Monthly Archives: April 2014

Shia belief of “al-Bada'”


al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Today we have something fun to play with : )

You all know the narrations that contain the ancient Shia belief of “al-Bada'”, for example:

ما بدا لله في شيء كما بدا له في إسماعيل ابني

Imam al-Sadiq says: “It hasn’t appear to Allah in anything as it appeared to him in my son Isma`il.”

Meaning that it would appear to Allah that Isma`il was the next Imam, then after Isma`il died in his father’s life, Allah (astaghfirullah) made the Imam his brother Musa instead, in other words he changed his mind as if he apparently never knew that the first one was going to die.

To make a long story short, the Shia at the time fabricated these narrations as excuses to switch from following one Imam to the next, and so that they wouldn’t appear as liars in front of their followers.

Now the Twelver Shia scholar al-Saduq doesn’t  like this narration, so he refutes it in his book “Kamal ul-Deen wa Tamam ul-Ni`mah” pg.69:

ما ذلك الخبر؟ ومن رواه؟ ومن تلقّاه بالقبول؟ فلم يجدوا إلى ذلك سبيلاً ، وإنّما هذه حكاية ولّدها قوم قالوا بامامة إسماعيل ، ليس لها أصلٌ


[What is this narration? who narrated it? who accepted it? they couldn’t answer, this is only a story made up by some folks who believed in the Imamah of Isma`il, it is baseless.]

Then he makes Takfir on those who believe in it by saying:

وعندنا من زعم أنَّ الله عزَّ وجلَّ يبدو له اليوم في شيء لم يعلمه أمس فهو كافرٌ والبراءة منه واجبة

[We believe that whoever states that something can be revealed to Allah today that he didn’t know yesterday is a Kafir, and it is a duty to be free from him.]


Now we’ll reveal to him what he didn’t know, Bismillah:

رواه سعد بن عبد الله الأشعري قال: حدثني أبو هاشم داود بن القاسم الجعفري قال: كنت عند أبي الحسن عليه السلام وقت وفاة ابنه أبي جعفر – وقد كان أشار إليه ودل عليه – فإني لافكر في نفسي وأقول: هذه قضية أبي إبراهيم وقضية إسماعيل، فأقبل علي أبو الحسن عليه السلام فقال: نعم يا أبا هاشم بدا لله تعالى في أبي جعفر وصير مكانه أبا محمد، كما بدا لله في إسماعيل بعدما دل عليه أبو عبد الله عليه السلام ونصبه، وهو كما حدثت به نفسك وإن كره المبطلون، أبو محمد ابني الخلف من بعدي عنده ما تحتاجون إليه ومعه آلة الإمامة والحمد لله


Sa`d bin `Abdullah al-‘Ash`ari said: abu Hashim Dawoud bin al-Qassim al-Ja`fari said: I was with Imam abu al-Hassan (as) when his son abu Ja`far died -and he had pointed to him and appointed him- So I started thinking to myself: “This is similar to the case of Imam abu Ibrahim (as) and Isma`il.” so abu al-Hassan (as) came to me and said: “Yes O abu Hashim, it appeared to Allah in abu Ja`far and he replaced him with abu Muhammad, it also appeared to Allah in Isma`il after his father abu `Abdullah had pointed to him and appointed him, it is exactly as you thought to yourself even if the haters will hate. abu Muhammad my son is my successor after me, he has what you need and the Imamah praise be to Allah.”

source: Ghaybat al-Tusi, page 200.
grading: SAHIH.

In other words, al-Saduq is clueless because this is an authentic Shia narration with a chain of trustworthy Imami Shia, No Isma`ilis, No Zaydis.

Also it turns out this happened twice, not just with Isma`il and Musa, but it also happened with the children of `Ali al-Hadi, Muhammad and Hasan.

al-Bada’ x 2 

; )

By Hani (islamic-forum.net)
Salam `Aleykum,

7 Comments

Filed under Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Clear Mistranslation in the English version of Majlisi’s work – Hayat ul Quloob


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

It is well known that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم had four real daughters from Khadijah رضي الله عنها . Quite many Shias nowadays deny this fact, but this was not the case with the ancient Shias. Rather there are clear and authentic narrations in Sunni and Shia books which prove that the Prophet (S) had four real daughters from Khadijah.

After mentioning those authentic narrations, Majlisi mentioned that a group of people from Shias and Sunnis state that they were not the real daughters, but then he says “But authentic narrations refute both of these statements.” ?Since this sentence was problematic, hence the English translator of Hayat ul Quloob omitted it. 

Posted Image

Original Persian Text and its correct English translation :

و جمعى از علماى خاصه و عامه را اعتقاد آن است كه رقيه و ام كلثوم دختران خديجه بودند از شوهر ديگر مع پيش از رسول خدا (صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم) داشته و حضرت ايشان را تربيت كرده بود و دختر حقيقى آن جناب نبودند؛ و بعضى گفتند كه: دختران هاله خواهر خديجه بوده‏اند. و بر نفى اين دو قول روايت معتبره دلالت مى‏كند

A group of Shia and Sunni scholars believe that Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum were the daughters of Khadijah from another husband before the Prophet (S), and some say that they were the daughters of Haala, the sister of Khadijah. But authentic narrations refute both of these statements.

Hayat ul Quloob, Vol. 2, p. 560 

By Kalaam (islamic-forum.net)
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Exposing al-islam.org

Tijani finds Shia Mosques and Hussainiyas places of smoking rather than worship


Few excerpts from a book of Tijani

He says :

We can say that smoking is a common phenomenon among the Shia. When you come into their mosques for the first time, you are shocked by that.

I remember that when I traveled to Holy Najaf for the first time, I was shocked by this phenomenon. I found it odd and so I asked some of their (the Shia) ulema about it. They gave answers which have not convinced me until now. Some of them say that smoking is neither impermissible nor disapproved because there is no (legal) text concerning it either from the Prophet (S) or from the infallible Imams (a.s..) and that analogy is not permissible to them. Some others say that they do not smoke in the mosques, but only in Husayniyyas 2 which are not from mosques.

Regarding Shia Scholars, he shows his displeasure at not giving fatwa against smoking, and says:

Or, they may fear the reaction of smokers and so they do not give a fatwa for the sake of being disapproved. Someone from them has tried his best to convince me that smoking has many benefits and to disapprove this is really a dangerous thing having a dangerous effect! It encouraged a Muslim youth who knew this man, to keep on smoking.

At the same time we find that charitable societies and social organizations in the atheist countries sparing no effort against smoking and smokers, and preventing even its advertisement. They ask the manufacturers of cigarettes to write on the packets of cigarettes the word “SUICIDE” to encourage people to keep away from it. Yet we find in the Islamic religious societies widely embarking on it and encouraging others towards it. We even find women carrying packets of cigarettes with them to places of worship and religious meetings.

http://www.al-islam….port/html/30002

Yeah, this is ‘the school of ahlelbayt’, who can’t give fatwa against smoking for the fear of backlash, and others encourge it. Someone tried to show the benefits of smoking to Tijani. What could that be? It makes you think as if you are the hero? It protects from cancer? And the mominaat, they carry packets of cigarettes in places of worship even in Najaf? Yuck.

shesha_hosseinyat

by Kalaam (islamic-forum.net)
posted here by 13S2010

34 Comments

Filed under Revealing Shia sect

Ghayba of Shia Mahdi is not from Allah


Shia scholar: Occultation of Shia Twelfth Imam is not from Allah

Salam alaikum.

Interesting quote from Shia website Markaz al-Abhaz Aqaidiyah:

http://www.aqaed.com…2/m-i-m-04.html
قال المحقق الطوسي: (ليست غيبة المهدي من الله ولا منه، بل من المكلفين والناس، وهي من غلبة الخوف، وعدم تمكين الناس من إطاعة الامام، فاذا زال سبب الغيبة وقع الظهور)

Muhaqiq at-Toose said: Ghayba of Mahdi isn’t from Allah, and neither from him (self). But due to mukalifin (opponents) and people. And the [ghaybah] happened due to predominance of fear, and absence of patient people in the obedience to Imam, and once the reason of ghaybah disappears, appearance (of Imam) will take place.

Points for discussion:

1) Allah didn’t want ghaybah. Neither 12-th Imam wanted to hide.

2) He scared of people, and didn’t see obedience in his faithful rafidi followers. And he still scared. Only after he will feel safe and will see obedience in his followers, he will appear.

3) Tayib, let us suppose he was scared in the time of Abbasids. What scare him now? How is it possible for coward to lead Islamic nation?

4) He still don’t see much obedience in his shias. 

By Efendi (islamic-forum.net)
Original Link
Posted with some changes by 13S2010

6 Comments

Filed under Rebuttals, Revealing Shia sect

Shia grand Scholar wouldn’t do anything without cursing the Sahaba


Shia grand Scholar wouldn’t do anything without cursing the Sahaba – What a sick brain?

Just read on Shia Facebook page:

al-Muhaqiq al-Bahrani in his work Luluat al-Bahrain, Page 148:

And he – may Allah have mercy on him – [Muhaqiq al-Karaki] didn’t ride and he didn’t do anything […] and with his voice he curse the Shaykhain [Abu Bakr and Omar] and those who follow their steps (i.e Sunnis).

Note:
Muhaqiq al-Karaki (rah) was the Marji’ and the scholar of the Safavid Empire, he was Lebanese, his grave is in Iran.

Everything he used to do was with his curse on Omar and Abu Bakr.

 

 

Posted here by 13S2010

40 Comments

Filed under Revealing Shia sect

Saqīfah incident actually disproves Shia concept of Imamate


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Saqīfa incident actually disproves Shia concept of Imamate/Wilayah of Ali

Shias believe the Prophet (S) declared Caliph Ali as the first Imam in Ghadeer. Shias say Abu Bakr and Umar plotted in Saqifa against Ali, and hence snatched the Caliphate from him. This is how they think about this incident, but an unbiased look at this incident shows that it was impossible. First of all, the people of Madinah, whom Allah called ‘Ansar’ which means ‘the Helpers’ had gathered at Saqifah. Their gathering in Saqifah was for the purpose of selecting a Caliph from amongst themselves. Hence, if anyone plotted against Ali, it was actually by these people whom Allah declared ‘Ansar’. Abu Bakr and Umar only came to Saqifah to stop them. If they had any intention to select a Caliph at Saqifah, which would have been the last thing in their mind when they heard the gathering of Ansar at Saqifah, they would have gone to Saqifah with a large number of Muhajireen i.e ‘The Immigrants’. They only intended to stop the Ansar from selecting a Caliph, because they didn’t have the right since the Prophet (S) had clearly declared that the Caliph would be from the ‘Quraish’. But aside from that, the gathering of Ansar at Saqifah shows that those people didn’t consider the event of Ghadeer to be the appointment of Ali as the first Caliph. And if Ghadeer event was the evidence of the appointment of Ali as the first Caliph, than the Ansar were the first people to go against Ali. 

When Abu Bakr and Umar reached Saqifah with Abu Ubaidah, and when they looked at the situation, they tried to stop Ansar from selecting a Caliph from amongst them. They talked to them, and persuaded many people from Ansar. How would anyone from Ansar agree with them, if they didn’t think Abu Bakr and Umar were telling the truth? How can Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah force anyone from Ansar to accept their stance when they were only three people in a large gathering of Ansar? And as the Shias preach day and night, Abu Bakr and Umar didn’t even have the superficial powers which would have forced the Ansar to agree with them! The only thing with which they convinced the Ansar was Quran and Sunnah. But still, there were few Ansari who wanted to choose a Caliph from amongst them. If they had succeeded, and if Abu Bakr and Umar hadn’t stopped them, it would have been Ansar who would have made the first error of choosing a wrong person as Caliph as both Sunnis and Shias agree that the Caliph is from the Quraish. But Abu Bakr and Umar stopped them from committing this error, and not by force, but with discussion and wisdom.

When some of the Ansari still wanted to choose a person from amongst them as Caliph, Umar knew that they can only be stopped from selecting a man from their own as Caliph, by selecting an eligible person from Quraish as the Caliph. And he was Abu Bakr, so Umar told him to move his hand forth, and he rendered allegiance to Abu Bakr. The Ansar who were convinced as a result of the discussion that the Caliph has to be from the Quraish started rendering allegiance to him, so much so that all of them rendered allegiance to him. And Umar saved the Muslims from the division on that day with his wisdom.

Hence this event is not actually a crime of Abu Bakr and Umar, but it is the event which shows how they protected the Muslims from division on the very first day after the death of the Prophet (S). If Ansar had succeeded in choosing a caliph from amongst them, the unity of Muslims would have been at stake. Because the Muhajireen wouldn’t render allegiance to an Ansari Caliph, since neither the Ansar could force the Muhajireen nor they could convince the Muhajireen to accept an Ansari as a Caliph in the light of Quran and Sunnah. The Muslims would have been fighting with one another, rather than against the rebels and the kuffar. And Ali would still not have got the position of the Caliph, because just like Ansar didn’t think the event of Ghadeer as the appointment of Ali as Caliph, so was the case with the Muhajireen, because the Muhajireen considered Abu Bakr to be the eligible person for Caliphate.

Conclusion:
Ali wasn’t considered as ‘the divinely appointed first Caliph’ by Ansar as well as Muhajireen. And he wouldn’t have become even the fourth caliph of the Muslims if Abu Bakr and Umar hadn’t intervened at Saqifah, because that would have lead to the division of Muslims and it would have been the biggest catastrophe, since the centre of Islam would have become the battleground between the two factions of Muslims, and before they could have settled their dispute, the rebels and the Kuffar would have overpowered them. We need to be thankful for the role of Abu Bakr and Umar in Saqifah, rather than condemning them.

Wa lillahil hamd ! 

 

By Kalaam (Islamic-Forum.net)
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History

Mushrik Poet from Quraysh lists the Sahaba who gave them hard time in the battle of Badr


In his Sirah, Ibn Ishaq listed a poem of one of the Mushrikeen from Quraysh, Dhirar Ibn Al-Khattab,  which was said after the battle of Badr. He said:

شعر ضرار بن الخطاب في يوم بدر

وقال ضرار بن الخطاب بن مرادس ، أخو بني محارب بن فهر في يوم بدر ‏‏:‏‏ 

عجبت لفخر الأوس والـحَـين دائر** عليهم غدا والـدهـر فـيه بـصـائر 
وفخر بني النجار إن كان معـشـر ** أصيبوا ببدر كُـلِّـهـم ثـمَّ صـابـر 
فإن تك قتلى غودرت من رجالـنـا ** فإنا رجـال بـعـدهـم سـنـغـادر 
وتَردي بنا الجرد العناجيج وسطكـم ** بني الأوس حتى يشفي النـفـس ثـائر 
ووسط بني النجار سوف نكـرُّهـا ** لها بالـقـنـا والـدارعـين زوافـر 
فنترك صرعى تعصب الطير حولهم ** وليس لـهـم إلا الأمـانـي نـاصـر 
وتبكيهم من أهـل يثـرب نـسـوة **لهن بها لـيل عـن الـنـوم سـاهـر 
وذلـك أنـا لا تـزال سـيوفـنـا **بهـن دم مـمـن يحـاربـن مــائر 
فإن تظفروا في يوم بدر فـإنـمـا** بأحمد أمسى جدكـم وهـو ظـاهـر 
وبالنـفـر الأخـيار هـم أولـياؤه ** يحامون في اللأواء والموت حـاضـر 
يعد أبو بـكـر وحـمـزة فـيهـم **ويدعى عليٌ وسط مـن أنـت ذاكـر 
ويدعي أبو حفص وعثمان منـهـم ** وسعد إذا ما كان في الحرب حاضـر 
أولئك لا من نتَّجـت فـي ديارهـا ** بنو الأوس والنجار حـين تـفـاخـر 
ولكن أبوهم من لؤي بـن غـالـب ** إذا عُدت الأنساب كـعـب وعـامـر 
هم الطاعنون الخيل في كل معـرك ** غداة الهـياج الأطـيبـون الأكـاثـر

In this poem, Dhirar Ibn Al-Khattab wonders why the tribe of Aws from the Ansar as well as Beni Al-Najar take pride in the victory of Badr. He says that Quraysh will take revenge and kill them and leave them as food for the vulctures and leave their women to weap over them. 

He says that the only reason the Ansar were victorious in Badr is because their army contained some people from Quraysh. He says:

If you have gained victory in Badr then it is because ** of Ahmad (i.e the Prophet -SAW) that your luck became apparent

And also because of a group of nobles who are his friends ** who defend him when death is present

Abu Bakr is considered amongst them as well as Hamza ** and Ali is called amongst the middle of them

Abu Hafs (i.e Umar -RA-) and Uthman are considered amongst them ** and Saad when he is present at war

They are the ones and not those produced in the lands of ** Bani Al-Aws and Al-Najar when one takes pride

Rather their father is Luai Ibn Ghalib ** if one would consider lineages of Kaab and Amir (i.e sons of Luai and ancestors of most Qurayshis)

They are the ones who stab the horses in every war **  at the day of battle they are the nobles they are the great

So who knows better about the performance of the Sahabas in battles, their adversaries in the battle, or their adversaries who beat their chests like women and weep and cry every year in Muharram?! 

By al-a3sha
Original Link 
Posted by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles, History