IMAM-I-AZAM PRAISED BY SHIAT SCHOLARS

[Hannahh]

That compilation is from the Muraja'at Chuck. I didn't compile it. It was compiled for the well known debate (once again, that none of you have actually read) between a Sunni Theologian and a Shi'i, both men very well respected by all authorities in the methodology called historical research.

Once again, read something Chuck instead of following what you are told NOT TO READ and obviously you've been discouraged from engaging in your own reseach on this issue.

I have no problem with Hadith to be honest. I consider them all proofs of something. They are however a very incomplete record because they do not include the entire population of evidences that were "uttered" and related "as such" by a variety of people living under circumstances that require a better understanding of the Ottoman, Abassid and Ummayyad Empires. I imagine that those hadiths might have been collected a bit differently if the Caliphs who needed to be "pleased" would have been Shi'i.

That isn't the case though so all we have to work with is the truth of history in that matter and it is just the case that you cannot take something out of that context and decide. That is one of the main reasons people have to rely on "scholars" in both sects. It is about reliability and it is about the nature of politics. Particularly after WWI when the Western powers "divvied" up the Sunni Ottoman Empire.



Abdullah Khamsan and his father. I still remember these people's names with the exception of a handful. I might note that his cleft lip was very well repaired. That old guy used to just come to visit me even when he didn't need anything at all. Very poor and very kind people, from an area known as Gizan.

[ihsan]

Yes, you are absolutely right about certain things but completely wrong about the compilation of the NB. The NB was never considered by either Sunni or Shi'i scholars as an oral tradition*.

We are talking about hadeeth, and your claim that the shia invented it. This is a baseless assertion.

The Arabs were a poetic culture that recited their poetry through memorization and oral tradition. They also recited sayings of their ancestors, such as Luqman through this tradition. This was the primary mode of transmission for the Arabs, even before the Prophet. They were primarily un-lettered. The only real exceptional difference was the Quran. The Quran was transmitted both orally and through writing as standard practice.

To claim the shia invented the science of hadeeth is false. There was no inventing by any shia. Hadeeth transmission was happening prior to the split in the ummah.

You than proceed to quote examples of works taken from at minimum, 96 hijra, well after the Muslim world expanded into different reggions that boasted more advances civilizations. This was well after the death of Ali (R), let alone the Prophet (S). Scholars were already looking into the integrity of a narrator by the time 96 H came around, meaning people were fabricating sayings of the Prophet (S) as well as sayings of the Companions (R), including Ali (R). Further, 96 H was well after the split between the ummah, and political hadeeth were already being fabricated.

Also, thesw works, when they quote sayings, are quoting sayings that were transmitted orally. They are not quoting from a manuscript written by Ali or another Companions. That is precisely why a hadeeth starts off with:

"it is reported that he said, that he said..."

The earliest manuscript of hadeeth was that of Hammad ibn Munahhibah, and his time was around 50 hijra if I remember correctly. There are no manuscripts involved when hadeeth are quoted.

You are thinking of the traditional telling of the tale of Kerbala and that was an oral tradition started by the retelling of the tale through the countless villages that the prisoners (taken by the devil Muwa'wiya) told as they went through them.

No, I am not thinking about the 'tale of Kerbala'.

This person is the sister of Hasan and Hossein (pbuh the grandchildren of the prophet) and her name was Zainab. THAT is the oral history you refer to. The NB is a collection of letters, sermons and proverbs taken from the manuscripts of the fourth Caliph.

Where are these alleged manuscripts?

[aladdin]

That complication of hadiths in that quote is twisted. It is similar to how answeringislam.com compiles hadiths and verses of Quran -- bits and pieces from here and there, picking phrases out of context, mixing text from reliable sources with unreliable sources.... I went to msa site to check reference 12 & 13, and what you said. To me they just look like children playing and singing. Al though reliability of these hadiths is questionable if they originated from Iraq. Here they are from Sahih Buhkari

This is not true and as usual one sahih hadith contradicts the other sahih hadith.

1. I can quote you from the sahih that Aisha was 6 when rasool Allah married her and made nikah with her at age 9.

2. I can quote you from the sahih that rasool Allah carried Aisha as a camel and took her to the exhibition. Imagine, an Arab husband would do this and than imagine rasool Allah would do this. Of course, since she was a nine year old girl than it all makes perfect sense for an 54 years old drolling man to do so.

3. I can quote you from the sahih that abu-Bakr used to beat Aisha in front of her husband, the rasool Allah.

4. I can quote you from the sahih that rasool Allah used to pee in the streets standing up.

The choice is yours, you can love rasool Allah and put an end to this demeaning of rasool Allah by Aisha, Bukhari or both of them.

You can love Bukhari more than rasool Allah and keep on believing in this garbage. The decision is not very hard, it is very simple rasool Allah vs. Bukhari.

Take your pick.

[The_Other_Admin]

To be honest with you brother, I have no idea what that has to do with this topic or the trend in this conversation.

It has to with your comment of calling scholars of this site appologetic. It was in the article related to Mahdi and Jesus (p) return, I used it to show you why I consider their points to be objective. Read again our discussion. You are recommending to read NB, I'm reading it... but you should read the articles unhastely on the main site too.

The Mahdi has to do with a certain lineage of knowledge. Knowledge about the "return" is in the Quran and you do not need any hadith for that. So I am really in the dark about what it is you are asking.

There are no such thing in the Quran. There are one or two verses which can be taken has hint for the return of Jesus (p) but they are not clear either. And they are at most just that, a hint, and in no way can be considered as requirement of the religion.

[Hannahh]

Well, no one "invented" it and if they did, they did a bad thing Ihsan.

Hadith, if we are to take them objectively*, were not recorded as a political tool. We do know that they were contaminated with false evidence and alot of it. Otherwise Buhkari would not have behaved in such a paternalistic way and kept so much of it out of the hands for perusal.

They are what they are.

But people did record what they had heard before Buhkari but those people were living under horrendous oppressions Ihsan. Unless of course you want to deny that as well.

I wouldn't even bother about it to be honest because I've experienced these threads before on this board. It isn't in my best interest and I didn't start ANY of these topics. I seldom even start topics.

The poster Hasan started them and for whatever reason, you do not question him at all. I guess he has some sort of authority that you all are aware of and I am completely blind to.

*Please refer to the topic started by Gilgamesh in which he questions the authenticity of a certain hadith. Refer to my post and know that I am completely objective and actually, understand the science of it alot better than even I knew I did. By all means, bring it on.

[Hannahh]

Salaams Chuck,

To be honest, you cannot seem to be direct in what it is you are asking about and tend to go all over the place. I cannot keep up with what it is you are referring to then. Perhaps you should copy paste exactly what you are saying.

Apologetics and the Hadith were not related. If you want to defend this site as being something other than it is then do so. If you want to discuss that little bit of hadith that I gave you that calls into question the hadith provided by Bukhari from a site dedicated to only those sahih books..then do so. But try to stick to the point.

[aladdin]

It all boils down to the love of rasool Allah vs. the love of Bukhari.

Very simple. Bukhari with the narrations from Aisha keeps on demeaning rasool Allah.

Hey, we talking about not something ordinary, we are talking about the sahih sita (the sacred six books).

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by Chuck

That complication of hadiths in that quote is twisted. It is similar to how answeringislam.com compiles hadiths and verses of Quran -- bits and pieces from here and there, picking phrases out of context, mixing text from reliable sources with unreliable sources.... I went to msa site to check reference 12 & 13, and what you said. To me they just look like children playing and singing. Al though reliability of these hadiths is questionable if they originated from Iraq. Here they are from Sahih Buhkari

Salaam Chuck,

This is not true and as usual one sahih hadith contradicts the other sahih hadith.

1. I can quote you from the sahih that Aisha was 6 when rasool Allah married her and made nikah with her at age 9.

2. I can quote you from the sahih that rasool Allah carried Aisha as a camel and took her to the exhibition. Imagine, an Arab husband would do this and than imagine rasool Allah would do this. Of course, since she was a nine year old girl than it all makes perfect sense for an 54 years old drolling man to do so.

3. I can quote you from the sahih that abu-Bakr used to beat Aisha in front of her husband, the rasool Allah.

4. I can quote you from the sahih that rasool Allah used to pee in the streets standing up.

The choice is yours, you can love rasool Allah and put an end to this demeaning of rasool Allah by Aisha, Bukhari or both of them.

You can love Bukhari more than rasool Allah and keep on believing in this garbage. The decision is not very hard, it is very simple rasool Allah vs. Bukhari.

Take your pick.

Wa' Salaam

Mohamed

[Hannahh]

This is the final letter written by the Sunni Scholar who engaged a Sayyed member of the Ahlul Bayt in a debate. My recommendation is that a person should do their own research and not take any of what I have to say as the gospel truth (haha, gospel and you know, like the rasool said, the muslims would suffer the same fate of the other two i.e. the Jews and Christians who ended up using "Midrash" and "Gospel" because they became so split AND lost their sacred texts)....and there we are.

My other recommendation is that a person read the NB prior to trying to comprehend what is being alluded to in "brief" int he Muraja'at. It is very clear to me that some people simply "make up their own history" here. It is fairly obvious particularly when most knowlegdable people know the history regardless if they have a "POV" about the divine nature of it all.

Karen Armstrong for instance. Excellent biographer of the prophet and historian of the three religions.

As far as what you want to say about the return of the Mahdi Chuck, the Sunnis believe in the Mahdi so your point is really lost on me. It is only the case that they do not identify a specific character and do not explain what is meant by the "great" and "smaller" occultations. Otherwise, both sects hold it to be a fact and a very important one. That fact however is a "game over" thing. Either you are in the right group at that time or not (muslim, non muslim) and per the Quran, no ransom will be accepted from a transgressor at that time. If you look at the "Christian" concept of Armageddon (which is used to cause wars and bloodshed) they believe they are not a part of the actual devastation. We muslims aren't that lucky and we each are encouraged to pray that we do not see those times in our lifetime.

Even these times that are so very uncertain and frightening to everyone be they muslim or not.

Here is the final letter of the Muraja'at:

Jamadi al-«la 1, 1330

I bear witness that you, in the roots and branches of the faith, are followers of the Imams from the Messenger's progeny. You have clarified this matter and rendered it obvious, unveiled whatever was obscure thereof; so, to doubt you is madness, and to mistrust you is misguidance. I have scrutinized your letter and found it very pleasing. I verified it and was able to inhale its divine fragrance which nourished me with its sweet scent. Before knowing you, I used to be confused about your beliefs due to what I hear of allegations from scandal-mongers; now I have found it to be a lantern that dispels the darkness, and I am leaving you victorious, successful; so, how great is the blessing which Allah has bestowed upon me, and how great your benefit unto me! Praise to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, Wassalamo Alaikom.


Sincerely,

And yes, by all means..there were some twisted things that were either said by her or about her. The bottom line however is not those hadiths and cultural "hearsay" evidence (which is all the hadith actually are) is that she DID claim to be with the prophet at the moment of his death and so did Ali (pbut). Someone is not telling the truth and it is the case that a person who was given distinction by the prophet (SAW) who was ordered to do so by Allah is the person in question, regardless of what you would prefer to believe about the character of Aisha.

[The_Other_Admin]

That compilation is from the Muraja'at Chuck. I didn't compile it.

Did I say you compiled it?

(once again, that none of you have actually read) between a Sunni Theologian and a Shi'i, both men very well respected by all authorities in the methodology called historical research.

I've read the book of Muhammad al-Tijani "And then I was Guided". Seemed like a mistionary work. Answer me this question, if a Christian said similar things about Christianity, would you follow it?

Once again, read something Chuck instead of following what you are told NOT TO READ and obviously you've been discouraged from engaging in your own reseach on this issue.

You have no idea what you are talking about. My guide and standard is Quran it has no such thing, and Allah is my witness (esp. on the day of judgement).

"But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to Me: in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you all that ye did."
(31:15)

[The_Other_Admin]

Of course, since she was a nine year old girl than it all makes perfect sense for an 54 years old drolling man to do so.

That is your interpretation.

The choice is yours, you can love rasool Allah and put an end to this demeaning of rasool Allah by Aisha, Bukhari or both of them.

You can love Bukhari more than rasool Allah and keep on believing in this garbage. The decision is not very hard, it is very simple rasool Allah vs. Bukhari.

Take your pick.

I said reliability of the hadith is questionable. Read again carefully what I said.

Second, I'm not saying to believe it. I don't see problem if anyone doesn't believe it, these hadiths are not articles of faith... articles of faith are established in the Quran. I only showed that reading hadiths as it is doesn't portray the picture that was portrayed in the quote. You have some stereotypes, you keep misconstruing my comments.

[The_Other_Admin]

To be honest, you cannot seem to be direct in what it is you are asking about and tend to go all over the place. I cannot keep up with what it is you are referring to then. Perhaps you should copy paste exactly what you are saying.

You have read the articles properly from this site that where posted in the discussions? And in general you have read the articles on the main site?

Apologetics and the Hadith were not related.

You brought that into the discussion.

[The_Other_Admin]

By the way Chuck, you want proof from the Quran about imam Mahdi as you are claiming that the Quran is complete. Than how about the proof from the Quran that we are supposed to pray 2 riykaths in the morning?

That is different from what I said. I don't know if you mean the samething, but here are my exact words:

Quran has mentioned everything that is important for faith. Quran is the criteria for right and wrong, it is not possible that it leaves out important elements of faith unmentioned. Rest leads the path to schisms.

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showpost...&postcount=159

Then I quoted the related verses. Commandment of of the morning prayer is given in the Quran. Specific details are not given, but it is clearly mentioned in Quran.

[aladdin]

Salaam Chuck,

That is your interpretation.

No, it is not my interpretation. It is the hadith and I can quote you from the sahih Bukhari from the www.usc.edu site.

I said reliability of the hadith is questionable. Read again carefully what I said.

So, can I quote that sahih ahadiths are no longer sahih?

Second, I'm not saying to believe it. I don't see problem if anyone doesn't believe it, these hadiths are not articles of faith... articles of faith are established in the Quran. I only showed that reading hadiths as it is doesn't portray the picture that was portrayed in the quote. You have some stereotypes, you keep misconstruing my comments.

I think you are saying this because it is convientint for you to say so now. You know it that the religion (deen) and iman are not complete without the Sunna.

Holy Koran does not tell us to pray two riykaths in the morning. Or does it?

Imagine rasool Allah was peeing standing up in the street. What kind of trash is this?

Or rasool Allah married Aisha at age 6 and made nikah to her at age 9. What kind of trash is this?

Or rasool Allah carried Aisha on her shoulders as a camel to the exhibition. What kind of trash is this?

Or abu-Bakr used to beat Aisha in front of rasool Allah, the husband of Aisha. What kind of trash is this?

It is not trash, it is the sahih sita (the sacred six books). It is the Sunna which without the deen is not complete.

Or the deen is complete with the Koran only?

Or the Sunna doesn't matter?

Wa' Salaam

Mohamed

[aladdin]

Salaam Chuck,

Quran has mentioned everything that is important for faith. Quran is the criteria for right and wrong, it is not possible that it leaves out important elements of faith unmentioned. Rest leads the path to schisms.

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showpost...&postcount=159

Then I quoted the related verses. Commandment of of the morning prayer is given in the Quran. Specific details are not given, but it is clearly mentioned in Quran.

The element of faith are both in the Koran and Sunna. The issue of khalifat, imamat and so forth are well covered both in the Koran and the Sunna. The Sunna supplements the Koran and without the Sunna it will be almost impossible to understand the Koran.

For this reason we have so many interpretation to the Holy Quran.

And, by the way how many times to pray in a day is written in the Holy Quran?

Can you quote me the specific verses?

Wa' Salaam

Mohamed