Ayesha - The Mother of the Faithful
Imran Razi
> Events that led to the Battle of the Camel (so-called because Ali's forces
> directed their attack against the camel 'Ayesha was riding without hurting
> the rider) have been hotly debated in Islamic history and will probably
> continue to be debated until the day of judgment. We will not here enter
> into this debate.
Our pathetic condition today is a direct result of our collective
refusal to resolve these issues, and the silence of our ulama (except
within the Shia tradition). We prefer to paper over and turn a blind
eye to important problems, especially political ones, hoping the
problems go away if everyone prays hard enough. Worse, the refusal to
tackle difficult questions has been enshrined as a virtue in
traditional Sunni Islam, which has yet to come to grips over such basic
issues as the proper relationship between the ruler and the ruled. I'm
not a Shia, but at least their leaders discuss relevant issues. I see
no change as long as we continue to worship the past while ignoring the
present.
We will say only that these events raised complex
> questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity could not
> be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and then did
> what she felt she had to do.
As do all reactionaries and revolutionaries (not that I disagree with
all reactionaries and revolutionaries). Why is this something to be
admired in and of itself?
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Jaafar Karouni
Prophet Mohammad (P) said: "A great loser is someone who sells his Deen by his
Donia, and worse isd the one who sells his deen by someone else's Donia".
Our brother Jaleel is repeating here the ideas of Dr Ahmad Shafaat. I think the
ideas of Dr Shafaat are disturbing. Especially when it comes to portray A'isha's
sin in fighting Imam Ali as a glorious action aimed at fighting the killers of
Uthmaan, so, accusing Imam Ali of killing Othmaan, while Shafaat shows that
A'ishah was against Othmaan.
Why he does not accuse her of killing Othamaan ?. And indeed she was among
those who wanted Othmaan to be killed (Oqtoloo Nathalan Faqad Fajar !), and Imam
Ali was the one who tried to protect Othmaan by sending Imam Hassan and Hussein
to help him, but her hatred against Imam Ali was overwhelming that she was
outraged when she knew that Ali was proclaimed by all muslims as the Imam, after
Othmaan was killed by the same ones who went seeking revenge from Ali (AS), who
was well known for never assassinating and he is the one who was the killer of
the Kafers.
A'ishah knows well who are the ones who assassinate, attack the prophet's
houses, bettray the messanger of Allah, and so and so, and they are other than
Imam Ali and his house.
So, the equation of Shafaat of praising A'ishah by all means, and attacking Imam
Ali is wrong and he will have to answer it to Allah. He did sell his deen by
the Donia of A'ishah.
During the prophet life, A'ishah was very mad when she saw the prophet every day
praising and making Do'a' for the sole of Khadeejah, and she said "why do you
keep mentioning this old women ? Allah gave you better than her !", the prophet
became very angry that his cheek was chacking and said "No by Allah, he did not
give me better than her, She supported me and believed me when every one has
bettrayed mem and she gave me children". On another occasion, the prophet
indicated the dircection of her house and said "Here is the Fitnah (corruption)
three times, from here raises the Shaytaan's horn". Is this enough ? want
more..OK..
The prophet warned A'ishah from the barking of the dogs of the Haw'ab, and said
that they will bark while she will be in her way to fight Imam Ali, and she will
be wrong. When she passed by that area later in her way to the "glorious"
fight, the dogs barked, and she became terrified, and she was told that it is
not Haw'ab !!:)
A'ishah had hatred toward Imam Ali leading her to fight him in the battle of
Jamal, and after the end of the battle, Imam Ali sent her to wherever she wanted
to go at her own request, and when she arrived to her destination, she blamed
Imam Ali for his direspect to the prophet and sending her alone with 40 men to
Basra, then the 40 persons who accompagned her revealed their identity as
women. Then she started in attacking Imam Ali again and prepare for another
Fitnah, then Imam Ali sent Imam Hassan and gave her the last warning that he
will declare her not to be a prophet wife. She stopped but kept her hatred
against Ali and his children.
When Imam Hassan AS was assassinated by Moaweyah (L), and when Imam Hussein
wanted to take the body to the prophet's Masjed to pray on him, A'ishah came to
prevent that Imam Hussein Buries Imam Hassan beside the prophet, and she was
riding a mule, and Imam hussein said "Aishah, what is your problem ? one day on
a Camel and another one on a mule, I was ordered by Imam Hassan not to bury him
beside the prophet, to prevent spilling blood in the prophet's masjed, and I am
taking him just for a last visit to his grandfather".
That was A'ishah. With all this, she remains a mother of the believers, and a
prophet wife, but she was definitly not the best wife.
The who was the best prophet wife ?
WHO DESERVES TO BE PRAISED is KHADEEJAH (AS)
It is a great responsibility whenever someone gives his opinion about
personalities in Islaam, except for those that Allah SW has purified, and who
were clearly known to all muslims in the Qor'aan, and through the prophet
authentic true Hadeeth: Mohammad (P), Ali (AS), Fatima (AS) and her sons Hassan
(AS) and Hussein (AS), and the nine Imams from Hussein (AS), Ali Zein L
Aabedeen (AS), Mohammad L Baaqerr (AS), Jaafar Sadeq (AS), Moussa L Kaathem
(AS), Ali Rida (AS), Mohammad Jawaad (AS), Ali Hadi (AS), Hassan Askari (AS),
Mohammad Mahdi (AS) the actual Imam of the muslims.
The welayah (following, the guidance) of the above prophet household is a duty
on every muslim, and one of the questions that a muslim has to answer in the day
of judgment, and this will apply to all muslims without exception, to Abu Bakr,
Umar, Uthmaan, A'ishah, .....
When it comes to the mothers of the believers, it goes without saying that all
must be honoured by the muslims, although they occupy different ranks in the
scale of belief, and in their position in the esteem of the prophet, the same
way when it comes to the prophet's friends.
According to the many hadeeth in the islamic references, Khadeejah (AS) was an
exception among the prophet's wives, this is why all muslims should know her
grace and place in islaam, this is why we should respect her by calling her
Khadeejah Alkobra (the great Khadeejah).
Unlike Abu Baker, Umar and Uthmaan and their people, Khadeejah in the time of
jaheleyyah before islaam worshiped no one but Allah (SW) on the way of Ibraahim.
Unlike all other prophet's wives, she gave the prophet his only progoney from
her daughter Sayyedah Fatima Alzahra' (AS). Khadeejah (AS) is not only the
Great mother of the believers, but also the mother of the purified Imams of the
muslims of all times, and the arch of salvation of the Ummah.
Khadejah (AS) had a perfect obediance to prophet (P) and she loved the ones who
were loved by the prophet, especially his most beloved one Imam Ali (AS), and
she never felt jalous of Imam Ali.
Khadejah did never triggered the anger of the prophet, and she was among those
wives who as ordered by the Qor'aanstayed in their house, and did not use
Tabarroj (show up in public, in an indignifying manner), and she did not ride a
camel to fight Ameer L Mo'meneen, or a mule to oppose Imam Hussein.
Wassalaam Alaa Man TTaba'a L Hodaa
Anjum Jaleel wrote:
> AYESHA...THE MOTHER OF THE FAITHFUL
>
> by
>
> Dr. Ahmad Shafaat (June 1985)
>
>
> THE BATTLE OF THE CAMEL
> Saintliness of the great Muslims of early time was not of a reclusive type.
> Jihad, that is, speaking or acting against falsehood and injustice was an
> integral part of their saintliness. 'Ayesha was no exception.
>
> In the 35th year of Hijrah, the Third Caliph 'Uthman ibn 'Affan was murdered
> by a group of his opponents. 'Ayesha despite being critical of 'Uthman's
> policies, was of the opinion that his murderers should be brought to
> justice. With her eloquent speeches 'Ayesha organized a campaign against
> 'Uthman's murderers and their political backers who were considerably
> strong. 'Ayesha's campaign for justice led to two battles at Basra, one
> against the Governor of Basra and the second (known as the Battle of the
> Camel) against the new caliph, Hadrat 'Ali. She won the first battle but
> lost the second. 'Ali treated the defeated 'Ayesha with the respect due to
> an umm al-mu'minin (mother of the believers). 'Ayesha accepted 'Ali as the
> lawful caliph and gave him the respect due to a legitimate leader of the
> Muslims.
>
> Events that led to the Battle of the Camel (so-called because Ali's forces
> directed their attack against the camel 'Ayesha was riding without hurting
> the rider) have been hotly debated in Islamic history and will probably
> continue to be debated until the day of judgment. We will not here enter
> into this debate. We will say only that these events raised complex
> questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity could not
> be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and then did
> what she felt she had to do. And this is all that history should expect from
> great men and women who are not prophets.
>
> After the Battle of the Camel, 'Ayesha returned to Makkah and to her life of
> teaching Islam. She died on the night of Ramadan 17, 58 Hijrah, at the age
> of 66.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> First published in Al-Ummah, Montreal, Canada in 1985. Copyright © Dr. Ahmad
> Shafaat. The article may be reproduced for Da'wah purpose with proper
> references.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
cb...@my-deja.com
Imran Razi <ra...@ucla.edu> wrote:
> wa alaykum assalaam,
>
> > Events that led to the Battle of the Camel (so-called because Ali's
forces
> > directed their attack against the camel 'Ayesha was riding without
hurting
> > the rider) have been hotly debated in Islamic history and will
probably
> > continue to be debated until the day of judgment. We will not here
enter
> > into this debate.
>
> Our pathetic condition today is a direct result of our collective
> refusal to resolve these issues, and the silence of our ulama (except
> within the Shia tradition). We prefer to paper over and turn a blind
> eye to important problems, especially political ones, hoping the
> problems go away if everyone prays hard enough. Worse, the refusal to
> tackle difficult questions has been enshrined as a virtue in
> traditional Sunni Islam, which has yet to come to grips over such
basic
> issues as the proper relationship between the ruler and the ruled.
Anjum Jaleel quoted, "these events raised complex questions of law and
order justice ". Ahlussunah scholars did discuss the issue extensively
as it is found in their books. Their conclusion after expounding
valuable lessons from the event - in their attempt to silence the evil
designs of those (like the Shia) who wish to use the debate to create
division among the Muslims:-
What happened between the Sahaba is an instance of fitna (trials) that
concerns only those who were involved. In this respect, The Khalifa,
Umar Ibn AbdulAziz (known as the 5th Khalifa arRashid) and Imaam As
Shafi'i say, "Such a fitna that Allah (Subhanehu Wa Ta'ala) has cleared
our hands; is it not (fair) that we keep our mouth clear". We leave the
judgement to Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) and ask forgivness for them as
we are commanded by Allah,
"And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our
brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our
hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed.
Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Surah 59
Ayah 10.
> I'm
> not a Shia, but at least their leaders discuss relevant issues. I see
> no change as long as we continue to worship the past while ignoring
the
> present.
It is strange that you are acting like one of them with your current
position - totally contradicting your own strong position that you used
against the Shia - How can you say, "at least their leaders discuss
relevant issues" - could it be that they are discussing such issues not
for their relevance - here are your own words.
-------------begin quote --------------
"Was this an academic discussion or is it a case of harping on the past
and using it to continue sectarianism?
If it is the latter then it seems that the case for a real Islamic
revival is hopeless. Islam will contnue to degenerate and Muslims will
be replaced by others. Perhaps it is only another Messenger who can
rescue things! "
--------------------end Quote -----------------------
This time You lacked consistency in your discussion and your arguments
are flat devoid of thorough thinking. You repeated old cliché without
giving some reasonable explanation for your objection. I also advise
you to desist putting down the Scholars of Islam - if you understood
their wisdom you would never speak unfavorably about them.
>
> We will say only that these events raised complex
> > questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity
could not
> > be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and
then did
> > what she felt she had to do.
>
> As do all reactionaries and revolutionaries (not that I disagree with
> all reactionaries and revolutionaries). Why is this something to be
> admired in and of itself?
>
This is one of the reason that the Shia played - and continue to do
so - a major role in weakening Islam - as you put it yourself
addressing the Shia, "Islam will contnue to degenerate and Muslims will
be replaced by others". Is it necessary that you need to debate - among
other things , "Why is this something to be admired in and of itself? "
Here are the words of Zubair (radiallahu 'anhu) who had the same
position as Aisha (radiallahu 'anha), to give a
hint why the fitna occurred, and its level of complexity :
" We are inciting people to avenge this blood so that it
may not go to waste, because its waste will render Devine
Authority (Islamic State) weak among us forever . If this
tendency of people is not checked, then whatever Imam may
come afterwards will risk being finished by the blow of the
sword; by Allah, it is hard not to take qisas (avenge), but
you don't know how far its consequences would reach." -
Tarikh ar-Rusul Wa alMulk, Tabari, volume 5, page 173.
The lessons learned from the events that occurred during the time of
the fitna are preserved in the books of the Scholars of Ahlussunah. You
would be surprised to find that they underline your point "is it a case
of harping on the past and using it to continue sectarianism?".
We should preoccupy ourselves with our own current situation with the
Goal of acquiring Allah's (subhanehu wa Ta'ala) pleasure.
"That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the fruit of
what they did, and ye of what ye do! Ye shall not be asked about what
they did. " - Al Baqara 134.
> wa salaam,
>
> Imran Razi
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rja...@my-deja.com
as narrated from the Prophet (sawa) as recorded in Mu'jam Tabrani,
Sharh Jami' al Sagheer by Manaawi, Sunan of Haythami and the Mustadrak
Saheehain of Nisaburi:
The greatest of the women of the people of Paradise are four; Maryam,
the wife of Fir'aon, Khadeejah and Fatimah.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/women.jpg
Nisaburi comments that this narration has an authentic chain of
narrators.
As far as the Prophet pointing to the house of 'Aaishah and saying,
"Here lies the fitnah, from whence the
horn of the devil will arise", it has been recorded in both Bukhari and
Muslim:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/fitnah1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/fitnah2.jpg
some try to interpret the words of the Prophet by saying it refers to
the EAST, which is
quite amusing as in the first narration he specifically points to the
HOUSE OF 'Aaishah
and says this three times and in the second
he comes out of the house of 'Aaishah and says it.
Also it is quite well known from other Prophetic traditions that he was
aware that she
would be the one who would be involved in great fitnah after him.
see
http://al-islam.org/ask/3.html#2
for a complete analaysis
salaam,
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl
Allah,v1,p44.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of
verse 42:23
of Quran (four traditions)
al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder,
Lebanon.
al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
salaam,
Altway 2
> How can you say, "at least their leaders discuss
>relevant issues" - could it be that they are discussing such issues not
for their relevance - here are your own words.
-------------begin quote --------------
"Was this an academic discussion or is it a case of harping on the past
and using it to continue sectarianism?
If it is the latter then it seems that the case for a real Islamic
revival is hopeless. Islam will contnue to degenerate and Muslims will
be replaced by others. Perhaps it is only another Messenger who can
rescue things! "
Comment:-
You will find that these are my words, not Imran Razi's
and I stick by them.
They were not directed at Shiahs but at the person who was
raking up past disputes for no good present purpose that could see.
And I still do not see the relevance of past sins except as lessons about what
to avoid. We all know human beings have failings and that is why we have a
religion
to guide us out of it. We are required to follow it.
But some of the discussions appear to be designed to prevent us from following
Islam and continuing past errors instead.
I think Satan is very active among us both from outside and within.
Perhaps the intensity of this asctivity is proportional to the importance of
Islam.
Is Islam becoming a greater threat to Satan?
H.S.Aziz
Jaafar Karouni
Anjum Jaleel wrote:
>
> 1. The article did not remotely claim that Ummul Mo'meneen Ayesha was
> accusing Imam Ali for the martyrdom of Hazarat Uthman.
>
The article said that the objective of the battle is to find the killers of
Othmaan. Since the battle was against Imam Ali, then it it is clear that it
claims that Imam Ali is the killer of Othamaan. If it is not Imam Ali who is
accused, than why to fight him ?
> The Qur'an is explicit
> about declaring Prophet's wives as our mothers. And, that's good enough for
> me.
>
This does not make them not accountable for their sins, it makes them more
accountable than anyone else.
> 3. We need to re-examine the traditions that have created divisions amongst
> us in order to reach the core message of Islam found in the Qur'an, which is
> the utmost perfect book while other works are not perfect.
Yes, this is a great idea. We also need to examine the traditions through their
results that we see in front of our eyes today. We should ask ourselves, why do
we have so many sects and groups ? why do we have leaders who are supporting our
oppressors, and are blessed by muslim scholars ? Where did all this came from ?
Where this attitude of tolerating Wrong doing of our leaders ?
History shows that the deviation from the prophetic teaching and those who know
the Quor'aan (Ahlulbait) is the reason. Look at what Uthmaan did to AbuThar Al
Ghefaaari (R). Look what he did to Ammar Bin Yasser (R) !...He has sat the
example, and prepared the land for worse people like Moaweyah, then Yazeed,
the...the ones you see today who are helping the eneemies of Allah againsty the
muslims.
It is around the prophet household that we can regroup to achieve the unity.
> 4. Ummul Mo'meneen Ayesha was part of Prophet's household, therefore, an Ahl
> ul Ba'it.
>
Definitly not. There is no whatsoever proof. Neither the Qur'aan or the
Hadeeth or the logic accept this. The only Ahlulbait are Fatimah, her Father
her Hasband and her sons (AS), this supported by the Quor'aan the Hadeeth and
the logic.
I think this is the first tradition that we need to examine.
The Hadeeth of Kessa' is clear about who were those who were allowed by Allah
and his prophet to enter under the Kessa' with the prophet. Only those five who
received the ayat of purification (Tatheer), and Jibril (AS) was allowed to
enter as their servant.
The behaviour of those five peoples is pure and correspond to their nomination
of Ahlulbait. They have never opposed Allah and his messanger.
If A'ishah was among the Ahlulbait, then she would have been purified and
prevented by Allah from triggering prophet's anger in his life or walk in the
Fitnah, and fight Imam Ali (this just one example).
> 5. the Qur'an when it says that
> Prophet's wives are like our mothers and that God will resolve any
> differences that the believers may have in this realm of existence when we
> meet Inshah Allah in the next permanent existence.
We all love and respect all the prophet's wives. Imaam Ali did not declare
A'ishah not to be prophet's wife, therefore we respect her and honour her, and
we the Shia do respect her and honnour her, Imam Ali punished two of his men by
80 lashes each for insulting A'ishah after the Jamal battle.
Now if you go back to the article, you will clearly find that it is the authors
of the article who wanted to turn A'isha's sin into a glory. This author and
his similars, and all those who try to attack Imama Ali force other muslims to
invoke some unfourtunate wrong doing of some personalities such as A'ishah.
If you go back to my first reply to the article, you find that I did not comment
or object to the vertues the article stated about A'ishah, but I had no choice
but comment on the Jamal issue.
> . This should be sufficient for any one
> who wants to put the Qur'an ahead of other sources.
>
Indeed right, and may allah open the mind of all of us to see the right meaning
of the Quor'aan.
Jaafar
>
cb...@my-deja.com
alt...@aol.com (Altway 2) wrote:
The following quote is credited to H.S.Aziz rather than - by mistake -
Imran Razi's:
> -------------begin quote --------------
> "Was this an academic discussion or is it a case of harping on the
past> and using it to continue sectarianism?
> If it is the latter then it seems that the case for a real Islamic
> revival is hopeless. Islam will contnue to degenerate and Muslims will
> be replaced by others. Perhaps it is only another Messenger who can
> rescue things! "-----------------end comment-----
>
> Comment:-
> You will find that these are my words, not Imran Razi's
> and I stick by them.
You should stand by them at they are full of wisdom. I made a mistake
to attribute your statement to Imran Razi and I am very sorry. Despite
the mixup your point was relevant to negate Imran Razi's position.
The amount of time that is spent to discuss events of the past is more
than the amount used to address current issues. And as a result Muslims
are unable to improve their current situation.
> H.S.Aziz
surayya
Imran Razi <ra...@ucla.edu> writes
>We will say only that these events raised complex
>> questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity could not
>> be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and then did
>> what she felt she had to do.
>
>As do all reactionaries and revolutionaries (not that I disagree with
>all reactionaries and revolutionaries). Why is this something to be
>admired in and of itself?
Is this supposed to be a slur against Aisha (may Allah be pleased with
her)?
She had enemies in her time, and they are still with us now, in all
guises, nothing really changes that much.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
Altway 2
<aja...@usa.net> writes:
>I would be very interested in your elaboration of 'another Messenger'.
>Thanks!
>
>Anjum Jaleel
Comment:-
I made the remark which have been quoted about "another messenger" in
connection with a sectarian dispute. In this connection it means that people
will get fed up with the bickering and uncertainties of the disputes in Islam
that they will look for "another Messenger" . They might acept Baha'ullah or
Ahmad or the revernd Moon or Maitrya (of whom there are two) or any other
claimant. If they accept such a person than he will be "another Messenger" for
them no matter how much Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists protest.
However, there is another meaning which you will find in "Views of Islam - 40.
Prophets"
I do not make any dogmatic statements in it or elsewhere.
The statments regarding "another Messenger" refer to the return of Jesus but I
do not make any statements with certainty, but advance some ideas as
possibilities.
The gist of the argument is as follows:-
"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of
Allah and the Last of the prophets; and Allah is Aware of all things. " 33:40
This verse does not say that Muhammad (saw) is the last of the Messngers. He
himself pricted the return of Jesus. We also read:-
"When Allah made His covenant with the Prophets, he said: Behold that which I
have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come
unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him
and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden in
this matter? They said: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be
witness with you." 3:80-81
This is often taken to mean that all the Prophets before Muhammad (saw) made
the covenant to support Muhammad. But the following can be regarded as
refering to the same covenant:-
"When We exacted a covenant from the Prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and
from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a
solemn covenant that He may ask the loyal of their loyalty." 33:7-8.
Here you will notice that both Jesus (saw) and Muhammad (saw) are included.
So either this covenant does not refer to the previous one or else the Messnger
to come is other than these two.
When I present this argument I get conditioned reflexes for reply and no
rational arguments or references about how this was understood by the Prophet
or his companions.
Has anyone any ideas?
H.S.Aziz
Maryam Dadabhoy
sure that it exists now because it was clarified by Allah
subhanawatallah a few days after the incident occured. If you want I
can fidn the exact story and send it to you Inshallah.
--
As-Salaam-Wa-Alaikum-Wa-Rehmatullahi-Wa-Barakatuhu
*~*Maryam*~*
~~
"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they
live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord "
Qur'an 3:169
~~
"And if ye are slain, or die, in the way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy
from Allah are far better than all they could amass."
Qur'an 3:157
~~
The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wasallam) said "My Lord says, 'If My
slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit;
and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the
span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him
running.' "
Bukhari Vol. 9 : No. 627
Jaafar Karouni
Sister Sorayya,
I am shia, and I belive that sayyedah A'ishah is Mother of believers, and that any
one who insults her deserves punishment.
I also believe that because she was given a status of Mother of believers, she is
given a sort of immunity to avoid mentioning her wrong doing.
Howver guess who is insulting her really ?
They are exactly those who are forcing us to defend the truth, and telling the
true story after they "praise" A'ishah for something she is not proud of, which is
the fight against Imam Ali. If you can ask her today, she will tell you how much
she curses those who:
1) Insult her while they use her name in the fight against Imam Ali, the same way
the hypocrites in her time used her against him.
2) Insult her when they relate wrong stories on her name, aimed at insulting Imam
Ali.
3) Insult her by putting her in front of every lie made by the ennemies of Imam
Ali, and are not ashamed of getting into her bedroom.
Now, teach us please, who were A'isha's ennemies ??
And please try do it without insulting her.
Jaafar
surayya wrote:
> Assalam'alaikum,
cb...@my-deja.com
Jaafar Karouni <karo...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Assalaam Alaikum,
>
> Sister Sorayya,
>
> I am shia, and I belive that sayyedah A'ishah is Mother of believers,
and that any
> one who insults her deserves punishment.
>
> I also believe that because she was given a status of Mother of
believers, she is
> given a sort of immunity to avoid mentioning her wrong doing.
>
> Howver guess who is insulting her really ?
>
> They are exactly those who are forcing us to defend the truth, and
telling the
> true story after they "praise" A'ishah for something she is not proud
of, which is
> the fight against Imam Ali. If you can ask her today, she will tell
you how much
> she curses those who:
I believe that the Mother of the Believers, Aisha
(Radiallahu 'Anha), az Zubair, and Talha (Radiallahu 'Anhum)
who set out to avenge the Murder of Kalifa Uthman
(Radiallahu 'Anhu) and forced to fight Ali
(Radiallahu 'Anhu), were among the people who were given
the Promise of Jannah - Concernig Aisha (Radiallahu 'Anha),
when 'Ammar bin Yasir (Radiallahu 'Anhu) told the people of
Kufa - while attempting to discourage them from supporting
Aisha (Radiallahu 'Anha): I testify that Aisha
(Radiallahu 'Anha) is the Wife of the Messenger of Allah in
Jannah as she was His (sallalahu 'Alaihi Wa sallam) wife in
this life; then He asked them to support Ali
(Radiallahu 'Anha). The people replied, we would rather be
with the one that you have witnessed Jannah .
Here are the words of az-Zubair (radiallahu 'anhu) to give a
hint why the fitna occurred - if you anyone claims they had other
motives then they are claiming to know what is hidden in
their hearts ...,
" We are inciting people to avenge this blood so that it
may not go to waste, because its waste will render Devine
Authority (Islamic State) weak among us forever . If this
tendency of people is not checked, then whatever Imam may
come afterwards will risk being finished by the blow of the
sword; by Allah, it is hard not to take qisas (avenge), but
you don't know how far its consequences would reach." -
Tarikh ar-Rusul Wa alMulk, Tabari, volume 5, page 173.
We are commanded to ask forgiveness for them - anything else is ,
"And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our
brethren who came before us into the Faith, and
leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury)
against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed
Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Surah 59 Ayah 10.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jaafar Karouni
cb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I believe that the Mother of the Believers, Aisha
> (Radiallahu 'Anha), az Zubair, and Talha (Radiallahu 'Anhum)
> who set out to avenge the Murder of Kalifa Uthman
> (Radiallahu 'Anhu) and forced to fight Ali
> (Radiallahu 'Anhu), were among the people who were given
> the Promise of Jannah -
I need to know whay those people went in fight against Imam Ali ?
I think we cannot avoid the unavoidable.
I am more eager than you to find an honorable exit for all the historical
figures.
But the facts are so strong.
Imam Ali warned Talhah and Zubeir from the Fitnah, and they told him that
they are leaving for a travel (Hejrah !), he replied that they are not
leaving for Hijrah but for Ghadrah (Bettrayal), and the next day they were
killed in the battle.
Imam Ali was sad for their death and end, and he looked at them and asked
them if they found what Allah Promissed them true.
What is important is not to find out about Talhah and Zubair and A'ish's
inyentions, what is important is to see indeed that Imam Ali fight has
always been the righthous fight, he has never created a Fitnah, and he has
never fight in a wrong war. This means that his opponents are fully wrong,
and if they die fighting him, they are in Jahannam.
Those people went fighting Imam Ali and according to you, to avenge the
killing of Othmaan, then they accused Imam Ali of Othamaan's killing.
1) They accused him of killing Othmaan, this by itself is a sin,
2) They did fight him and have set the first example of fitnah against the
Khaleefah.
I wish I did not have to talk about Talhah and Zubeir, but I was forced to
tell the truth.
I do not see why Allah would promiss Jannah to those who fight Imam Ali.
I have heared people saying if two believers are fighting then one of them
is in Hell, so who is in Hell, Ali or Talhah and Zubair ?
There is no in between.
Definitly not Ameer L Mo'meneen.
Wassalaam
Jaafar
cb...@my-deja.com
Jaafar Karouni <karo...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Assalam Alaikum,
>
> cb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I believe that the Mother of the Believers, Aisha
> > (Radiallahu 'Anha), az Zubair, and Talha (Radiallahu 'Anhum)
> > who set out to avenge the Murder of Kalifa Uthman
> > (Radiallahu 'Anhu) and forced to fight Ali
> > (Radiallahu 'Anhu), were among the people who were given
> > the Promise of Jannah -
>
> I need to know whay those people went in fight against Imam Ali ?
>
> I think we cannot avoid the unavoidable.
> I am more eager than you to find an honorable exit for all the
historical
> figures.
The "honorable exit " is in the hands of Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala)
and it does not concern you as you are not responsible for what they
did: "That was a people that hath passed away. They shall reap the
fruit of what they did, and ye of what ye do! Ye shall not be asked
about what they did. " - Al Baqara 134.
I do not know why you deleted it and ask "I need to know whay those
people went in fight against Imam Ali ?"- Here are the words of az-
Zubair (radiallahu 'anhu) to give a
hint why the fitna occurred - if you or anyone claims they had other
motives then you are claiming to know what is hidden in
their hearts ...,
" We are inciting people to avenge this blood (the murder of Uthman -
radiallahu 'anhu) so that it
may not go to waste, because its waste will render Devine
Authority (Islamic State) weak among us forever . If this
tendency of people is not checked, then whatever Imam may
come afterwards will risk being finished by the blow of the
sword; by Allah, it is hard not to take qisas (avenge), but
you don't know how far its consequences would reach." -
Tarikh ar-Rusul Wa alMulk, Tabari, volume 5, page 173.
This was a "fitna" - trial - and "its consequences " more than 70,000
Muslims died. Unlike you I will not point a finger and accuse one side
or the other. What happened between the Sahaba is an instance of fitna
(trials) that concerns only those who were involved. In this respect,
The Khalifa, Umar Ibn AbdulAziz (known as the 5th Khalifa arRashid),
and Imaam As Shafi'i say, "Such a fitna that Allah (Subhanehu Wa
Ta'ala) has cleared our hands; is it not (fair) that we keep our mouth
clear". We leave the judgement to Allah (subhanehu wa ta'ala) and ask
forgivness for them as we are commanded by Allah,
"And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our
brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our
hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed.
Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Surah 59
Ayah 10.
And if you follow Ali (radiallahu 'anhu) then accept the fact that he
(Ali) accepted arbitration and made peace with M'uawiya
(radiallahu 'anhu) and the people of sham - as a consequence the
khawarij labeling Ali (radiallahu 'anhu) as a kafir because He accepted
arbitration (and this according to the Khawarij) is against Islam. But
Ali's (radiallahu 'anhu) action is correct as explained in the
following Ayah.
"And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting,
then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against
the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till
it complies with the Command of Allâh; then if it complies, then make
reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allâh
loves those who are equitable.
The believers are nothing else than brothers (in Islâmic religion). So
make reconciliation between your brothers, and fear Allâh, that you may
receive mercy. " Surah Al-Hujuraat 9 - 10.
Imran Razi
what is important is to see indeed that Imam Ali fight has
> always been the righthous fight, he has never created a Fitnah, and he has
> never fight in a wrong war.
Actually, Ali's mistake was that he did not fight forcefully enough
against the rebel Muawiyah, and this weakened the political structure
of the entire ummah. History bears me out, especially the slaughter of
Hussain. Unjust rebellion cannot be tolerated in any society, and it
should not have been tolerated by Ali. I know his soft nature led him
to seek mediation, but this was a big political blunder, may Allah
forgive him. All it did was legitimize Muawiyah's claim of rebellion
as possibly having merit.
More fundamentally, the reply to the dogmatic "the Sahaba can do no
wrong" position is not the equally dogmatic "Ali can do no wrong"
position. The only person who is beyond anaysis and criticism is our
Rasool (saws), and that is only because his insight was Divine Insight
given to him unmediated from Allah. No persons other than Prophets can
claim this.
We need to wake up and start LEARNING from our history and our
mistakes, not constantly defending this person or that person, or this
school or that school.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Mo
after his death . If all Muslims are equal under Allah how can an 18
year old be the mother of all ? and when the Almighty made this
revelation she was only 14.Now if Allah doesnt exist then the Prophet
was just being cruel to prevent teenage Aisha from remarrying..
4. The Qur'an tells us that Ayesha was our mother.
surayya
Jaafar Karouni <karo...@nbnet.nb.ca> writes
>Assalaam Alaikum,
>
>Sister Sorayya,
>
>I am shia, and I belive that sayyedah A'ishah is Mother of believers, and that
>any
>one who insults her deserves punishment.
I was not referring solely to the shiah, although I will tell you this
that I have heard shiahs say awful things about her. However I'd say it
is the non-muslim enemies who spread the most lies about her.
The most veiled insults come from the sunnis.
>I also believe that because she was given a status of Mother of believers, she
>is
>given a sort of immunity to avoid mentioning her wrong doing.
There is no need to mention such things, she was so honest that she
talks of herself and speaks with such weight, that it is very humbling.
That in itself removes any necessity that people may feel to nit-pick on
the subject matter.
>Howver guess who is insulting her really ?
All sorts of people insult her. I was not solely referring to the shiah.
I said that they come in all guises, and I meant exactly that.
>Now, teach us please, who were A'isha's ennemies ??
>And please try do it without insulting her.
I do not insult Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), there is nothing
to insult her about.
If you truly believe that people insult her, you should not raise this
subject, as it just encourages more.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
surayya
Maryam Dadabhoy <pUrpLe...@prodigy.net> writes
>Yes there was some slander against Sayeda Aisha (Radiullah). I'm not
>sure that it exists now because it was clarified by Allah
>subhanawatallah a few days after the incident occured. If you want I
>can fidn the exact story and send it to you Inshallah.
Jazallah khair, I do know the story and I was thinking of more than
that, wrt the jealousy that is invoked because of her status.
My comments also apply to other members of the Sahabah.
They all had enemies, and those enemies still exist.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
GF Haddad
"Those of whose blood Allah Most High has kept our hands innocent, we shall
not soil with it our tongues."
Narrated from the Caliph `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz - Allah be well-pleased
with him - by Ibn Sa`d in his Tabaqat (5:394) and Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat
al-Awliya' (1985 ed. 9:114).
Hajj Gibril
<cb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sv0u30a...@corp.supernews.com...
rja...@my-deja.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/haqq.jpg
There was a companion name Harith bin Huut on the day of the battle of
Jamal between 'Aaishah and 'Ali and Harith was confused. He said to
'Ali, "How can I know where the truth is while on one side is the
Commander of the Faithful and on the other side is the Mother of the
believers?"
'Ali told him in one sentence such a powerful word of guidance that is
worth more than the world in gold and said:
"The truth is not known through men. Know the truth and then you will
know its people!"
That is the main difference between Shi'i and Sunni Schools of Islam:
The Sunni believe they can find the truth through personalities (the
companions).
The Shi'ah follow this saying of 'Ali that truth can not be known
through personalities.
You must first know the truth and then you will know who are the people
of truth by looking to see
who follows it.
You can not know the truth through people but you can know the people
through truth.
After the Prophet's demise companions entered into bloody fueds, wars
cursing eachother murder and violence.
It is the truth and there is no evading it.
salaam,
Jaafar Karouni
surayya wrote:
> If you truly believe that people insult her, you should not raise this
> subject, as it just encourages more.
>
Dear Sister,
I did not raise that subject, the subject was raised by another person who wrote an
article to praised A'isha's role in the battle of Jamal, and used her name to
attack Imam Ali and accuse him again of Othmaan's killing. This is the 20 th
century ennemy of A'isha who is added to her ennemies of her time who took her to
the battlefield.
Wassalaam
Jaafar
Jaafar Karouni
Again, if anyone is attacking A'ishah, it is those who want to use her name for
their propaganda against Imam Ali. The same way that some have used her in the
past to stage their attack against him.
Muslims are not to use the prophet's wives to quote lies and propaganda.
I would be very careful every time someone brings me a Hadeeth from a prophet
wife. Especially if this Hadeeth is inconsistent with what has been Motawaater
about an islamic issue.
Wassalaam
Abu Eesaa
given to Aysha Siddiqua (RA) from the Sunnis. Which group of Sunnis ? I
have yet to come across a sunni book of authority that contains such "veild"
threats. However, if you mean the "maududi" group within the Sunni sect
then I understand your comments. If otherwise then please explain.
surayya
Jaafar Karouni <karo...@nbnet.nb.ca> writes
>surayya wrote:
>
>> If you truly believe that people insult her, you should not raise this
>> subject, as it just encourages more.
>>
>
>Dear Sister,
>
>I did not raise that subject,
Yes you are right, sorry about that. What I really meant was not to
continue with it or raise more issues. You seem far too keen to run with
it, even though others may have initially started it.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
surayya
Abu Eesaa <total...@yahoo.com> writes
>Could you please explain to me what these veiled insults that you claim are
>given to Aysha Siddiqua (RA) from the Sunnis. Which group of Sunnis ? I
>have yet to come across a sunni book of authority that contains such "veild"
>threats.
You're switching insults for threats, they do not mean the same thing. I
know exactly what I mean when I say insults and describing them as
veiled, it was not threats.
>However, if you mean the "maududi" group within the Sunni sect
>then I understand your comments. If otherwise then please explain.
Why just them?
I thought that I had made it clear that I was not talking of any one
group, and that they all do it, granted that some more than others.
I will take an example from this thread:
>We will say only that these events raised complex
>> questions of law and order justice which despite their complexity could not
>> be ignored. 'Ayesha faced these questions, reached an answer, and then did
>> what she felt she had to do.
>
>As do all reactionaries and revolutionaries (not that I disagree with
>all reactionaries and revolutionaries). Why is this something to be
>admired in and of itself?
Who exactly is being described as 'reactionary and revolutionary'?
And since the popular subject seems to be Ghazali and his 'genius', in
chapter 3, he quotes the hadith about the reward given to husbands who
endure their wife's bad character, he then proceeds to quote a few
hadiths about the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)
wives (may Allah be pleased with them) associating them with the bad
character of a wife implicated in the first hadith. The hadith refers to
continued bad character from both wives and husbands, not a couple of
incidents which all and sun-dry are guilty of. He also includes them in
the paragraph with the sub-heading '... out of compassion for their
intellectual limitations'. I have not seen any hadith or anything from
the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them) describing the Mothers of
the believers (may Allah be pleased with them) as having intellectual
limitations or bad characters. And yet he claims to be using the
Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) stance towards his
wives (may Allah be pleased with them) as the example to be followed,
which would only be true if the wives (may Allah be pleased with them)
were being used as examples of bad characters and intellectual
limitations. Yet wherever he wants to make a point about the inferiority
of women, he uses not only Arab folklore/tradition but also hadiths
pertaining to the Mothers of the Believers, more often Aisha (may Allah
be pleased with them).
Btw the hadith he quotes does mention the greater reward given to wives
who had to endure the bad character of a husband, and yet NOT a single
piece of advice or mention is given at all, NOT a shred. Oh dear perhaps
he forgot, but how could a genius forget!! How could such a genius not
be aware of the connotations of his writing towards the Mothers of the
believers (may Allah be pleased with them), after all these geniuses
never make mistakes, oh no.
If this is the kind of so-called scholarly adab directed at the Mothers
of the believers (may Allah be pleased with them), then only likewise is
deserved by the instigators no matter what their status, there is no
immunity. Note also that this so-called scholarly 'adab' or stance in
writing is never directed at any of the male Sahabah (may Allah be
pleased with them).
And there's more to be found, of which I could be here all day relating
to you. Is that what you want?
Funny how some brothers will rush to defend Aisha (may Allah be pleased
with her), and others will rush to defend some male scholar whose status
is far lower. Doesn't it just tell you everything about them. Nice One!
Wa salam
sister Surayya
saty...@my-deja.com
"Abu Eesaa" <total...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could you please explain to me what these veiled insults that you
claim are
> given to Aysha Siddiqua (RA) from the Sunnis. Which group of
Sunnis ? I
> have yet to come across a sunni book of authority that contains
such "veild"
> threats. However, if you mean the "maududi" group within the Sunni
sect
> then I understand your comments. If otherwise then please explain.
In any case it is weird that when muslim widows are allowed to marry,
Mohammad's widows were not allowed to marry!?
Claire
> Mohammad's widows were not allowed to marry!?
>
Why is that? Take the example of Umm Salama for example. She was the widow
of Abu Salama. Then Omar proposed to her and she refused because Abu Salama
was such a good husband and she feared that Omar won't be like him. Then Abu
Bakr proposed to her and she refused on the same grounds. Then the Prophet
(saws) proposed to her and she accepted. Who wants a husband that won't be
as good as their previous husband?
Miriam
rja...@my-deja.com
> > You can not know the truth through people but you can know the people
> > through truth.
> >
>
> The most perfect truth is Allah's own Book, Al-Qur'an. And the Qur'an is
> very clear about declaring Prophet's wives as our mothers.
salaam 'alaykum,
Have you ever read Surah Tahreem, chapter 66 of the Qur'an? Please do
yourself a favor and read it.
then read the commentaries of the that surah from Bukhari and Muslim and
then come back.
Do you really think that as the wives of the Prophet are like our
mothers it means that they have a free ticket to paradise just because
they married the Prophet (sawa)? Where is your intelligence? Have you
not read the whole of chapter 33 before?
[33:30]O wives of the prophet! whoever of you commits an open indecency,
the
punishment shall be increased to her doubly; and this IS easy to Allah
And whoever of you is obedient to Allah and His Messenger and does good,
We will give to her her reward doubly, and We have prepared for her an
honorable
sustenance.
Now read chapter 66 and tell me if it appears to you that those two
wives of the Prophet were leaning to obedience or disobedience?
The two wives of Prophet Lut and Nuh were treachorous to their husbands
and their marrying the Prophets of God did not avail them at all from
the punishment of God:
[66:10]Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of
Nuh and
the wife of Lut: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but
they
acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against
Allah, and
it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.
The meaning of the wives of the Prophet being mothers of the believers
refers to the fact that it is haraam to marry any of them after the
Prophet married them. Marrying the Prophet does not raise the spiritual
status of a women; for those that use their common sense it is clear.
and it does not behove you that you
should give trouble to the Messenger of Allah, nor that you should marry
his
wives after him ever; surely this is grievous in the sight of
Allah.33:53
It is also narrated that 'Aishah stated that she is not the mother of
the believing women (mu'minaat) but only the mu'mineen (male believers)
and this is a clear indicator that mothers of the believers refers to it
being prohibited to marry any of them after the Prophet's demise.
Now let us look briefly at Bukhari and Muslim and see what is said
concerning chapter 66 of the Truthful Qur'an:
Volume 7, Book 63, Number 192:
Narrated 'Ubaid bin 'Umar:
I heard 'Aisha saying, "The Prophet used to stay for a long while with
Zanab bint Jahsh and drink honey at her house. So Hafsa and I decided
that if the Prophet came to anyone of us, she should say him, "I detect
the smell of Maghafir (a nasty smelling gum) in you. Have you eaten
Maghafir?' " So the Prophet visited one of them and she said to him
similarly. The Prophet said, "Never mind, I have taken some honey at the
house of Zainab bint Jahsh, but I shall never drink of it anymore." So
there was revealed: 'O Prophet ! Why do you ban (for you) that which
Allah has made lawful for you . . . If you two (wives of Prophet) turn
in repentance to Allah,' (66.1-4) addressing Aisha and Hafsa. 'When the
Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to some of his wives.' (66.3)
namely his saying: But I have taken some honey."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/063.sbt.html#007.063.192
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 734:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
For one year I wanted to ask 'Umar about the two women who helped each
other against the Prophet but I was afraid of him. One day he dismounted
his riding animal and went among the trees of Arak to answer the call of
nature, and when he returned, I asked him and he said, "(They were)
'Aisha and Hafsa." Then he added, "We never used to give significance to
ladies in the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance, but when
Islam came and Allah mentioned their rights, we used to give them their
rights but did not allow them to interfere in our affairs. Once there
was some dispute between me and my wife and she answered me back in a
loud voice. I said to her, 'Strange! You can retort in this way?' She
said, 'Yes. Do you say this to me while your daughter troubles Allah's
Apostle?' So I went to Hafsa and said to her, 'I warn you not to disobey
Allah and His Apostle.' I first went to Hafsa and then to Um Salama and
told her the same. She said to me, 'O 'Umar! It surprises me that you
interfere in our affairs so much that you would poke your nose even into
the affairs of Allah's Apostle and his wives.' So she rejected my
advice. There was an Ansari man; whenever he was absent from Allah's
Apostle and I was present there, I used to convey to him what had
happened (on that day), and when I was absent and he was present there,
he used to convey to me what had happened as regards news from Allah's
Apostle . During that time all the rulers of the nearby lands had
surrendered to Allah's Apostle except the king of Ghassan in Sham, and
we were afraid that he might attack us. All of a sudden the Ansari came
and said, 'A great event has happened!' I asked him, 'What is it? Has
the Ghassani (king) come?' He said, 'Greater than that! Allah's Apostle
has divorced his wives! I went to them and found all of them weeping in
their dwellings, and the Prophet had ascended to an upper room of his.
At the door of the room there was a slave to whom I went and said, "Ask
the permission for me to enter." He admitted me and I entered to see the
Prophet lying on a mat that had left its imprint on his side. Under his
head there was a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. Behold! There
were some hides hanging there and some grass for tanning. Then I
mentioned what I had said to Hafsa and Um Salama and what reply Um
Salama had given me. Allah's Apostle smiled and stayed there for twenty
nine days and then came down."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/072.sbt.html#007.072.734
> > After the Prophet's demise companions entered into bloody fueds, wars
> > cursing eachother murder and violence.
> >
>
> How do you know that you and everyone else has acquired a 'PERFECT'
> knowledge of what transpired 1400 years ago?
Oh Please Anjum wake up. Are you going to end up like those "Qur'an
only" types. The wars between
'Ali and 'Aishah and between 'Ali and Mu'awiyah and the murder of Husayn
with his family and friends by
Yazid is clearly documented in the hadeeth and history. Are you going
to deny these things because they are not mentioned in the Qur'an? You
can not even pray fast and do hajj properly without referring to the
Sunnah of the Prophet in the Hadeeth so why do you only pick and choose
what suites you and ignore all that is not appealing to you to know
about such as the bloody feuds, wars, murder and violence?
>How do you know that all
> companions of the prophet were equally spiritually at the same 'station' and
> 'state'?
You seem to be mixing arguments up. It is mostly the sunnis that
believe in the collective righteousness of all the companions and after
the first three Khalifs they say that all the companions are spritually
equal.
The Shi'ah say that they are not spiritually equal just as us here on
the SRI are not spiritually equal. Everyone has a diffent rank and that
is all dependent on ones correct beliefs and good deeds.
> > It is the truth and there is no evading it.
> >
>
> The most perfect truth is the Qur'an, as I have stated above. What do we
> understand from the Qur'an about the benefits of one united Ummah?
You say Qur'an, Qur'an but you yourself IMO don't follow the Qur'an.
The Qur'an can not unite the Ummah. Even if everyone trys to follow
only the Qur'an they will not be united because the Qur'an is subject to
various interpretations. Please be realistic.
Even following the Qur'an and Sunnah is not enough to unite the muslims
because there are diffences of opinion regarding the interpretation of
the Sunnah as well.
That is why the Prophet ordered us to follow the Qur'an and the 12 Imams
>from the Ahlul-Bayt (as); to follow the Qur'an and the teachers of the
Qur'an.
If one follow these two together one will never go astray but if one
abandons any of these two one will definitely go astray.
That is why the Qur'an states that the Prophet himself (sawa) will
complain on the day of Judgement that most people abandoned the Qur'an.
O my Lord! surely my people have treated
this Quran as a forsaken thing. 25:30
This because the Qur'an and the Teachings of the Imams of the Ahlul-bayt
were meant to be followed together and by you and your likes rejecting
the
Ahlul-bayt you have actually rejected the Qur'an as well because one who
abandons one of the 'Two Weighty Things' has actually abandoned both
though
they don't realize it yet.
The Messenger Of Allah Said (Sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never
Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These Two
Shall
Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan Tadilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hataa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
This is the difference between us and the other muslims. The other
muslims take only some of their teaching from the Ahlul-bayt but they
also prefer the teachings of others above the Ahlul-bayt. We take our
teachings about Islam only from the Ahlul-bayt (as) and we don't prefer
the teaching of anyone above them after the Prophet (sawa).
>Why are
> we still bent on sectarianism and arguing over things that should be left
> with God Alone?
Please define sectrianism. I believe that it is you that is the
sectarian and it is the Shi'ah that are the non-sectarians. Those that
follow the Qur'an and True Sunnah of the Prophet are the
non-sectarians. Those that stray from the Qur'an and True Sunnah of the
Prophet are the REAL sectarians though they may be the majority, it
doesn't matter.
The Shi'ah learn the meaning of the Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet
>from the 12 Imams from his Ahlul-Bayt (as) as the Prophet ordered all
muslims to do while you prefer others over the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt
(as).
How will you answer to the Prophet on the Day of Judgement? How will
you answer for abandoning the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt and following your
Abu Hanifah's, Ibn Taymiyyahs, Naqshabandi's and other sect leaders?
Yes it is VERY important to study the lives of the companions and know
who followed the truth and who followed the false, who faught with Imam
'Ali and who fought against Imam 'Ali.
In our belief anyone who fought against 'Ali is one who clearly went
astray. Hence to learn some psuedo-sunnah of the Prophet for them is
more fatal then drinking poison.
i already posted some info about Bukhari and maybe you should look up on
it as well as read chapter 66 of the Qur'an (I am not kidding). Bukhari
took hadeeth from those that were clear nasibis, those thats fought
against 'Ali and killed Imam Husayn (as). This while he does not
include a single narration as related from Imam Ja'far al Sadiq (as) the
teacher of Abu Hanifah and Malik! Bukhari himself mentions that "I have
someting in my heart agains Ja'far!" Even Dhahabi criticized Imam
Bukhari for that in Tadhkirat al Huffaaz vol2 under Ja'far: The
mufassiroon took from Imam Sadiq, the fuqahaa took from Imam Sadiq, the
muhaddithoon took from Imam Sadiq, everyone took from Imam Sadiq except
Shaykh Bukhari! Subhaanallah!
011.113
YUSUFALI: And incline not to those who do wrong, or the Fire will seize
you; and ye have no protectors other than Allah, nor shall ye be helped.
PICKTHAL: And incline not toward those who do wrong lest the Fire touch
you, and ye have no protecting friends against Allah, and afterward ye
would not be helped.
SHAKIR: And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch
you, and you have no guardians besides Allah, then you shall not be
helped.
That is difference between you and us. You admit that there were so
many hypocrites during the Prophets time and that there is even a surah
in the Qur'an called "Hypocrites" but after the Prophet demise you label
everyone as a virtues companion and you love them all.
This while knowing:
Book 038, Number 6688:
Qais reported: I said to 'Ammar: What is your opinion about that which
you have done in case (of your siding
with Hadrat 'Ali)? Is it your personal opinion or something you got from
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him)? 'Ammar said: We have got nothing from Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) which people at large
did not get, but Hudhaifa told me that Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) had especially told him amongst
his Companion, that there would be twelve hypocrites out of whom eight
would not get into Paradise, until a
camel would be able to pass through the needle hole. The ulcer would be
itself sufficient (to kill) eight. So far as four are concerned, I do
not remember what Shu'ba said about them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/038.smt.html#038.6688
Because the sunnis indescriminately follow all the companions they
undoubtedly are following those 12 hypocrites.
We are more realistic. We don't reject all the companions neither do we
accept them all like you do but we take the middle way. Those
companions that were loyal to 'Ali, we love them and those that acted
Treacherously toward the Prophet's family and killed them and declared
war against them such as Mu'awiyah and his likes, we hate them.
As a result of your love for the oppressor the 'FIRE WILL TOUCH YOU'
>from whence you don't realize (see my post about 3 friends and 3
enemies).
You can never really be called a friend of the Ahlul-Bayt unless you
love them, love everyone who loves them and hate everyone who hates
them.
But your likes claim to love 'Ali but you hate those that love them and
love those that hate them.
It is obvious as the sun, for those that have vision, that your likes
will be raised on the day of judgement among their enemies.
Those who do wrong will come to know by what a (great) reverse they will
be overturned! 26:227
salaam,
>
> > salaam,
> >
>
> WasSalaam
>
> Anjum Jaleel
--
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl
Allah,v1,p44.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of
verse 42:23
of Quran (four traditions)
al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder,
Lebanon.
al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
salaam,
GF Haddad
news:39FA0148...@nbnet.nb.ca...
> Assalaam Alaikum,
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah.
> Again, if anyone is attacking A'ishah, it is those who want to use her
name for
> their propaganda against Imam Ali. The same way that some have used her
in the
> past to stage their attack against him.
These are a people that passed away. To them their works and to you yours.
And you will not be asked about what they used to do.
> Muslims are not to use the prophet's wives to quote lies and propaganda.
Nor his cousin. Nor his Companions. Nor anyone.
> I would be very careful every time someone brings me a Hadeeth from a
prophet
> wife.
Like the Shi`i faqih, Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha`i? He narrated about 100
hadiths from `A'isha through his uncle as-Aswad ibn Yazid in the Sahihayn.
Especially if this Hadeeth is inconsistent with what has been Motawaater
> about an islamic issue.
Mutawātir like wiping on the khuffs in wudū', as `Ali himself reported? Or
mashhūr like the abrogation of Mut`a, which the same `Ali reported?
> Wassalaam
Salam.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
www.sunnah.org
Jaafar Karouni
GF Haddad wrote:
> These are a people that passed away. To them their works and to you yours.
> And you will not be asked about what they used to do.
You did not provide this advice to those who praised A'ishah for her role in
the battle !! You should agree that they are the ones who caused her to get
assessed and get judged.
Wassalaam,
Jaafar
mva...@my-deja.com
I am unaware of Maudoodi having taken any different stance
compared to the other muslim scholars w.r.t umm-ul-momineen
Ayesha Siddiqa (RA). If you are referring
to his view that it was wrong for her to go out on a battle
campaign against Ali (RA), then this is not enitirely his
own view. I believe he has cited the opinions of other
scholars to the same effect.
Could you please elaborate what insults or veiled threats are
hurled by the so called "maudoodi group against umm-ul-momineen
Ayesha Siddiqa (RA)?
Wassalam
Viqar Ahmed
rja...@my-deja.com
Though the battle of Karbala and Siffeen, for example, are over in a
sense these are not really over.
It is a strong principle in Shi'ah Islam and there are quite a few
traditions related to this in Sunni compilations of hadeeth "man aHabba
Qawman Hushira ma'ahum" (whoever loves a people will be raised with them
on the day of Judgement).
So take the example of the battle of Siffeen between 'Ali and Mu'awiyah,
there were three types of people at that time.
1.There were those that fought on the side of 'Ali such as 'Ammar,
Uways, Malik Ashtar 2.There were those that fought against 'Ali
3.There were those that tried to remain nuetral.
Both numbers 2 and 3 are blameworthy (whoever is not with us is against
us).
So when a believers heart is with 'Ali at Siffeen and with Husayn at
Karbala that believer shall be associated with alImam 'Ali and alImam
Husayn in the hereafter.
When a persons heart is with Mu'awiyah and Yazid that person will be
raised with Mu'awiyah and Yazid on the day of Judgement.
Likewise those that tried to stay clear of either side will likewise be
raise as such on the day of Judgment, which is not a good thing
especially as the Prophet repeatedly said that the truth is with 'Ali.
I don't curse Ayesha but I don't love her either. And how can I love
her when she fought against 'Ali and was responsible for the deaths of
several thousand of her "children"?
Hers is a very problematic case and the best one can do is to leave her
case with Allah.
Fine but then why do we find in Bukhari that there are nearly 20X more
hadeeth narrated from Ayesha than narrated by 'Ali? Out of all the
Prophet's wives why so much preferential treatment towards 'Aishah, the
woman that was know to be the least well behaved of the Prophet's wives
towards the Prophet (to put it lightly) and the one that disobeyed the
junction in the Qur'an to "stay in your houses" and yet she goes our
with armour to battle against the Khalif of her time! It is only
because the Umayyad rulers loved her for fighting 'Ali.
Please see http://al-islam.org/ask/3.html for a detailed analysis
As far as your discussion of perfection of God, Prophets etc, you
mentioned that the Prophet turned away from a blind person and Allah
criticized the Prophet for that! This interpretation is not at all
accepted by the Shi'ah.
Please see: http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/1.html
How could such a person who God praised as being on the highest level of
Akhlaaq behave in such a way towards a blind believer? "Innaka la'alaa
khuluqin 'Adheem"
Frowning and Turning away? May those who attribute such things to the
Prophet fear the wrath of God.
NONE of the first four verses of this chapter (80:1-4) addresses the
Prophet.
It says "He frowned and turned away" not "You frowned and turned away".
Rather is was a certain Umayyad companion who frowned and turned away
but because those muslims don't want to attribute such a thing to that
Umayyad companion they attribute it to the Prophet instead, imagine!
This is not at all uncommon among them as even in the verse of the cave
you will see those muslims claiming that the Tranquility was not sent
down on the Prophet that day but upon that companion and it was the
companion who told the Prophet "don't fear, Allah is with us" rather
than the Prophet saying that to that companion!
It is incredable please see http://al-islam.org/peshawar/5.5.html
ARGUMENT FROM THE "VERSE OF CAVE" AND ITS REPLY
The fact of the matter is the Prophet specifically made clear the high
status of his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and he told the muslims to follow the
Qur'an and the Ahlul-Bayt (as).
Do you not believe this? How could one sincerely marginalize this
Mutawatir saying of the Prophet and prefer others as leaders over the
Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt?
The Prophet made clear the distinction of the Ahlul-Bayt when he wrapped
them under his mantle and asked God to purify them and the verse of
purification was revealed.
He likewise said that there would be 12 Imams after himself.
He said that you must follow the Qur'an and the Ahlul-Bayt in order not
to ever go astray. Can one sincerely blame the Shi'ah for trying there
best to adhere to this Prophetic advise?
Please see "Hadith al-Thaqalayn, Study of its Tawatur"
http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
I am sorry if I appeared too harsh or judgemental but I truly believe
that those that don't follow the path of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) will be at
a terrible loss on the Day of Judgement.
There really is no excuse.
salaam,
qurans...@my-deja.com
> > Now let us look briefly at Bukhari and Muslim and see what is said
> > concerning chapter 66 of the Truthful Qur'an:
>
accept
> Bukhari and Muslim to be perfect, in the sense the Qur'an, being
Allah's
> word is?
> > >
> > Oh Please Anjum wake up. Are you going to end up like those "Qur'an
> > only" types. The wars between
> > 'Ali and 'Aishah and between 'Ali and Mu'awiyah and the murder of
Husayn
> > with his family and friends by
> > Yazid is clearly documented in the hadeeth and history. Are you
going
> > to deny these things because they are not mentioned in the Qur'an?
Amazing statement by jaffer ! Are you going to deny it because it's not
in the Quran. What does the Quran say ?
Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men
and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of
deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so
leave them and their inventions alone.
To such (deceit) let the hearts of those incline, who have no faith in
the hereafter: let them delight in it, and let them earn from it what
they may. (6/112-113). Look at the next verse in order to know what
Allah commands us to say to respond to these DEVILS.
The Quran, since it calls for the worship of Allah, has no meaning to
Jaffer. It's ok , since the Quran mentions :
When God, the One and Only, is mentioned, the hearts of those who
believe not in the Hereafter are filled with disgust and horror; but
when other than He are mentioned, behold, they are filled with joy!
(39/45)
Further , it says :
And We put coverings over their hearts (and minds) lest they should
understand the Qur'an, and deafness into their ears: when thou dost
commemorate thy Lord in the Qur'an ALONE , they turn on their backs,
fleeing (17/46)
> It is also a fact that at that time, many ahadith were
> fabricated, a lot of them to suite one's sectarian views. Many great
> scholars had to jump in and try to examine them and come up with a
vset of
> ahadith that they felt contained the truth, but the fact remains,
acceptance
> of many of these ahadith and their interpretations are dependent upon
which
> school of thought one accepts.
Very true, ahadeeth are simply a distraction for us so that we cannot
fully engage in the Quranic way of life. Nothing of hadeeth is binding
upon any muslim, since it's all opinions of men.
>From the narrator, to the compiler to the refiner. There is simply
isn't any certainty in this institution. Furthermore NONE of Quranic
concepts, explained by itself transposed fully into the sunnah. From
salat to hajj, everything has been turned into blind rituals to
distract the Muslims from the full Quranic experience.
Hadeeth needs to be discarded, fast.
cb...@my-deja.com
qurans...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Very true, ahadeeth are simply a distraction for us so that we cannot
> fully engage in the Quranic way of life. Nothing of hadeeth is binding
> upon any muslim, since it's all opinions of men.
>
And among these men is the Messenger of Allah (sallahu 'alaihi wa
sallam):
"When God and His Apostle have decreed a matter, it is not for a
believing man or a woman to exercise a choice in a matter affecting
him; whoever opposes God and His Apostle has deviated into manifest
error"
Is the decree of the Messenger of Allah included in the Qur'an. This is
one of the challenge that we would encounter - and as you said, above ,
we will have more of "opinions of men". If for the sake of argument we
agree with your position, would you be able to accomodate the
unavoidable diffrent views ...
> >From the narrator, to the compiler to the refiner. There is simply
> isn't any certainty in this institution. Furthermore NONE of Quranic
> concepts, explained by itself transposed fully into the sunnah. From
> salat to hajj, everything has been turned into blind rituals to
> distract the Muslims from the full Quranic experience.
>
Any other way other than the way of the Qur'an and Sunnah must lead to
Satanic experience.
What does "Wisdom" signify in the following Ayahs.
"O our Lord, raise up amongst them an Apostle, one of themselves, to
recite to them Thy signs and to teach them the Book and Wisdom and to
purify them. Verily Thou art All-mighty"
"And also we have sent among you an Apostle, one of yourselves, to
recite to you our signs, and purify you, to teach you the Book and the
Wisdom, and to teach you what you did not know"
"And call to mind the signs of God and the Wisdom which are recited in
your houses; verily God is gentle, well-informed "
The Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God.
> Hadeeth needs to be discarded, fast.
And then ... we will be asking you for interpretations - get yourself
ready to Master the Arabic Language ...
qurans...@my-deja.com
> Is the decree of the Messenger of Allah included in the Qur'an. This
is
> one of the challenge that we would encounter - and as you said,
above ,
> we will have more of "opinions of men". If for the sake of argument
we
> agree with your position, would you be able to accomodate the
> unavoidable diffrent views ...
Very good questions. Certainly much better than the previous post i
answered which basically had nothing but ranting and raving and
frothing with denial.
You've quoted the ayat below : It is not fitting for a Believer, man or
woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Apostle to have
any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His
Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (33.36)
The Question we need to ask ourselves is..is obeying Allah and obeying
messenger TWO SEPERATE THINGS ? Remember, we do not hear Allah, we
heard the messenger with the words of Allah.
The Quran says : "And AN ANNOUNCEMENT from Allah and His messenger to
the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His
messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you
repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that
you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who
disbelieve." (9:3)
"O you who believe! obey Allah and His messenger and do not turn back
FROM HIM while you hear" (8:20)
Why only from HIM ? Because the messenger speaks the words of Allah.
For example he is commanded to say :
Say: "Shall we indeed call on others besides God,- things that can do
us neither good nor harm,- and turn on our heels after receiving
guidance from God? - like one whom the evil ones have made into a fool,
wandering bewildered through the earth, his friends calling, come to
us', (vainly) guiding him to the path." Say: "God's guidance is the
(only) guidance, and we have been directed to submit ourselves to the
Lord of the worlds;-
But Muslims don't do this, they do the false shahada attributed to
hadeeth. So please obey the messenger, cbun, ok ?
> Any other way other than the way of the Qur'an and Sunnah must lead to
> Satanic experience.
Please prove this from the Quran. The quran says :
And We put coverings over their hearts (and minds) lest they should
understand the Qur'an, and deafness into their ears: when thou dost
commemorate thy Lord in the Qur'an ALONE, they turn on their backs,
fleeing (from the Truth) (17.46)
> The Wisdom is the sunna of the Apostle of God.
>
Hmm...you quote ayaat telling you Prophet taught wisdom and you
say 'wisdom is sunna' . What are you, Shafiee or something :). The
Quran is a self-explanatory book , it doesn't need Shafiee telling it
what 'wisdom' is.
By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom, (36.2)
Believe me, drinking camels urine is not wisdom, it's lunacy.
surayya
This is slightly misleading.
I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the command to abstain from
re-marrying was because a better husband could not be found.
It was a command of Allah, and the Quran reveals to us that the Mothers
of the believers (may Allah be pleased with them) had a status different
to the rest of us women, because of their marriage tie. They were
informed of that and the obligations that came with such status, they
were not forced into such a situation either as the offer to set them
free in a handsome manner with no wrong-doing was made if they could not
fulfil such an obligation.
Another restriction is that you can't marry your mother :-)
More importantly, there is also a suggestion of it being of great
offence towards the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).
More than that, all inappropriate references to them is an offence, no
matter how they are devised, or what the instigator claims to be doing.
You would never see such pretenders involved in public haranguing about
their own birth-mothers, so no claims of their counterfeit respect can
be accepted.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
Al-Quran
33.6
The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his
wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer
personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of)
Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest
friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah).
33.28
O Prophet! Say to thy Consorts: "If it be that ye desire the life of
this World, and its glitter,- then come! I will provide for your
enjoyment and set you free in a handsome manner.
33.30
O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly
conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for
Allah.
33.32
O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if
ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose
heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech
(that is) just.
33.52
It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to
change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee,
except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah
doth watch over all things.
33.53
O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given
you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its
preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your
meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys
the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to
tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want,
ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your
hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy
Allah's Apostle, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any
time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity.
66.5
It may be, if he divorced you (all), that Allah will give him in
exchange consorts better than you,- who submit (their wills), who
believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship
(in humility), who travel (for Faith) and fast,- previously married or
virgins.