Monthly Archives: April 2012

Infallible Imam slams Taqqiyah against the wall


Imam abu ‘Abdillah slams Taqqiyah against the wall

Article by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010 with some changes
Original Article Link here

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

Yes it’s Rafidhi Taqqiyah again, and can we really have enough topics on this Satanic Shia invention?

The books of the folks are full of Taqqiyah and conflicting reports from their “infallible” Imams to an extent that no matter is free from differences of opinion, their renowned scholar Ja’far al-Subhani says in “al-Rasael al-Arba’ah” pg.201:

عندما نطالع كتابي: الوسائل، والمستدرك مثلاً؛ نرى أنه ما من باب من أبواب الفقه إلا وفيه اختلاف في رواياته، وهذا مما أدى إلى رجوع بعض ممن استبصروا عن مذهب الإمامية

[When we read the two books (of Hadith): Wasael al-Shia and Mustadrak al-Wasael for example, we see that there is no chapter or Fiqhi section which is free from conflicting narrations, this has caused some of those who converted to the Imami Madhab to leave it.]

This matter has become so serious that some of their biggest scholars left the Madhab, such as the teacher of their leader al-Tusi, in “Rasael fi Dirayat al-Hadith” by abu al-Fadl al-Babili vol.2 pg.223 & in “Tahtheeb al-Ahkam” vol.1 pg.2:

ثم ذكر عن شيخه أبي الحسن الهاروني العلوي أنه كان يعتقد الحق ، ويدين بالإمامة ، فرجع عنها لما التبس عليه الأمر في اختلاف الأحاديث ، وترك المذهب .

[Then he(al-Tusi) mentions about his teacher abu al-Hassan al-Harouni al-‘Alawi that he used to believe in the truth(Shia Madhab), and that he took Imamah as his religion, but he left it when he became confused because of the conflicting narrations, and he abandoned the Madhab.]

I say: the one who has opened their books of Hadith knows the gigantic amount of Hadiths that were labeled as Taqqiyah by the Shia scholars thinking that it would solve their problems, and MANY of these are authentic according to their standards, and this saves them the effort of having to make illogical and strange explanations in order to reconcile them. After reading these explanations one can only come to the conclusion that the Imam was on Taqqiyah most of his time, and this is indeed what many of their scholars stated in their books, and they said that even their closest companions never knew most of the religious rulings because the Imams would use Taqqiyah even on their own followers.

Their famous scholar and researcher Yusuf al-Bahrani said in “al-Hadaeq al-Nadirah” vol.1 pg.5:

فلم يعلم من أحكام الدين على اليقين إلا القليل، لامتزاج أخباره بأخبار التقية، كما اعترف بذلك ثقة الإسلام وعلم الأعلام محمد بن يعقوب الكليني نور الله مرقده في جامعه الكافي

[Only a small amount of the rulings of the religion were known for sure, because their narrations were mixed with the narrations of Taqqiyah, as was admitted by Thiqat al-Islam Muhammad bin Ya’aqoub al-Kulayni may Allah fill his grave with light in his collection al-Kafi]

So what we can conclude is that the Imams did Taqqiyah in just about everything, in all topics and all matters, for example:

وما رواه محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن ابن سنان عن أبي الجارود قال: قلت لابي جعفر (ع) متى اسجد سجدتي السهو ؟ قال: قبل التسليم فانك إذا سلمت فقد ذهبت حرمة صلاتك. فالوجه في هذين الخبرين أن نحملهما على ضرب من التقية لانهما موافقان لمذاهب كثير من العامة

Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Muhammad from ibn Sinan from abu al-Jaroud: I said to abu Ja’far (as): “When do I make the two prostrations of forgetfulness?” he (as) said: “Before making Tasleem, because if you make Tasleem then your prayer is finished.”

Their scholar and leader al-Tusi commented on this narration and the others before it by saying: “These two narrations are to be considered a kind of Taqqiyah, because they agree with the Madhabs of many of the ‘Ammah(Sunnies).”

Sources:
Tahtheeb al-Ahkam by Tusi 2/195, Istibsar by Tusi 1/380, Wasael al-Shia by ‘Amili 8/208.

As you can see they consider the smallest matters to be Taqqiyah such as if the two prostrations of forgetfulness were before or after Tasleem, and the examples are many… BUT is it true that their Imams did Taqqiyah as their scholars would like us to believe? The life that these great men lived shows otherwise and I’ll be quoting an example from their own books again.

al-Kafi vol.5 pg.449:

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ رِبَاطٍ عَنْ حَرِيزٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا حَنِيفَةَ يَسْأَلُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) عَنِ الْمُتْعَةِ فَقَالَ أَيَّ الْمُتْعَتَيْنِ تَسْأَلُ قَالَ سَأَلْتُكَ عَنْ مُتْعَةِ الْحَجِّ فَأَنْبِئْنِي عَنْ مُتْعَةِ النِّسَاءِ أَ حَقٌّ هِيَ فَقَالَ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ أَ مَا قَرَأْتَ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً فَقَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَ اللَّهِ فَكَأَنَّهَا آيَةٌ لَمْ أَقْرَأْهَا قَطُّ .

‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father from ibn abi ‘Umayr from ‘Ali bin al-Hassan bin Ribat from Hariz from ‘Abdul-Rahman bin abi ‘Abdullah: I heard abu Hanifa ask abu ‘Abdullah (as) about Mut’ah, so he (as) said: “Which of the two you ask about?” abu Hanifa said: “I am asking about the Mut’ah of women because I already asked you about the Mut’ah of Hajj, is it correct?” he (as) replied: “Subhanallah! Have you not read in the book of Allah (swt)? : {So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation.}” abu Hanifa said: “By Allah it is as if this is the first time I hear it.”

al-Majlisi said: Hasan in al-Miraat 20/229.
al-Behbudi said: Sahih in Sahih-ul-Kafi 3/45.

So I ask where is this infamous Taqqiyah you speak of? al-Sadiq wasn’t just talking to a random ignorant Muslim layman in the streets, nor was he talking about a small minor issue, he is talking about one of the biggest differences MUT’AH! and who is he talking to? he’s talking to the leader of the scholars of Baghdad and the head of one of the four Madhabs Imam abu Hanifa al-Nu’man!

There is no Taqqiyah, there are liars, many liars, and they have been deemed trustworthy and reliable by dishonest scholars of Rijal, that is the truth.

Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liar. [Quran 29:3] 

2 Comments

Filed under Hadith science, Infallibility issues with shia imams, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Making Salam on females or Not? Infallible Imam contradicts


Making Salam on females or Not making Salam on females – infallible Imam contradicts with the Prophet (saw) and Ali (ra).

Article by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

Two Hadiths in al-Kafi vol.5 pg.535:

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ غِيَاثِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) أَنَّهُ قَالَ لَا تُسَلِّمْ عَلَى الْمَرْأَةِ .

Muhammad bin Yahya from Ahmad bin Muhammad from Muhammad bin Yahya from Ghiyath bin Ibrahim from abu ‘Abdullah (as): “Do not make Salam on the woman.”

Majlisi said: Muwaththaq 20/374, Behbudi said: Sahih 3/79.

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ حَمَّادِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ رِبْعِيِّ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) يُسَلِّمُ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ وَ يَرْدُدْنَ عَلَيْهِ وَ كَانَ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ( عليه السلام ) يُسَلِّمُ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ وَ كَانَ يَكْرَهُ أَنْ يُسَلِّمَ عَلَى الشَّابَّةِ مِنْهُنَّ وَ يَقُولُ أَتَخَوَّفُ أَنْ يُعْجِبَنِي صَوْتُهَا فَيَدْخُلَ عَلَيَّ أَكْثَرُ مِمَّا طَلَبْتُ مِنَ الْأَجْرِ .

‘Ali bin Ibrahim from his father Ibrahim bin Hashim from Hamad bin ‘Isa from Rib’i bin ‘Abdullah from abu ‘Abdullah (as): The Prophet (SAWS) used to make Salam on the women and they used to return it, and Ameer al-Mumineen ‘Ali (as) used to make Salam on the women but hated to make it on the young teenage women, he used to say: “I fear that I may like her voice, so I would end up with more than just the reward(of making Salam).”

Majlisi said “Hasan” because of Ibn Hashim 20/374.

Comments:

He meant he would end up falling in love with her, although he’s infallible, either way both of them contradict each-other.

1 Comment

Filed under Hadith science, Infallibility issues with shia imams, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Not using Taqqiyah is also Taqqiyah


Article by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

Shia claim their Imams did Taqqiyah the whole time, and apparently the Shia also invented narrations where the companions of the Imams would ask them or even beg them not to answer them back using Taqqiyah.

The only problem is, the Shia scholars claimed that even these are Taqqiyah!!!

محمّد بن علي بن الحسين بإسناده ، عن يحيى بن أبي عمران أنّه قال : كتبت إلى أبي جعفر الثاني ( عليه السلام ) : في السنجاب والفنك والخزّ ، وقلت : جعلت فداك أُحب أن لا تجبيبني بالتقيّة في ذلك ، فكتب بخطه إليّ : صلّ فيها .

Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin al-Hussein with his Isnad, from Yahya bin abi ‘Imran that he said: I wrote to abu Ja’far II (as) regarding the squirrel and the fennec fox and the beaver, and I said: “May I be sacrifice for you, I would like it if you did not reply with Taqqiyah in this matter.” So he wrote me with his own hand-writing: “Pray in them.”

(He means while wearing their skin.)

Sources: al-Hadaeq al-Nadirah by Yusuf al-Bahrani (7/62-69), Mustanad al-Shia by al-Naraqi(4/321), Jawahir al-Kalam by al-Jawahiri (8/88-98), Man la Yahduruhu al-Faqih by Saduq (1/262), Wasael al-Shia by al-‘Amili (3/253) & (4/349).

In his book “Minhaj al-Ahkam” pg.47, al-Mirza al-Qummi says:

إن السائل ربما سأل عن حال شيء وقال ما حكم هذا من دون تقية وقال أجب لي بغير تقية فأجابوا بأنه هكذا، وهو أيضاً موافق للتقية

“The questioner may have asked about the condition of a certain matter and said “What is the ruling on this without Taqqiyah?” or “Answer me with no Taqqiyah.” so they (as) would answer that it is so and so, and this also is Taqqiyah.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Hadith science, Revealing Shia sect

Shia infallible Imam back to the future


Shia Imam back to the future – a failed fabrication

Article by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

They lie and lie and lie, and they make fatal mistakes and this is one of them because the man who invented this lie was not as bright as he thought he was…still it’s a good example of Persian Shia hatred:

نفس الرحمن في فضائل سلمان –
ميرزا حسين النوري الطبرسي- (لع) – الصفحة ٦٣٦

ورأيت في بعض المواضع المعتبرة ما صورته: (روى شيخ الطائفة في كتاب كشف الحق بسنده مرفوعا عن أبي بصير قال: حججت مع أبي عبد الله عليه السلام حتى إذا زار قبر جده صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم بالمدينة وزرنا معه، فقال له رجل من بني يقظان: يا بن رسول الله! إنهم يزعمون أنهم يزورون أبا بكر وعمر في هذه القبة!؟ فقال عليه السلام: مه يا أخا يقظان، إنهم كذبوا فوالله لو نبش قبرهما لوجد في مكانهما سلمان وأبو ذر، فوالله إنهما أحق بهذا الموضع من غيرهما، قال أبو بصير: فقلت: يا بن رسول الله! كيف يكون انتقال الميت ووضع آخر مكانه؟ فقال عليه السلام: يا أبا محمد! إن الله عز وجل خلق سبعين ألف ملك يقال لهم: النقالة، ينتشرون في مشارق الأرض ومغاربها، فيأخذون أموات العباد ويدفنون كلا منهم مكانا يستحقه، وأنهم يسلبون جسد الميت عن نعشه ويضعون آخر مكانه من حيث لا يدرون ولا يشعرون وما ذلك ببعيد وما الله بظلام للعبيد، وروى هذا الحديث في فوائد الفوائد، وذكره أيضا ابن طاووس في وصايا إلى آخر ما نقله بلفظه كما رأيته – انتهى).

“Nafs-ul-Rahman fi Fadael Salman” al-Mirza Hussein Muhammad Taqi al-Noori al-Tabrasi (d. 1320 AH), pg.636:

[And I saw in respectable recognized locations: Sheikh al-Taefa (al-Tusi d. 460 AH) reported in the book “Kashf al-Haqq” with its Isnad which is Marfu’u from abu Baseer who said: I made pilgrimage with abu ‘Abdullah (as) and when he visited his grandfather’s (SAWS) grave in Madinah, we visited with him, a man from bani Yaqthan said: “O son of Rassul-Allah (SAWS)! they(Sunnies) claim that they visit the graves of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in this Dome!?” He (as) said: “O brother from Yaqthan, they lie, by Allah if they dig up the two graves they would find instead Salman and abu Dharr, by Allah they have more right to this position than anyone else.” abu Baseer said: I said: “O son of Rassul-Allah (SAWS), how can one dead be replace by another?” Ja’far (as) said: “O abu Baseer, Allah has created seventy thousand angels called: al-Naqqalah (the movers), they are dispersed in the east and the west …]

Comments:

It is a historical fact that the DOME or al-Qubbah on top of the honored grave was built in the time of King Qalawoon al-Salihi in the year 678 after-Hijrah, there was no “dome” before this, so how can Ja’far (rah) visit it when he died in the year 148 after-Hijrah???

Can this be explained as anything other than Persan Majoosi hatred for the Sahaba (ra) who destroyed their empire of Kufr?

Another matter is that the “infallible” says that Salman (ra) and abu Dharr (ra) were more deserving of this position than anyone else, and he meant Abu Bakr (ra) and ‘Umar (a)… does this mean they were more deserving than ‘Ali (ra) and Fatima (ra) and Hassan (ra) and Hussein (ra)!? Why didn’t the 70,000 “mover angels” move their bodies next to the prophet (SAWS)!?

Leave a comment

Filed under Hadith science, Revealing Shia sect

Kamal al-Haydari: al-Wilayah al-Takweeniyah is not Ghulu


Article By Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

al-Salamu ‘Aleikum,

al-Wilayah al-Takwiniyah or in other words the ability of the 12 Shia Imams to manipulate all matter of creation and to control the atoms ect… This according to the corrupt Shia scholar Kamal al-Haydari is in no way considered extremism or Ghulu.

“al-Wilayah al-Takweeniyah – haqiqatuha wa mazahiruha” Lectures by Sayyed Kamal al-Haydari written by ‘Ali Hammoud al-‘Abadi.

pg.227:

[al-Wilayah al-Takweeniyah for Ahlul-Bayt is outside the area of Ghulu:
Based on what we stated, it is clear that the claim which says that al-Wilayah al-Takweeniyah for Ahlul-Bayt (as) is a type of Tafweed and Ghulu is false.]

pg.228:

[Second part: Tafweed with the permission of Allah.
What is meant from this is that Allah gave the Prophet and the Imams (as) the Wilayah and the ability to manipulate the creation, but it is tied with the permission of Allah, because they do nothing except by his permission, so they create and revive and put to death but not in an absolute sense but by the permission of Allah.]

pg.229:

[As for the Tafweed which is tied to the permission of Allah, there is no issue in it, the Quran tells us about some prophets (as) who were given the Wilayah and ability to manipulate matters of creation in the universe with his permission…]

pg.230:

[From here it is clear that the wilyah of Ahlul-Bayt (as) over the creations and their ability to manipulate the universe is in no way Ghulu because it is by the most high’s permission]

-END-

NOTE: Tafweed means Allah giving some of his creatures the ability to do whatever they wish in manipulating the creation and laws of the universe.

I’d like to know what is this creature that the Imams created? and what is this creature that they put to death? And when did Allah declare that he gave them these godly super-powers!?

The more time passes the more extreme and deviant these Shia ghulat become!

But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not [power to cause] death or life or resurrection. [Holy Quran 25:3] 

Leave a comment

Filed under Revealing Shia sect, Shia Ghulu (Exaggeration)

Shia attributing Ilm al-Ghayb to their Imams


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Shia attributing knowledge of the unseen to their Imams and Saints

According to Shiism their infallible Imams know everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future. This is another proof that Shiism is a ghali sect and extremely deviant one.

Knowledge of Unseen between Islam & Shi’ism

Shia attributing al-Ghayb to their Imams and Saints

The knowledge of the Unseen/Ghayb – The Shia stance compared

Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Debates: Ahle-sunnah VS shia, Revealing Shia sect, Shia Ghulu (Exaggeration)

The Prophet (SAWS) also gets angry for the anger of Abubakr (ra) and others


The Prophet (SAWS) doesn’t only get angry for the anger of Fatima (ra)

al-Salamu ‘Aleykum,

The Rawafidh hold-fast onto a Hadith in the Sahihayn, in brief this Hadith says that the Prophet (SAWS) is harmed if his daughter Fatima (ra) is harmed, and is sad if she is sad and so on…

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama: I heard Allah’s Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, “Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don’t give permission, and will not give permission unless ‘Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.”
(Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

And this Hadith is of the highest of levels of authenticity.

And this comes as a result of ‘Ali’s (ra) second marriage, and it is because the Prophet (SAWS) feared that his daughter may have a Fitnah in her religion or a trial in her religion.
Because if the marriage is going to block the wife from doing her job and duty towards her husband than divorce is better, and this is a wide topic.

(Imam Zain-ul-‘Abidin) ‘Ali b. Husain reported that when they came to Medina from Yazid b. Mu’awiya after the martyrdom of Husain b. ‘Ali (Allah be pleased with him) Miswar b. Makhramah met him and said to him: Is there any work for me which you ask me to do? I said to him: No. He again said to me: Would you not give me the sword of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for I fear that the people may snatch it from you? By Allah, if you give that to me, no one would be able to take it away, so long as there is life in me. Verily ‘Ali b. Abi Talib sent a proposal of marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl in spite of (the fact that his wife) fatima (had been living in his house). Thereupon I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say while addressing the people on the pulpit. I was adolescing in those days. He said: fatima is a part of me and I fear that she may be put to trial in regard to religion. He then made a mention of his son-in law who had been from the tribe of ‘Abd Shams and praised his behaviour as a son-in-law and said: Whatever he said to me he told the truth and whatever he promised he fulfilled it for me. I am not going to declare forbidden what is lawful and make lawful what is forbidden, but, by Allah, the daaghter of Allah’s Messenger and the daughter of the enemy of Allah can never be combined at one place. (Sahih Muslim)

And in another Lafdh:

Ali b. Husain reported that Miswar b. Makhramah informed him that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib sent the proposal of marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl as he had fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), (as his wife). When fatima heard about it, she came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: The people say that you never feel angry on account of your daughters and now ‘Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. Makhramah said: Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) rose up and I heard him reciting Tashahhud and say: Now to the point. I gave a daughter of mine (Zainab) to Abu’l-‘As b. Rabi, and he spoke to me and spoke the truth. Verily fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, is a part of me and I do not approve that she may be put to any trial, by Allah the daughter of Allah’s Messenger cannot be combined with the daughter of God’s enemy (as the co-wives) of one person. Thereupon ‘Ali gave up (the idea of his intended) marriage. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Zuhri with the same chain of transmitters. (Sahih Muslim)

Through this expression, those of weak minds and intellect try to make Takfeer on the best of this nation after its Prophets, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (ra).

EVEN THOUGH THE HADITH IS ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE.

Question:

Is Fatima (ra) the only person whose anger angers Allah’s messenger PBUH, and whose hurting hurts Allah’s messenger PBUH???

MEANING, doesn’t the Prophet (SAWS) get angry if someone angers his other family members and companions? Doesn’t he also feel hurt if someone hurts his other family members and close friends? or does he not care if they get hurt?

The answer is clear to those who are rational and to those with healthy hearts.

Would the Shia stop us from saying that the Prophet (SAWS) gets angry if someone angered or hurt his cousin ‘Ali (ra) or his grandson Hussein (ra) for example?

I doubt it, so does this mean it isn’t exclusive for Fatima (ra)?

Let’s find out…

In al-Bukhari we read:

Narrated abu Ad-Darda: While I was sitting with the Prophet (PBUH), abu bakr came, lifting up one corner of his garment uncovering his knee. The Prophet said, “Your companion has had a quarrel.” abu bakr greeted (the Prophet ) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! There was something (i.e. quarrel) between me and the Son of Al-khattab. I talked to him harshly and then regretted that, and requested him to forgive me, but he refused. This is why I have come to you.” The Prophet said thrice, “O abu bakr! May Allah forgive you.” In the meanwhile, ‘Umar regretted (his refusal of abu bakr’s excuse) and went to abu bakr’s house and asked if abu bakr was there. They replied in the negative. So he came to the Prophet (PBUH) and greeted him, but signs of displeasure appeared on the face of the Prophet till Abu Bakr pitied (‘Umar), so he knelt and said twice, “O Allah’s Apostle! By Allah! I was more unjust to him (than he to me).” The Prophet said, “Allah sent me (as a Prophet) to you (people) but you said (to me), ‘You are telling a lie,’ while abu bakr said, ‘He has said the truth,’ and consoled me with himself and his money.” He then said twice, “Won’t you then give up harming my companion?” After that nobody harmed Abu Bakr.

And

Narrated Abu Ad-Darda: There was a dispute between Abu Bakr and `Umar, and Abu Bakr made `Umar angry. So `Umar left angrily. Abu Bakr followed him, requesting him to ask forgiveness (of Allah) for him, but `Umar refused to do so and closed his door in Abu Bakr’s face. So Abu Bakr went to Allah’s Apostle while we were with him. Allah’s Apostle (SAWS) said, “This friend of yours must have quarrelled (with somebody).” In the meantime `Umar repented and felt sorry for what he had done, so he came, greeted (those who were present) and sat with the Prophet (SAWS) and related the story to him. Allah’s Apostle became angry and Abu Bakr started saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! By Allah, I was more at fault (than `Umar).” Allah’s Apostle said, “Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? (Abu Bakr), Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? When I said, ‘O people I am sent to you all as the Apostle of Allah,’ you said, ‘You tell a lie.’ while Abu Bakr said, ‘You have spoken the truth .”

Comment: Above we see that the Prophet (SAWS) became angry NOT for the anger of Abu Bakr (ra) but for something much much less than the anger of Abu Bakr (ra).

Question:

Do the Shia accept that Allah became angry for the anger of Abu Bakr (ra)?

Not only that, the Prophet (SAWS) also becomes extremely angry for the weak and the elderly… we read in al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Mas’ud: A man came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I keep away from the morning prayer because so-and-so (Imam) prolongs it too much.” Allah’s Apostle became furious and I had never seen him more furious than he was on that day. The Prophet said, “O people! Some of you make others dislike the prayer, so whoever becomes an Imam he should shorten the prayer, as behind him are the weak, the old and the needy.”

and also in Bukhari:

Narrated Zaid bin Khalid Al-Juhani: A man asked Allah’s Apostle about the Luqata. He said, “Make public announcement of it for one year, then remember the description of its container and the string it is tied with, utilize the money, and if its owner comes back after that, give it to him.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What about a lost sheep?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Take it, for it is for you, for your brother, or for the wolf.” The man asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What about a lost camel?” Allah’s Apostle got angry and his cheeks or face became red, and said, “You have no concern with it as it has its feet, and its water-container, till its owner finds it.”

and in Muslim:

my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me which said: “Abu Mas`ud! Bear in mind…” I did not understand the voice because of the anger. Abu Mas`ud added: As he came near me, I found that he was the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) who was saying, “Abu Mas`ud! Bear in mind that Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave.” Then I said: “I will never beat any slave in future.”

Another narration is: The whip dropped from my hand in awe of the Prophet (PBUH).

Would the Rafidhah understand this the same way they understood his anger for Fatima (ra)?

In conclusion, the Prophet (SAWS) gets angry for the anger and hurting of many people, this is not restricted to his daughter (ra).

As for the anger of infallible Prophets, I mention this just for the benefit:

And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by [the hair of] his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.” [Quran 7:150]

[Moses] said, “O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, (92) From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?” (93) [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, ‘You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.’ ” (94) [Quran 7:92-93-94]

Shia scholar al-TabaTabaei said in his Tafseer:

وظاهر سياق الآية وكذا ما في سورة طه من آيات القصة أن موسى غضب على هارون

“And the apparent context of the verse and what is in Surat “TaHa” from verses of this story show that Musa was angry with Haroun.”

and he said:

أنه أخذ بلحيته ورأسه غضباً ليضربه

“He seized him by the beard and the head out of anger in order to beat him up.”

So we see the two infallibles fighting and quarreling,

and finally TabaTabaei said:

وإن كان الحق في ذلك مع هارون

“Although Haoun was the one upon truth.”

So according to TabaTabaei, the infallible who receives Wahy fought with the other infallible who receives Wahy, but the one upon truth was the infallible who earned the anger Not the infallible who was angry.

Article by Hani (aka TripolySunni)
Posted by 13S2010

4 Comments

Filed under Articles, Clarification about sunni hadiths, Question bank for shiite's, Rebuttals, Revealing Shia sect