Monthly Archives: May 2014

Prophet (saw): Do not abuse my Companions


Salam alaikum.

Tabarani narrated in “Dua” (darul kutub al-ilmiyah, 1413) from Anas ibn Malik:

2108 – حدثنا يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسماعيل الأصم البغدادي ثنا رزيق بن السخت ثنا علي بن يزيد الصدائي ثنا ابو شيبة عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه عن رسول الله قال من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدل

“Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels and all the people, may Allah don’t accept from sarfa and adla”.

Same hadith transmitted in “Fadhail ashab” by Abdullah ibn Ahmad (muasasat risala, 1403):

8 – حدثنا عبد الله قثنا عبد الله بن عون قثنا على بن يزيد الصدائي قال حدثني أبو شيبة الجوهري عن أنس بن مالك قال قال أناس من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم : يا رسول الله أنا نسب فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدلا

Hamza ibn Yusuf al-Jurjani narrated in “Tareeh al-jurjan” (alamul kitab, 1401) same from Anas:

456 – عبد الله بن علي بن الحسن أبو محمد القاضي القومسي كان فقيها درس على أبي إسحاق المروزي كان قاضي جرجان روى عن أبيه وعن محمد بن هارون الحضرمي والبغوي وابن صاعد وغيرهم توفي ليلة الأحد لست بقين من شهر ربيع الآخر سنة سبع وستين وثلاثمائة وصلى عليه أبو بكر الإسماعيلي وكان بن ثمان وتسعين سنة سمعت أبا بكر الإسماعيلي يقول توفي أبو محمد القومسي بعده بجرجان يكون قاضي ديب حدثنا القاضي الزاهد أبو محمد عبد الله بن علي بن الحسن بجرجان أخبرنا أبو القاسم المنيعي حدثنا عبد الله بن عون حدثنا علي بن يزيد الصدائي حدثنا أبو شيبة الجوهري عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين لا يقبل الله منه صرفا ولا عدل

Albani said in “Silsila as saheeha” (#2340) said it’s authentic without ending (may Allah not accept from him).

al-Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” (#16429) from Aisha:

لا تسبوا أصحابي لعن الله من سب أصحابي
رواه الطبراني في الأوسط ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير علي بن سهل وهو ثقة

“Don’t abuse my companions, may curse of Allah be upon the one who abuses my companions”.

(Al-Heythami said) “Narrated Tabarani in al-Awsat, narrators are narrators of saheeh, except Ali ibn Sakhl, and he’s thiqat”.

Ibn Abu Aseem narrated in “Sunnan” from Ata:

ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ثنا أبو معاوية عن محمد بن خالد عن عطاء قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله
“Curse of Allah upon those who abuses my companions”

 And same from Ata was narrated in “Musannaf”:

32419 – حدثنا أبو معاوية عن محمد بن خالد عن عطاء قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم من سب أصحابي فعليه لعنة الله

 Narration seems mursal. Albani in “Zilalul jannah” (#1001) said it’s hasan.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

Majlisi accepts : Prophet (S) loved Aisha (ra)


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

“Perhaps the meaning is that he (saw) did not directly divorce them, rather he offered them a choice, since he, peace be upon him, used to love `A’ishah for her beauty.”

بيان : لعل المعنى أنه صلى الله عليه وآله إنما لم يطلقن ابتداء ، بل خيرهن لانه صلى الله عليه وآله كان يحب عايشة لجمالها

http://www.aqaed.com…ehar22/a22.html

بيان : لعل المعنى أنه صلى الله عليه وآله إنما لم يطلقن ابتداء ، بل خيرهنأي إنما لم يطلقهن ابتداء بل خيرهن، لأنه صلى الله عليه و آله كان يحب عائشة لحسنها و جمالها

http://gadir.free.fr…ul_Ukul/021.htm

Prophet_loved_aisha_beauty

By Kalaam & Hani (Islamic-Forum.net)
Original Link
Posted here by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

The Issue of Fadak in Brief


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Introduction:

Fadak is the name of a village situated near Khayber at a distance of 140 km from Madinah, where the Jews resided. The Prophet (S) conquered the place after the battle of Khayber without any battle on the agreement that half of the produce would be given to the Muslims. Therefore, it would be treated as ‘Fai’. Fai includes every such property of the unbelievers which the Prophet (S) seized without any battle. It is mentioned clearly in the Holy Quran:

And what Allah restored [of property] to His Messenger from them – you did not spur for it [in an expedition] any horses or camels, but Allah gives His messengers power over whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent. And what Allah restored to His Messenger from the people of the towns – it is for Allah and for the Messenger and for [his] near relatives and orphans and the [stranded] traveler – so that it will not be a perpetual distribution among the rich from among you. And whatever the Messenger has given you – take; and what he has forbidden you – refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.[1]

Hence, Fadak was to be treated as Fai.

The Inheritance of the Prophets According to the Authentic Narrations:

The Sunnis believe that the Prophets don’t inherit wealth, their inheritance is knowledge. And this is what Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, Uthman, Zubair, Saeed ibn Waqas, Abbas and Ibn Awf believed, according to the narration in Sahih Bukhari:
Umar said “Wait I beseech you, by Allah, by Whose permission both the Heaven and the earth stand fast! Do you know that Allah’s apostle said ‘We (Prophets) our properties are not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent on charity, and he said it about himself”? They said “He did say it”. Umar then turned towards Ali and Abbas and said, “I beseech you both by Allah! Do you know that Allah’s apostle said this?” They replied in the affirmative.[2]

Similarly we read in the Sahih narration in al-Kafi that Imam Jafar said that the Prophet (S) said:

“Truly the scholars are the heirs of Prophets, the Prophets bequeathed not a single Dinar or Dirham, instead they bequeathed knowledge, and whoever acquires it has indeed acquired a generous portion of their legacy”.[3]

The grand Shia scholar Ayatullah Khomeini says regarding the authenticity of this narration:

“The narrators in the chain of transmission of this tradition are all trustworthy, in fact Ibrahim ibn Hashim, the father of Ali ibn Ibrahim, is not moderately trustworthy but outstandingly so.”[4]

This tradition has been authenticated by Mulla Baqir Majlisi as well.
This Shia authentic tradition clearly supports the Sunni view that the Prophet don’t inherit wealth, rather they inherit knowledge only.

The Inheritance of the Prophets in the Holy Quran:

While trying to refute the Sunnis, the Shias try to argue from a few verses of the Holy Quran that the Prophets do inherit their wealth. We will discuss these verses one by one.

1.  Allah instructs you concerning your children: for the male, what is equal to the share of two females.[5]

This verse states the general rule, but the inheritance of the Prophets is a particular case regarding which Sunnis say that there is exception. Even Shias themselves claim that there are certain exceptions to the general rule laid down in this verse. According to Shias, wife can’t inherit land, though this is not mentioned in this verse. Secondly, according to Shias, a Kafir can’t inerit from a Muslim. And the Shias base these opinions on the basis of their own traditions attributed to their Imams. Similarly, we base our opinion on Prophetic traditions.

2. And Solomon inherited David. [6]

This verse doesn’t mention the inheritance of wealth. Only inheritance is mentioned here, and we know that inheritance can be of different types besides wealth. For example, the inheritance of knowledge, the inheritance of book, the inheritance of wisdom and the inheritance of kingdom etc. In this verse, the type of inheritance is not mentioned.  Our view is that this verse can’t be regarding the inheritance of wealth, and there are few reasons. David had 19 sons, and only one son i.e Solomon has been mentioned here. This means that it refers to a particular type of inheritance which the other sons didn’t receive. And that is the inheritance of knowledge and wisdom. It can also refer to the inheritance of prophethood and kingdom. Someone may say that prophethood is not inherited. That is true, but it can be said in a metaphorical way.  For example, wisdom is not necessarily inherited, but if a child is wise like his father, it can be said that the child inherited wisdom from his father.

3. [This is] a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah. When he called to his Lord a private supplication. He said, “My Lord, indeed my bones have weakened, and my head has filled with white, and never have I been in my supplication to You, my Lord, unhappy. And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir. Who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing [to You].”[7]

In this verse as well, it is not mentioned which sort of inheritance is meant here. But since it includes the inheritance of the posterity of Yaqub (as) as well, hence we can understand that this can’t mean the inheritance of wealth. Because no one inherits wealth from a whole posterity. Hence it can only refer to knowledge, wisdom and prophethood.

Was Fadak a Gift?

Fadak was definitely not a gift and there is no authentic Sunni narration which shows that Fadak was a gift. Rather it is against the authentic narrations according to which Fatima (ra) asked Fadak as inheritance from her father, and not as a gift.  Almost all of these traditions include a weak narrator ‘Atiyah al-Awfi’ who is weak according to the majority of scholars. Moreover, how can the Prophet gift a whole piece of land to his daughter, when he didn’t allow a golden necklace to his daughter saying:
“O Fatima (ra)! Will not the people say that Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad (S) is dressed in the attire of the oppressors?”[8]

Similarly, in another Shia tradition, Fatima requested a servant from her father, which Prophet (S) didn’t give to her, and instead taught her a supplication.[9]
This clearly shows that the Prophet (S) didn’t gave worldly objects to his daughter. So how could he gave a huge piece of land to his daughter?

Ali (ra) never returned Fadak to the Children of Fatima (ra)

This is a historical fact that Ali (ra) never returned Fadak to the Children of Fatima (ra) and it clearly shows that he agreed with the view of Abu Bakr (ra). In order to answer this, Shias fabricated a tradition and attributed it to their Imam, according to which Imam Jafar said :
Ali (ra) followed in the footsteps of Prophet (S). When he conquered Makkah, he found out that Aqeel (the brother of Ali) has sold his house, so he was asked, ‘O Prophet (S), why don’t you take your house back? So he said, “Has Aqeel left any house for us?” And we belong to the household who never take anything back that is taken from us unjustly. So that is why Ali (ra) didn’t take Fadak back.[10]
Now this is a very wrong excuse, because Caliphate was also snatched from the Imams. Because when Fadak was purportedly snatched from Fatima, she herself went to the caliph to take it back. Why would she go and ask that Fadak be given to her, if it was snatched unjustly, and if ahlelbayt don’t take back what is unjustly snatched from them? Moreover, the 12th Imam will fight to restore his caliphate, wasn’t caliphate snatched from the ahlelbayt according to the Shias? And most importantly, if Abu Bakr had oppressed Fatima by snatching Fadak as the Shias say, then didn’t Aqeel also oppress the Prophet (S) by selling his home without his permission? Why don’t Shias accuse Aqeel of the same crime, and declare him a tyrant?

Was Fatima (ra) angry upon Abu Bakr (ra) throughout her life?

Fatima (ra) wasn’t angry at Abu Bakr (ra) throughout her life. These are the words of Zuhri, which are mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, and not the words of Ayesha (ra). The evidence is that before these words, the pronoun change from feminine to masculine, which indicate that these words are not the words of a female, but a male. Similarly the words that Abu Bakr (ra) didn’t participate in her funeral also belong to this category. Hence, even if these words are present in Sahih Bukhari, they are the view of a narrator, and not a companion. And the views of a narrator who didn’t witness these events can’t make these statements as facts, even if they are in Sahih Bukhari.
Moreover, this also negates the high status of Lady Fatima (ra). Why would she become angry at someone for her entire life just because of a piece of land? And why would she not allow anyone to her funeral due to it, while her father was the most merciful upon the Ummah, so much so that he forgave a person like Wahshi, who had killed his dearest uncle, i.e Hamzah? We can’t expect it from her daughter that she would get angry at someone for her entire life just because of a piece of land.
And all praises belong to Allah!

Written by Kalaam

[1] Surah Hashr 59:6-7

[2] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 3756

[3] Al-Kafi, Vol. 1, p. 42

[4] Islamic Government, by Ayatullah Khomeini

[5] Surah Nisa, Verse 11

[6] Surah 27, Verse 16

[7] Surah Maryam 19:2-6

[8] Uyun akhbar al-Reza Vol. 2, p. 57

[9] Ilal al-Shara’ie, Vol. 2, p. 288

[10] Ilal al-Shara’ie, Vol. 1, p. 155 

Written by Kalaam (Islamic-Forum.net)
Original Link
Posted here by 13S2010

5 Comments

Filed under Articles, Clarification about sunni hadiths, Shiite's sahih hadith

Zaynab committed bigger mistakes than Aisha & Hafsa according to Shia books


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

Zainab bint Jahsh, in the light of Shia authentic traditions, committed bigger mistakes than Ayesha and Hafsa (may Allah be well pleased with them)

حُمَيْدُ بْنُ زِيَادٍ عَنِ ابْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ دَاوُدَ بْنِ سِرْحَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتَ جَحْشٍ قَالَتْ أَ يَرَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) إِنْ خَلَّى سَبِيلَنَا أَنَّا لَا نَجِدُ زَوْجاً غَيْرَهُ وَ قَدْ كَانَ اعْتَزَلَ نِسَاءَهُ تِسْعاً وَ عِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً فَلَمَّا قَالَتْ زَيْنَبُ الَّذِي قَالَتْ بَعَثَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ جَبْرَئِيلَ إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) فَقَالَ قُلْ لِأَزْواجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَياةَ الدُّنْيا وَ زِينَتَها فَتَعالَيْنَ أُمَتِّعْكُنَّ الْآيَتَيْنِ كِلْتَيْهِمَا فَقُلْنَ بَلْ نَخْتَارُ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ وَ الدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ .

Humayd ibn Ziyad has narrated from ibn Sama‘ah from Ja‘far ibn Sama‘ah from Dawud ibn Sarhan who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said that Zaynab bint Jahash once said, ‘Does the Messenger of Allah think that if he divorces us we will not find anyone other than him to marry us?’ He had stayed away from his wives for twenty-nine days. When Zaynab said this Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, sent Jibril to Muhammad, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause. He said, ‘Say to your wives, “If you want the worldly life and its beauty, then be prepared he will benefit you . . .” They said, ‘We choose Allah and His Messenger and the house in the hereafter.’”


عَنْهُ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ وُهَيْبِ بْنِ حَفْصٍ عَنْ أَبِي بَصِيرٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) قَالَ إِنَّ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتَ جَحْشٍ قَالَتْ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) لَا تَعْدِلُ وَ أَنْتَ نَبِيٌّ فَقَالَ تَرِبَتْ يَدَاكِ إِذَا لَمْ أَعْدِلْ فَمَنْ يَعْدِلُ فَقَالَتْ دَعَوْتَ اللَّهَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لِيَقْطَعَ يَدَيَّ فَقَالَ لَا وَ لَكِنْ لَتَتْرَبَانِ فَقَالَتْ إِنَّكَ إِنْ طَلَّقْتَنَا وَجَدْنَا فِي قَوْمِنَا أَكْفَاءَنَا فَاحْتُبِسَ الْوَحْيُ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ( صلى الله عليه وآله ) تِسْعاً وَ عِشْرِينَ لَيْلَةً ثُمَّ قَالَ أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) فَأَنِفَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ لِرَسُولِهِ فَأَنْزَلَ يا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْواجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَياةَ الدُّنْيا وَ زِينَتَها الْآيَتَيْنِ فَاخْتَرْنَ اللَّهَ وَ رَسُولَهُ فَلَمْ يَكُ شَيْئاً وَ لَوِ اخْتَرْنَ أَنْفُسَهُنَّ لَبِنَّ .

It is narrated from the narrator of the previous Hadith from al-Husayn ibn Sama‘ah from Wuhayb ibn Hafs from abu Basir who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said that once Zaynab bint Jahash said to the Messenger of Allah, O Allah, grant compensation to Muhammad and his family worthy of their services to Your cause, ‘You are not fair and you are the Prophet.’ He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘May your hands become soiled, ‘If I am not fair then who is fair?’ She then asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, did you pray that my hands get cut off?’ He (the Messenger of Allah) replied, ‘No, but they become soiled.’ She then said, ‘If you divorce us we will find in our people men as our match who will marry us.’ Revelation stopped coming for twenty-nine nights.’ Abu Ja‘far, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, then said, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, disdained and rejected her words and sent revelation that said, ‘O Prophet, say to your wives, “If you want the worldly life and its beauty . . .” to the end of the two verses. They chose Allah and His Messenger then further things did not happen. Had they chosen themselves they would have become stranger to him (the Messenger of Allah).’”

Both narrations are from al-kafi, and declared muwathaq by Majlisi

How many conspiracy theories can be built upon these two authentic traditions? 

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Rebuttals, Revealing Shia sect, Shiite's sahih hadith

Baby in the grave of al-Kulayni


Salam alaykum.

A SUCKLING INFANT IN THE GRAVE OF ABU JA’FAR KULAINI (R.A.)

The tomb of Shaykh Kulaini (r.a.), author of Kafi, is situated near the bridge in Baghdad. A fellow from the oppressor rulers thought of destroying the Holy shrine of Imam Moosa Kazim (a.s.) so that people may stop visiting Kazmain. His minister was a Shia (in heart). He became restless to find out a way to stop that fellow from his evil intention was unable to say anything openly because any doubt of his being a Shia was enough to put his life in danger. Anyway, they proceeded to Kazmain with the aforesaid evil intention. As soon as they approached the Baghdad bridge, the minister said, “Here is the grave of a big Shia scholar who was one of the delegates of Imam Kazim (a.s.), and people say that his body is still fresh and that it will always remain fresh and safe. If the king agrees this may be checked. If it is found that what people say is correct then it would not be wise to touch the tomb of Imam Kazim (a.s.).” The ruler agreed and, as per the king’s command, the grave of Kulaini (r.a.) was opened. They saw that his body was quite fresh and not only that, more surprising was the existence of the fresh and safe body of a little child by Kulaini’s side. It could not be known whether the child was related to Kulaini (r.a.) or not. What is worth noting is what can a soul do. If any other person also comes close to a pious soul it is also affected thereby. No doubt the Holy Progeny of the Messenger are the fountainhead of good and so their corpses are also alive and people can see occasional miracles from their graves.

Source: The Hereafter (Ma’aad) by Ayatullah Dastghaib Shiraazi, p 64.

By Efendi (gift2shias.com, Islamic-forum.net)
Original Article link
Posted here by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under History

Majlisi on Zayd ibn ‘Alī


Salam alaikum.

In his “Miratul uqul” (2/278) Majlisi wrote:

و اعلم أن الأخبار في حال زيد مختلفة، ففي بعضها ما يدل على أنه ادعى الإمامة فيكون كافرا، و في كثير منها أنه كان يدعو إلى الرضا من آل محمد

“And know that narrations about condition of Zayd are different, and in some of them is proof that he claimed imamate and become kaafir, and in many of them stated that he was calling to ar-Ridah from family of Mohammad..”.

By Efendi (Islamic-Forum.net, gift2shias.com)
Original Link
Posted her by 13S2010

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Revealing Shia sect

Shia claim: Abu Bakr embraced Islam because Prophet (saw) promised him wealth of Kisra and Caesar


By Hani (Islamic-Forum.net)
Original Link
Posted here by 13S2010
 

al-Salamu `Aleykum,

Posted Image

I’m sure you all heard of Ja`far Murtada al-`Amili who wrote the funny book “al-Saheeh min Seerat al-Nabi al-A`zam”, he is a Rafidhi from the mountain of Rafidhah in Lebanon but it appears he has some sense of humor so he wrote a book called “What is Sahih from the life of the Prophet (saw).”

In the entire book al-Kafi you’ll find barely 15% (with its repetitions) are narrations from the Prophet (saw) and most of these if not the vast majority are on Fiqh, yet this guy apparently wants to make a book out of whatever little information they have on the Prophet (saw), not only that, he wishes to pick what is “Sahih”.

Guess what he did?

If you should open his failure of a book, you will straight away look at the footnotes and then read the sources of his narrations, you’ll see the vast majority being Sunni sources or Non-Twelver Shia sources at least, you will read Tabaqat ibn Sa`d, Sahih al-Bukhari, Nayl al-Awtar, Musnad Ahmad, Dala’il al-Nubuwwah li-Abi Na`eem, Tareekh al-Khamees lil-Bakri who died in the tenth century and is an almost unknown author, Seerat ibn Hisham, Tareekh al-Madinah li-ibn Shubah, al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah, Kanz al-`Ummal (chainless book) and Maghazee al-Waqidi (Allahu Akbar). He quoted loads more of Sunni books and you can refer and see for yourself as his book is online.

In order to show us though that he is adding information from Shi`ee sources, he will throw in Bihar al-Anwar (which is all weak according to Mashra`at M.Asif al-Muhsini), Tafseer al-Qummi (Which is a rejected book), Manaqib Aal-Abi Talib by Mazindarani (Which is a summary as the real book is non existent, not only that but its author take loads of his content from Sunni books which he lists his chains to at the beginning, he lists like 60 Sunni books, then he says “As for our books” he only lists Tusi, Murtada, Mufid and Saduq’s books, plus a couple of others then he says “I crossed their chains to keep the book small” LOL.)

What the lunatic is trying to do, isn’t that he’s trying to gather the authentic narrations from sources he deems reliable and compile a Shia book of Seerah, since the Twelver Shia books barely contain any Seerah and his own book is living testimony. What he’s doing is collecting mainly from Sunni sources narrations and rejecting whatever he wishes if it doesn’t suite his Madhab and throwing away any Hadith which contradicts Tashayyu` claiming that it is a fabrication for no reason, obviously the first thing he did was try to weaken the virtues of the companions (at least the ones he mentioned).

This link is that of a Fatwa by him in his own official website:
http://www.alhadi.or…m_abi_baker.htm

The questioner says he read the book and wants to ask al-Murtada as to how he would explain the fact that Abu Bakr embraced Islam in the early days? How is this possible if he’s a hypocrite? He says:

حسب تحقيقكم في كتاب الصحيح قلتم بأن إسلامه كان بعد الإسراء والمعراج، ولكن ذلك لا يدفع الإشكال حيث إن تلك الفترة أيضا مبكرة بالنسبة لشخص لم يستقر الإسلام في قلبه

[According to your research (meaning al-`Amili’s) in the book al-Sahih (meaning this shi**y book), you stated that he embraced Islam AFTER ISRA’ WAL-MI`RAJ, but this doesn’t solve the issue as it is still way too early for a man in whose heart Islam never settled.]

According to the enemy of objectivity and honesty al-`Amili, Abu Bakr embraced Islam after Isra’ wal-Mi`raj, SubhanAllah!

The animal replies in short:

إن دخول الإسلام في وقت مبكر لا يعني الخلوص والإخلاص التام، والإنصهار فيه وفي مبادئه، والتزام تشريعاته.. إذ قد ذكرنا في كتابنا الصحيح من سيرة النبي صلى الله عليه وآله: أن دعوة النبي صلى الله عليه وآله قد اقترنت من أول يوم بالوعد الكبير بأن الله سيفتح على يديه البلاد، إلى حد أنهم سيحصلون حتى على كنوز كسرى وقيصر.
والكثيرون من الذين أسلموا كانوا معدمين في الجاهلية، وليس لديهم مال ولا مقام، بل كانوا يشتغلون بحرف يتصدى لها الفقراء، كالخياطة، والصيد، ونش الذباب على مائدة ابن جدعان بشبع البطن وستر العورة.
فدخلوا في هذا الدين، وفيهم الصادق الإيمان، والطامع في الحصول على الجاه والمال..
وفي الغالب كانت كيفية تعاطيه مع الأمور هي التي تكشف حقيقته، وتفصح عن دخيلته، فإذا كان ذلك الإنسان متفانياً في سبيل الدين، ويقذف نفسه في لهوات المهالك دفاعاً عنه وعن نبيه الكريم، فذلك هو المؤمن الصادق الإيمان..
وإذا كان ذلك الرجل الذي يرصد الفرص، ليظهر نفسه في موقع الرخاء على أنه هو المدبر، والمبادر، والمتصدر. ثم يتحاشى الأخطار في مواقع البلاء، ويعمل على الفرار منها.. فذلك هو الذي تكون نفسه أحب إليه من الله ورسوله، ومن دينه، ومن كل شيء..
وتفصيل هذه الأمور موجود في كتاب الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم صلى الله عليه وآله فراجع.

al-`Amili says: That since the Prophet (saw) promised the believers in the earliest of days that they will obtain the wealth of Kisra and Caesar and have great conquests, so Abu Bakr wanted this money, as most people were poor back then and had no status, so he entered Islam seeking money and wealth.

Get a load of this BS, seriously a blogger in our days is able to make a descent academic beneficial research and come up with convincing results, this wild animal on the other hand has accomplished one of the usual biased Imami writings that adds nothing to the scientific equation other than the fact that they have no sources, no Seerah, and no objectivity. Abu Bakr was rich and had a high status, he was the first free man to accept Islam according to authentic reports this loser probably rejected for no reason, and on top of it it is authentically reported in many places that HE SPENT ALL HIS WEALTH FOR ALLAH and freed countless slaves and fed the Muslims etc…

P.S. He never answered the question, for why would Abu Bakr BELIEVE the Prophet (saw) if he said something so ridiculous? Maybe cause he’s a TRUE BELIEVER which is opposite of hypocrite!?

Your comments on this hideous beast of a man. 

Comment: If the Shia claim Abubakr embraced Islam because Prophet (saw) promised them Kingdoms of Caesar and Kisra then it shows the strong faith of Abubakr in the Prophet (saw) since most of the people of Makkah rejected the promises as false but Abubakr believed in them.

6 Comments

Filed under Articles, History, Revealing Shia sect