali gave Bay’ah, so another Shia lie is exposed (that he never gave Bay’ah).


Abu Bakr (ra) and the Sahaba were done in Saqifa, then they went to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) in public, everyone gave it but when Abu Bakr (ra) looked he never found al-Zubair (ra) and `Ali (ra), he called on them, Omar (ra) went to call on them, he learned that they were meeting in Fatima’ (ra) house and did not attend the Bay`ah, he was angry and went to the house (Then this narration happened), after this Fatima (ra) told al-Zubair (ra) and `Ali (ra) to go give the pledge when they returned, they went and gave it and admitted the superiority and worthiness of Abu Bakr (ra) and said they were only late and upest because they were angry that they weren’t consulted in Saqifa, Abu Bakr (ra) explained to them how things went, and this is what made them happy, otherwise Ali (and even Al-Zubayr) would have never given the Bay’ah, they were not Taqiyyah-mongering cowards as the Rafidha potray them (rather him i.e. Ali, since Al-Zubayr just as 99% of the Sahaba is a Kafir to the Mushrik Rawafidh anyway).

And as you can see, every Muslim should accept the narration (those who weaken it have no strong arguments in our opinion) with open arms, to Rawafidh one could say:

Congratulations for finding a narration that blows up the Rafidhi house burning/rip breaking/cheek slapping/unborn child killing myth and confirms the direct Bay’ah of Ali and the support of Fatimah for Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Hang it up over your bed, this really should be framed in gold:


To finish this off, let us now make a Hujjah upon the Rawafidh from their own books, precisely the Bible of Rafidhism, the sanad-less “Nahj Al-Balaghah”:

 أغزوهم قبل أن يغزوكم فو اللّه ما غزى قوم فى عقر دارهم إلاّ ذلّوا فتوا كلتم


Ali said: “Attack them before they attack you, for by Allah, no people have been attacked in the HEARTS OF THEIR HOUSES but they suffered DISGRACE”!

Our comment: True words, ya Aba Turab, may Allah have mercy upon you. But unfortunately this is how the (so called Shia/followers/supporters) pagan, polytheist Rafidha Ummah potray Omar and Ali in their religious Hindu-like ceremonies:


Must-Read: Omar’s poodle Ali Ibn Abi Talib – It’s a Rafidhi’s world

Shia answer and our rebuttal:

This is a Farsi (Persian) run website, by “Ayatullah Hussein Qazwini” (he is being called the “Shaykh Al-Mufid of our age”, for his knowledge in refuting Sunnis, so say his blind-followers), a Rafidhi “Ayatullah” residing in Qom. He was confronted by rebuttals of Sunnis in regards to our analysed Ibn Abi Shaybah narration, that he too likes to use. Here the link:

بررسي روايت ابن أبي شيبه و تهديد عمر به آتش زدن خانه فاطمه

We will analyse their “rebuttal” so you can be a judge and see how insincere and ignorant their “top” scholars are.

Valiasr-aj website by “Ayatullah” Qazwini:

انياً: با توجه به جدى بودن تهديد، حضرت فاطمه سلام الله عليها براى جلوگيرى از آتش زدن خانه و از بين رفتن فرزندان پيامبر به آنان گوشزد مى‌كند كه ديگر اين جا نياييد

It says that Fatimah took it serious because Omar was about to KILL her SONS (Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein). The two are not even mentioned in the narration, also Omar EXCLUDED Fatimah from his threat, so on where did the confused Rafidhi included her sons into the narration?

ثالثاً: عبارت «فلم يرجعوا إليها حتى بايعوا لا بى ‌بکر» دروغ محض است كه توسط ايادى بنى اميه به حديث افزوده شده است تا ثابت كنند كه تهديد عملى نشده است با اين كه در صحيح بخارى و مسلم با صراحت آمده است كه حضرت علي عليه السلام تا شش ماه با ابوبكر بيعت نكرد

He says that the last part of the narration i.e. where Fatimah tells Ali and Al-Zubayr to go away, to flee from their opinion and NOT TO COME back except in the state of having given Bay’ah to Abu Bakr, is a Umavid (Bani Umayyah) invention. This is not an academical approach, you can’t use a Hadith of your opponent (which is indeed a Hujjah/argument) and then decide which part of it you like and which part you don’t. The opponent will either accept the complete narration or he will reject it, in any case, it is not for the biased Shia scholar to first point to our narrations, and then to tell us what part of the very narration is good and not good according to him. In fact, whatever opposes their desire i.e. Rafidhi Madhab, must be a “Umawid” invention and what they DO like is not a Bani Umayyah invention. He even claims (WITH NO EVIDENCES WHATSOEVER) that the beginning of the narration where Omar expresses his love and respect towards Fatimah is a “Bani Umayyah’”fabrication:

بررسي شبهات دلالي روايت:

شبهه اول (جايگاه فاطمه (س) نزد خليفه دوم:

در روايت آمده است که عمر پيش از هر گونه اقدامى شخصاً نزد فاطمه رفت و مقام و منزلت او را چنين بيان فرمود:

«اى فاطمه! به خدا قسم هيچ کسى نزد ما محبوبتر از پدر گرامى ات نيست، و به خدا قسم هيچ کس پس از پدر بزرگوارت نزد ما محبوبتر از شما نيست ».
عملکرد عمر و بيان منزلت دختر گرامى رسول اکرم (صلى الله عليه وسلم) نشانگر احترام و محبت او به اهل بيت رسول اکرم (صلى الله عليه وآله) مى‌‌باشد.

1. اين عبارات به ظاهر توسط ايادى بنى اميه به روايت افزوده شده تا عمل خليفه را موجه جلوه دهند؛ ولى به هر حال نتوانسته‌اند موضوع هجوم به خانه وتهديد به آتش زدن خانه فاطمه را انكار كنند، و دموکراسى افسانه‌اى بيعت ابوبکر را به نمايش بگذارند!!

Seriously, this is the level of argumentation of a child. We are discussing the Deen of Allah, yet we see their “Ayatullahs” as usual playing with narrations, hiding narrations, picking and chosing and now even CUTTING the narrations in parts they like US to believe in. What’s next? Remember, this “Ayatullah” run website is a so called “Researchcentre” (‘Vali-e-Asr’) run by Ayatullah Qazwini and his best students, a bunch of Shia clerics. It’s (narration/s) like a soup they like but also don’t like, they fish out what they don’t like and simply say: THAT’S AN UMAVID FABRICATION!

Point is the narration is solid, either you accept all of it or leave all of it. They boldly claim that parts of it MUST BEE a Bani Umayyah fabrication because Bukhari and Muslim reported that Ali delayed his Bay’ah for six month. Little they know:

Ali bin Abi Talib (Allaah is well-pleased with him) firmly believed in the SUPERIORITY of Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (Allaah is well-pleased with him) and gave him the Bay’ah. – INCLUDING AN EXPLANATION OF WHY OUR MOTHER AISHA A P P A R E N T L Y reported that Ali delayed his pledge.

Finally they have the audicaty to state the following:

ما اصلا فرض را بر اين مى‌گيريم كه طبق اين روايت نمى‌توان هجوم به خانه و آتش زدن آن را ثابت كرد؛
(Let’s say for the sake of argument that this narration does NOT proof that the house was burned down …)

“For the sake of argument”? They are being delirious, for it is a fact according to the narration itself i.e. NOTHING burned down, and NOBODY had been touched, in fact it proves that Fatimah DISAGREED with the delay of Al-Zubay and Ali, as we said she was a Bakriyyah, رضي الله عنها, just like her husband and Al-Zubayr.

This “refutation” is one of the most desperate attempts we have ever seen in my life. They raped the narration, crippled it, took what they like, rejected what they don’t, just for the sake of saving their ugly faces and keeping the fariy tale of the “broken rip of Fatimah” alive, a tool to fool and stir up the emotions of their braindead followers, who believe in this lowlife, filthy and useless version of Ali (Allah is well pleased with him):

The Incident of Al-Ifk, Aisha or Maria? – Rebuttal to Ammar ‘Nakshawani’ (Nakhjavani)

December 14, 2012 at 1:49 am | Posted in Defence of companions, Refuting shia doubts, So called "shia unity". | 13 Comments









5 Votes

1293827850The Rafidhi vagabond Ammar ‘Nakshawani’ (Nakshavani), is known for his numerous lectures (strictly under Shia and ignorant Sunni audience, never ever has he confronted a known Sunni scholar), where he obviously tries to point with his shabby gentility in the fields of rethoric speech, this is the only way he can somehow hide his blatant ignorance and in many cases blatant lies, against the Ahl Al-Sunnah and the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). He is known for visiting various institutions, including public universities where he tries hard to somehow save the face of the Rafidhi religion (a really hard task, indeed), by claiming that many things the opponents of Shias accuse them of are false and propaganda, that Shias are not Takfiris, do not do Takfir on the Sahabah, that they only disagree with SOME Sahabah blah, blah, blah. Ironically, no one else but those Rafidha Majoos who are a bit more open in regards to their beliefs have exposed the charlatan Nakhjavani to such a degree, that only a fool would fall for his “brotherhood-Sunni-Shia-unity” crap:

Ok, IF you were among those gullible Muslims (or even Shias) who thought that there is any difference between ANY SHIA scholar/preacher etc. when it comes to the Sahaba and the wives of the Prophet, then know that there is no difference, Yasser Al-Habib, Baqir Al-Majlisi, Al-Mufid etc. did openly Takfir on Aisha and called her the murderer of the Prophet (!), so does the schmuck Nakhjavani, the only difference is, Nakhjavani the charlatan (as he himself said once!) will have a life after his preaching career i.e. he don’t want to mention the hot stuff in their books (Takfir on Aisha, accusing her of being a fornicator, Takfir on 99% of the Sahaba etc.), for he wants to have a peaceful and lavish life, once he has robbed his stupid followers of their money (with lies, deceptions and tricks). Anyway, coming to the topic at hand, one can see that the charlatan Nakhshavani is seemingly getting more and more open about those beliefs he normally never mentions in universities. Here the clip, and we know it’s tedious and accompanied by his hideous and arrogant way of speaking, one can’t but vomit at least, once, but try to hold yourself, and if you don’t want to watch the whole lecture it’s fine enough, we just don’t want anyone to accuse us of having refuted a ghost:

Nakhjavani claims:

The incident of al-Ifk has got nothing whatsoever to do with Aisha and her innocence, in fact she and the Sahaba accused the Prophet’s wive Maria (the Coptic) of Adultery!

Gift2shias rebuttal:

1. The Ayah says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ جَاؤُوا بِالْإِفْكِ عُصْبَةٌ مِّنكُمْ لَا تَحْسَبُوهُ شَرّاً لَّكُم بَلْ هُوَ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ لِكُلِّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُم مَّا اكْتَسَبَ مِنَ الْإِثْمِ وَالَّذِي تَوَلَّى كِبْرَهُ مِنْهُمْ لَهُ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Verily! Those who brought forth the slander 
are a group among you (Munafiqs). Consider it not a bad thing for you (plural i.e. Prophet AND Sahaba/believers). 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.

Now the Sighah Al-Jam’ (addressing someone in the plural) has only been used for Allah subhanah in the Qur’an. Like we/us etc., it is the  majestic plural (pluralis maiestatis in Latin, literally, “the plural of majesty”), this is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a single person holding a high office. Now are the Rawafidh and Nakhjavani telling us that Aisha, the Mother of the Believers hold a high position in the sight of Allah, hence He (SWT) addressed her with “those”?!?! After all the heretic claims that Aisha’ accused Maryam the Coptic of Zina (fornication)! Surah 11-20 of Surah Al-Nur addresses a group of Hypocrites (like the Shia), read it to convince yourself.

Note: No one claims that these Ayat are for Aisha only, but they were particularly revealed for her (case).

Only their sanad-less, weak and fabricated narrations (acc. to their OWN standars like in “Al-Hidayah Al-Kubra” by Imam Al-Ridha in which Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa are also implicated in the false accusations against Maria. Nakhjavani, as the coward he is mentions it, without mentioning the name of the Sahaba though!) report that OTHER than Aaisha accused Maria of Zina too, due to their extreme weakness they can’t be taken as a proof (yet Nakhjavani builds his theory upon that weak narration) what is left for them are other narrations (in Shia sources) that accuse Aaisha ONLY, but this again contradict the verses that says a GROUP accused (acc. to the Rafidha) Maria of Zina. So even their AUTHENTIC narrations are in their essence contradictory to the Qur’an and history (as you will see, In Shaa Allah), and the extreme weak, rather sanad-less (!) narration he mentions (where Abu Bakr, Omar, Hafsa etc. joined Aisha in accusing Maria of Zina) shouldn’t be taken as evidence in the first place, by a HONEST researcher at least. Qur’an as usual refutes Rafidhi lies.

2. The Ayat about the incident of Al-Ifk were revealed in the 5th or 6th year after Hijra. Maria Al-Qibtiyyah came to the Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) AFTER he had sent invitation letters to Persia, Rome and Egypt. When the letter/invitation of the Messenger reached the Egyptian King, he in return sent MARIA to the Prophet (as you know the PERSIAN MAJOOSI KINGS ripped the letter of the Prophet apart), this was in the year 7th or 8th.

Conclusion: (basic maths, Nakhjavani did not mention a SINGLE time in his whole lecture!):

Ayat were revealed in : 5th/6th Hijra ( This is the strongest view and some even say the ‘Ijma’, confirmed by the biggest historians of Islam, like Ibn Ishaq in his Tarikh and others.  Musa bin Uqbah, whose Tareekh is arguably better than Ibn Ishaaq, even suggests that Al-Ifk happened in the year 4 AH, so from WHATEVER angle you look at it, be it the 4 AH or 5/6AH all of them expose the Rafidhi fabricated view):

Maria came to the Prophet in : 7th/8th Hijra

I think the calculation and its result is obvious to everyone except the braindead Rawafidh who potray the household of the Prophet as a house of Fahshaa’ (obscenity), where his wives are adulteresses and the adulteresse+kafir wive accuses the other wive of adultery, yet the Prophet keeps them all (while possessing the knowledge of the unseen according to the pagan Shia sect) and never divorces any of them, what a sick religion Rafidhism is.

It i also  noteworthy that Ammar Nakshawani’s main source (for his Rafidhi version) is a Hadith in Tafseer Al-Qummi and Bihar Al-Anwar aka Bihar Al-Dhulumat aka Jame’ Al-Khurafat and other books of Zandaqah (heresy). The curse of Allah be upon the liars, liars such as Ammar who KNOW the truth, yet they hide it and deceive even their own followers with lies upon lies. They lie and prefer fabricated and disgusting narrations over the truth. Here the translation of the Bihar Al-Dhulamat wa Al-Zandaqat (“Al-Anwar”), narration, just read it and try not to vomit, look how sick this disgusting, pagan, polytheistic Majoosi cult is:

The narration that accuses Aisha of havins accused Maria of Zina in Bihar Al-Anwar:
العلامة المجلسي – بحار الأنوار – الجزء : ( 76 ) – رقم الصفحة : ( 103 )- حدثنا : محمد بن جعفر ، قال : ، حدثنا : محمد بن عيسى ، عن ، الحسن بن علي بن فضال قال : ، حدثني عبد الله بن بكير ، عن زرارة قال : سمعت أبا جعفر (ع) يقول : لما هلك إبراهيم بن رسول الله (ص) حزن عليه رسول الله (ص) حزناً شديداً ، فقالت عائشة : ما الذى يحزنك عليه ؟ فما هو إلاّ إبن جريج ، فبعث رسول الله (ص) علياًً (ع) وأمره بقتله ، فذهب علي (ع) إليه ومعه السيف وكان جريج القبطى في حائط فضرب علي (ع) باب البستان فأقبل إليه جريج ليفتح له الباب ، فلما رأى علياًً عرف في وجهه الشر فأدبر راجعاً ولم يفتح الباب ، فوثب علي (ع) على الحائط ونزل إلى البستان وأتبعه وولى جريح مدبراً ، فلما خشى أن يرهقه صعد في نخلة وصعد علي (ع) في إثره ، فلما دنا منه رمى جريج بنفسه من فوق النخلة فبدت عورته ، فإذا ليس له : ما للرجال ولا له : ما للنساء ، فإنصرف علي (ع) إلى النبي (ص) ، فقال : يا رسول الله إذا بعثتني في الأمر أكون فيه كالمسمار المحمى أم إثبت ؟ ، قال : لا بل إثبت ، قال : والذى بعثك بالحق ماله : ما للرجال وماله : ما للنساء ، فقال : الحمد لله الذى صرف عنا السوء أهل البيت.

On the authority of : Majlisi in his “Bihar Al-Anwar”, vol. 76, page 103 – Muhammad Ibn Jaafar said: It is reported to us by: Muhammad Ibn Isaa – Al-Hassan Ibn Ali Ibn Fadhl who said that is reported that – Abdullah Ibn Bakeer – Zurarah [ زرارة شر من اليهود والنصارى ومن قال ان الله ثالث ثلاثة - كذب علي والله، لعن الله زرارة] said: I heard Aba 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 himsel 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“.


Note: They baltantly accuse Aaisha of having accused Maria of Zina, but in their zeal of fabricating narrations they missed to eridacate the part which is been found in Sunni literature too, i.e. “All praise is due to Allaah the One that keeps evil away from us Ahl Al-Bayt“. The Prophet – Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him, referred to his WIVE as Ahl Al-Bayt, here in SAHIH Sunni sources too:

وهو على المنبر: (يامعشر المسلمين، من يعذرني من رجل قد بلغني أذاه في أهل بيتي، فوالله ما علمت على أهلي إلا خيرا، ولقد ذكروا رجلا ما علمت عليه إلا خيرا، وما كان يدخل على أهلي إلا معي

[...] So Allah’s Apostle got up (and addressed) the people an asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul (the one who accused Aisha of adultery!) then Allah’s Apostle, while on the pulpit, said, “O Muslims! Who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family/Ahli Bayti? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family, and people have blamed a man of whom I know nothing except good, and he never used to visit my family except with me [...[ Sahih Bukhari (Volume 6 hadith 274)

Also, if you've watched the clip of Nakhjavani above, then remember what he said at min. 46:00-46:10:

"... and honestly I don't wanna bring the names of those who discussed it ... who straight away BELIEVED this is the baby of Jurayh ..."

Look at this coward Rafidhi, he already accused 'Aaisha of having injustly accused a chaste woman of ZINA/ADULTERY! Do you know whom the Rawafidh and their sect of Shirk accuse of? Do you know who was amongst the FIRST to believe in this slander and to upset the Prophet? It was Abu Bakr the Siddiq and other major Sahaba according to the Rafidha, may Allah blacken their faces (even more):

Their Shaykh Al-Saduq (Al-Kathoob) narrated in his Al-Khisal in a long Hadith in which Ali Ibn Abi Talib addresses the people on the day of the Shura, and the narrative has been reported in Al-Hidayah Al-Kubra from Ali Ibn Musa Al-Ridha (Rafidha accuse him of being their 8th Imam, innocent is he of them and their sect of Shirk) in much detail, the problem for the Rafidha is that the author of this book Al-Husain ibn Hamdan is very weak), in which Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa are also implicated in the false accusations. Al-Saduq also narrated in Al-Ilal from Aby Jafar (Muhammad Al-Baqir, so called '5th infallible'):

“And when Al-Qaem (Rafidhi Mahdi) will stand, Al-Humayrah (nickname of Aisha, given by the Prophet!) will be returned to him until he has given her the punishment of flogging, and until he has avenged for the daughter of Mohammad, Fatima.” I said: “And why will he punish her by flogging?” He said: “For her calumny against the mother of Ibrahim (Maria the Copitc)". I said: “So how has Allah delayed it for Al-Qaem?” He said: “For Allah Almighty sent Mohammad [s] as a mercy, and he will send Al-Qaem [a] as an avenger”.

*This narrative has also been narrated by the Rafidhi top scholars Al-Murtadha in his Al-Amali, from Mohammad ibn Al-Hanafiyyah from his father (but without mention of the complete isnad, nor any mention of Aishah).

The sincere truth-seeker should judge now, keeping the following points in his mind:

1. The disgusting and obvious fabricated report in Al-Hidayah Al-Kubra (by the Shia Rafidhi scholar Hussein bin Hamdan Al-Khusaybi) includes the narration that Ammar Nakhjavani mentions (yet he did not dare to mention the Sahaba’s names!), the narration that states that Abu Bakr, Omar, Hafsa joined Aisha in her false allegations against Maria. This narration is false and extremely weak, because the author of the book itself (Al-Khubaysi) is weak according to Shia standards they set themselves.

2. In other Shia books (like in Al-Amali by Al-Murtadha) that story has been mentioned too, but without even including Aisha.

What is left for the Shia (as stated before): Since the authenticity of the narration about the Sahaba (Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa!) being included in the list of accusers (!) can’t be established, the Shia and Nakhjavani have to drop their accusations against Abu Bakr, Omar and Hafsa. It is although a shame for them, that this narration is not authentic, because that one would make somehow sense, this is because as we have stated in the very beginning, the verses in Surah Al-Noor clearly address a GROUP, that is why Nakhjavani (without mentioning the weakness of the narration) included the WEAK narration of Al-Khubaysi in his lectures, he did not even give a hint about the authenticity (knowing that his blind followers give a monkey about authenticity). Anyway, what is left for Nakhjavani is quite devasting, for even their so called authentic narrations (like the Muwathaq (reliable in Shia Hadith science) narration inTafseer Al-Qummi,  by Al-Qummi, does NOT mention a single word about a group, let alone the Sahaba, so ultimately even their ‘authentic’ narrations are of no use for their argumentation, because they clearly oppose the Qur’an (that mentions a GROUP, not just Aisha!). Here their “reliable” narration from Tafsir Al-Qummi:

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   26

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page