wahabi wollen Rasulullah (s.) als pädophilen zeichnen

[Guest Mustafa]

Asalamualaikum liebe Geschwister im Islam.

 

Aus aktuellem Anlass...

 

Um Fiqh geht es (eigentlich, Nicht um Aqida, d.h. also nicht um Iman/Glaubens-Inhalte).

 

 

InshaAllah, wenn ich ein wenig mehr Zeit habe, werde ich versuchen folgendes Thema ein wenig weiter aufzurollen und die Beweggründe der wahabi/salafi weiter verdeutlichen.

 

Da jedoch über viele Aspekte bereits exzellente Artikel existieren ist es reichlich unnötig jedes "Rad neu zu erfinden".

 

Doch zunächst genau der Aspekt, auf den es die wahabi/salafi eigentlich hierbei abgesehen haben, nämlich - getreu ihrer britsch/usraelischen Auftraggeber :

 

Rasulullah (s.) als pädophil darstellen.

 

Das soll nach dem Schema ablaufen, daß "ahnungslose" (soll heißen, nix böses ahnende) Sunniten – sich letztlich auf ihr Fundament Bukhari berufend –

die Aisha als ca. 6-jährige (Ehefrau) definieren…; und würden sie auch mit 9-jährig argumentieren, so bleibt es für jeden >von Heute im Westen< als pädophil hängen (und allein darauf kommt es ihnen hierbei an)

und gleich "gegenerischen Fußballfans" stellen sich diese durch wahabis angeheizten Sunniten gegen (als Muqallid womöglich genauso ahnungslose) Schiiten;

- wo in deren Fundamenten, wie z.B. Überlieferungen reflektierenden Fatwasammlungen ebenfalls darauf hingewiesen ist, daß verschiedene Formen von Sexualität im Islam bereits lange vor dem 18. Sonnengeburtstag legalisiert werden kann.

 

(Nur der "heilige Westen" will keine legale Form von Sexualität vor dem 16./18./21. Lebensjahr kennen, und "die danach" lieber heute als morgen abschaffen – doch das ist ein anderes Thema.)

 

 

Hier also eine Abhandlung zum Thema (eine der Passagen ist als quote hintenangestellt), wobei man sich in diesen Diskussionen die verschiedenen Kontexte vergegenwärtigen sollte (sonst versteht man womöglich nur "Bahnhof") – sprich man muß verstehen, was, wann wirklich ein Argument ist,

und dann – früher oder später – versteht man auch sehr genau, daß die salafi/wahabi Bande tatsächlich auch hier kein Argument haben - kein eigenes, islamisches.

 

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umm...um/en/index.php

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umm...um/en/chap3.php

 

In Sawaiqh, Page 94, Ibn Hajr al Makki sought to justify the incident as follows:

 

"'Umar's actions of embracing and kissing Umme Kalthum are not haraam as she was underage and such actions are permissible as is not the case with an adolescent woman"

 

What? Then how could he have married her if she was underage. He also touched up her calf? Is that acceptable with even little girls?

 

This is indeed very interesting, since according to Afriki:

Ansar.org states:

Umm Kalthum was the second daughter of 'Ali and Fatima, and the youngest of their four children. She was born in about the year 6 AH. She became of marriageable age during the khalifa of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and the khalifa asked for her hand in marriage.

 

According to Afriki's assessment that would make her 11 years of age when the alleged marriage took place (17 Hijri) so she was NOT as young as Ibn Hajar would have us believe! Yet Ibn Hajr insists that she was a very small girl of the age that is sat in a lap, though providing no evidence for this! Whichever option the supporters of Mu'awiya choose, both rather destroy the character of 'Umar. We would like to ask Ibn Hajr the following:

 

If this is indeed Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) then she was 11 / 12 years of age at the time (as Afriki had rightly calculated) then why is it that the writers of Ahl'ul Sunnah have referred to her as Sagheera (Child) and some as Sabeeya (milk fed)?'.

 

These terms cannot be used for a girl that has attained puberty, and in the Arabic - English Dictionary by Hans Wehr, page 517, Sagheer is defined as:

 

"a minor under age".

 

If this was indeed the 11 / 12 year old Umme Kalthum that Afriki claims, then how could Imam 'Ali (as) as a responsible father send his adolescent daughter to 'Umar, who then takes the opportunity to place the girl on his knee, kiss her and fondle her? This type of action is all the more obscene when one takes into account that, according to Sahih Al Bukhari, Ayesha was deemed to be mature enough to have sexual intercourse when she was nine years of age (Sahih al Bukhari, Bab ul Nikah Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64) - Umme Kalthum binte Fatima (as) was older than even Ayesha was, allegedly, according to the Sunnis.

 

If, as Ibn Hajr claims, Umm Kalthum (as) was underage, then we would like to ask 'Is it permissible under Shari'a for a man to marry a girl that is underage?' If it is, could our opponents cite some proof. If it is not, then it in fact suggests paedophilia on the part of 'Umar who married / consummated marriage with an underage girl. Some of the traditions refer to Umme Kalthum (as) as Sabeeya - a term referring to a child that is still being suckled. The risk of infectious diseases at that time meant that mothers would have breast fed their children into their early years (4 / 5 years) of age. Ibn Hajr's attempts to defend 'Umar were also based around the fact that Umme Kalthum (as) was of a very young age. If we, for the sake of argument, accept Ibn Hajr's account of the placing of the girl in his lap by 'Umar as being because she was very young, this would certainly indicate she was very young indeed - still being breastfed and nowhere near puberty. This leaves the Ahl'ul Sunnah with serious questions to ask of 'Umar, for two Sunni scholars, Yaseen Maussali in Al Madhahib, Page 98, and 'Umar Reza Kulalla, in Ulum Al Nisa, Page 256, both state that:

 

"Umar married her in 17 Hijri, and consummated the marriage a year later when she became baligh".

 

Now our question is simple:

 

'How can a girl, so young as to be breastfed and young enough for 'Umar to place her on his lap, suddenly transform into being called an adolescent in only one year?'

 

Wasalam.

Mustafa

[Guest Fatima]

 

danke für den Text und die Links. Wer im Glashaus sitzt, sollte vielleicht lieber nicht mt Steinen werfen.

 

[Abdullah 149]

 

inshaallah sehr lesenswet..und keine propaganda sondern auf beweise und quellen getützt!!!

 

 

Ich bin hauptsächlich deswegen zur Schia gewechselt, weil ich erkannt habe, dass die ersten 3 Kalifen unrechtmässig an der Macht waren.

 

Welchen Beweis hast du, dass Abu Bakr rechtmässig Kalif ist.

 

Gib mit Beweise aus dem Quran und Sunna.

 

 

Ich weiss, dass du keine Beweise aus dem Quran finden kannst, aber nur von Umayyaden gefälschte Ahadith, die mit der Zeut von Uthmanns Kalifat anfingen.

 

Ich kann dir anhand eines einzigen Hadithes Beweisen, dass Abu Bakr unrechtmässig "gewählt" wurde.

 

Allerdings kann ich dir auch anhand des Qurans in Kombination mit Sunni Ahadith/Tafsier nachweisen, dass Ali Ibn Abi Talib der rechtmässige Imam nach dem Prophen ist.

 

[Guest]

Und ich bin hauptsächlich zur sunnah gewechselt weil ich die heiligenverehrung, gräberkult shirkUND WIE etc nicht mehr aushalten konnte ...jedeer das seine.. akhi.. ich wollte ihr auf paar sachen aufmerksam machen ich bin viel mehr in englischen foren angagiert und glaub mir es sind dutzende shia zur sunnah gekommen weil es HALT NICHT SO EINFACH IST DAS DER böööse abu bakr ra etc das kalifat weggenommen haben!!!

 

ich glaub du wirst verstehen das ich keine zeit habe all meine arbeit hier wieder ins deutsche zu übersetzen..aber keine sorge englische sprache leichte sprache.....

 

 

Hier ist nur ein bruchteil von dem was das ganze shia kartenhaus (meinermeinung nach) in bezug auf abu bakr ra etc zum einstürzen bringt!!!!!

 

 

 

Ich weiss ja da bukhari ja ein opfer der ummayaden war die storys kenn ich aber das sind sahih und mutawatir ahadith:

 

LOS GEHTS!

 

 

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 26:

 

 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

 

While I was standing amongst the people who were invoking Allah for Umar bin Al-Khattab who was lying (dead) on his bed, a man behind me rested his elbows on my shoulder and said, "(O 'Umar!) May Allah bestow His Mercy on you. I always hoped that Allah will keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar were (somewhere). I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar did (something). I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar set out.' So I hoped that Allah will keep you with both of them." I turned back to see that the speaker was Ali bin Abi Talib.

 

 

Sahih bukhari--

 

Tijani the sufi....slash irfan slash shia.. criticizes this one ofcourse. If we look at this hadith listen to the words of Ali. Its showing that Abu bakr and Umar were constantly with the Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam. Look in the Quran the ayah about abu bakr being in the cave with the Prophet and Allah being the third of them. The mushrikeen also would see that abu bakr and umar would be around the Prophet image008.gif . I think one amongst the muslims should compile a book in criticism of the so called authentic hadiths of the shia.

 

 

 

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 20:

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya:

 

I asked my father ('Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Apostle ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then 'Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you?" He said, "I am only an ordinary person.

sahih bukhari--

 

 

Tijani back at it. He criticizes this hadith and declares it a fabrication by the ummayad. it was said THEN YOU? and he said I AM AN ORDINARY PERSON.

 

This shows that he was very humble it doesnt mean people were fabricating to show that Ali was low in status. Bukhari qoutes many hadiths in praise of Ali. If he fabricated this one and knew it was fabricated then why qoute all the hadiths that praise Ali. This hadith clearly shows that Ali was humble and may Allah reward him for that with good for we are not to be arrogant in terms of ourselves.

 

 

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 19:

Narrated 'Aisha:

 

(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Apostle died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Apostle is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Apostle, kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Apostle), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice." Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.:-- "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited:--

 

"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

 

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (i.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (i.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Apostle." So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him." 'Aisha said (in another narration), ("When the Prophet was on his death-bed) he looked up and said thrice, (Amongst) the Highest Companion (See Qur'an 4.69)' Aisha said, Allah benefited the people by their two speeches. 'Umar frightened the people some of whom were hypocrites whom Allah caused to abandon Islam because of 'Umar's speech. Then Abu Bakr led the people to True Guidance and acquainted them with the right path they were to follow so that they went out reciting:-- "Muhammad is no more than an Apostle and indeed many Apostles have passed away before him.." (3.144)

 

 

 

The sahabah were greatly devastated by the death of the Prophet image008.gif . Umar said that the Prophet had not died and threaten to kill anyone who did.

 

What do shia say about this?

 

They say the most absurd thing. They say that Umar was trying to tell people the Prophet is not dead so that they wouldnt pay allegiance to Ali, and so abu bakr could usurp the caliphate! lol Come on now did something hit tijani on his head? Oh yes during ashura.

 

It is clear Umar was devastated and uttered what he uttered and it was abu bakr who slapped some sense into the people.

 

Tijani criticizes Abu bakr when he says (did abu bakr think there were people who worshiped Muhammed?)

 

Obviously he is an idiot may Allah break his back ameen. For when abu bakr said what he said he was protecting the ummah from falling into shirk. Wonder what tijani would say about his Prophet image008.gif who said (may Allah curse the jews and christians for taking the graves of prophets as places of worship).

 

The Prophet was protecting the ummah from shirk. We see that later abu bakr and Umar met up with others to talk politics. Shia criticize this when in fact they were trying to hasten to talk politics so that the ummah would not be devasted and have multiple leaders or leaders who were unfit. The shia criticism is sometimes so rediculous it makes me really laugh out loud

 

 

 

From Shura to Wilayet Al Faqih by Ahmed Alkatib*********************

 

In these sermons, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib points to his being the most deserving of the Caliphate and one who with more right to it, for the Household of the Prophet are the fruits, if the Quraish were the tree (origin) of the Messenger of Allah. He does not point to the existence of any text (nass) from the Messenger of Allah specifying him as his successor, or his appointing him as the Khalifah after him. Kulayni reports from Imam Muhammad Baqir his saying: Imam Ali has never called (people) to himself and that he confirmed the people on what they did and concealed his affair’.

If the Hadith of Ghadir is considered the clearest and the strongest text from the Prophet as regards Amir Muminin (Ali), some of the earlier scholars of Imamate Shiism like Sharif Murtada consider it as an unclear and ambiguous text on the issue of Khilafah. For he says in (Al-Shafi) “We do not claim absolute knowledge in the text (above), neither for ourselves nor against our opponents, and we do not know of any of our people who claim that’ (13).

Therefore, the companions did not understand from the Hadith of Ghadir or any other Hadith, the meaning of specific text or appointment to the Caliphate. Due to this, they chose the Shura way as a mode of choosing a leader. They then gave their oaths of allegiance to Abu Bakr as Khalifah after the Prophet (peace be upon him), which clearly shows that no clear meaning of Khilafah was deduced from the reported texts for Imam Ali or the non-existence of such text at that time

 

 

 

 

 

IMAM ALI AND SHURA (CONSULTATION)

 

What emphasizes the fact that Shura (consultation) was the constitutional system that Imam Amir Muminin Ali bin Abi Talib abided by; and that he had no knowledge of vertical hereditary leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt, is his participation in the Shura process after the death of Caliph Umar bin Khattab, and his arguments before the members of the Shura on his virtues and his role in the service of Islam; so also the fact that he did not point to the issue of the text or his appointment as Khalifah after the Prophet. If the Hadith of Ghadir has any of this import, the Imam would have refered to it, and he would have won the day with what is greater and stronger than mentioning his virtues.

Imam Ali believed in the system of consultation and it’s being first and foremost the right of the Immigrants and the Helpers (Muhajirin and Ansar). Due to this he refused to accede to the call of rebels-after the murder of Caliph Uthman, who invited him to assume power, and he said to them “This is not of your powers, this is for the Muhajirin and Ansar, anyone they chose as a leader will be a leader”.

When the Immigrants and the Helpers came to him and said, “Stretch your hand, we would give you our oath of allegiance”, he withdrew from them. They repeated as the first, and he also withdrew again, and they repeated that for the third time then he said “Leave me and look for another person and know that, if I responded to you, I will do with you what I know…. and if you leave me alone, I am just like one of you, I would be the most obedient and loyal to anyone you choose to conduct your affairs for me to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader” He walked to Talhah and Zubair and put it across to them and said:” If anyone of you wishes , I will give him my oath of allegiance” They both said “ No … the people accept you more (than any other man). At the end he said to them “If you insist, my oath of allegiance “bayah” must not be secret, and it will not be taken till after the acceptance of the (general) Muslim populace, so I will go out to the Masjid (mosque) anyone who wishes to give his oath of allegiance to me let him do it”. (14)

Therefore, if the theory of a “text” and appointment is established and well- known to the Muslims, it would not be permissible for Imam (Ali) to reject the revolters, and then wait for the word of the Immigrants and Helpers (Muhajirin & Ansar), as it will also not be permissible for him to say “ to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader”. It will also not be right for him to put the leadership (Khilafah) before Talhah and Al-Zubair, and he will not need to wait for the oath of allegiance from the general Muslims.

There is another narration from the work of Salim bin Qays al-Hilali that discloses the belief of Imam Ali in Shura, and the right of the Ummah to elect its leader. He said in one of his letters, “What is obligatory in the laws of Allah and Islam is that the Muslims, of if their leader dies or is killed, they should not perform any act nor innovate something, nor move in order to do something new, unless they choose for themselves a chaste leader, who is learned, scrupulous, and well-versed in the legal and traditional matters”. (15)

When Talhah and Al-Zubair dissented, he pleaded for his case on the basis of their oath of allegiance to him, saying: “You gave me your oath of allegiance and now you breached it.” He did not point to the issue of a text from the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him). All that he said to Al-Zubair which made him to desist from fighting him, was his reminding him of the statement of the Prophet (S.A.W) that, “You will fight him, while being a transgressor!”

 

So, Shura is the basis of leadership in the right of Imam Ali, and this was in the absence of the theory of (a text and. (divine) appointment or selection), Which was not referred to by the Imam in any instance.

Imam Ali views himself, undoubtedly, as an ordinary person, who is not infallible, and he demanded from the Shiites to other Muslims to view him in that sense. History has preserved for us a wonder of his many wonders which is transmitted by Kulayni in al-Kafi, where he says:

“I am in myself not above mistake, and I am not contented that my actions are free of it, except that Allah suffices me of myself, with what He bestows onto me’. (16)

The belief of Imam Ali in Shura (Consultation) as a constitution for the Muslims, became very clear in the process of the Caliphate of Imam Hassan when the Muslims came to him after the strike of Abdul Rahman bin Muljan on him, and requested him to appoint his son Hassan after him (as the leader), for he said “No, we did go to the Prophet of Allah and said,” Appoint (for us a leader), and he said” No, I fear that you will be divided on his affairs, as Harun, but if Allah finds any good in your hearts, he will choose for you’ They requested him to point to someone, but he did not . They then said to him,” If we lost you, we will not lose giving our oath of allegiance to Hassan. He said, “I do not command, nor prevent you, you can discern better”. (17)

Hafiz Abu Bakr Ibn Abi al-Dunya (208-281) has mentioned in the book titled “The Murder of Imam, the Commander of the Faithful, from Abdul Rahman bin Jundub from his father who said “I said “ O! Commander of the faithful, if we lose you (if you die) and we will not lose, we will give our oath of allegiance to Hassan. He said, “I will not command you (to do that) nor prevent you”. I repeated what I said and he replied in the same way. (1#cool#

Sheikh Hassan bin Sulaiman has mentioned in 'Mukhtasar Basair al-Darajat’ from Salim bin Qays al- Hilali, who said “I heard Ali saying, while in the company of his two sons and Abdullah bin Ja’far and some of his close associates (supporters) ‘ Leave people with what they have chosen for themselves, and maintain your silence. (19)

Imam Ali the leader of the faithful has given his will to Imam Hassan and his other children, but he never mention the issue of leadership and the Caliphate, His will was spiritual, ethical and personal, or as, Sheikh Mufid has said in Al-Irshad, the will was for Hassan regarding his family, children and companions, his responsibility and his charity’. (20)

That will is as follows:

“ This is what Ali bin Abi Talib has willed. He willed (enjoined) that he bears witness that there is no god (deity) except Allah Alone, He has no partner with Him, and bears witness that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, He sent him with guidance and the religion of truth, that He makes it prevail over all religion, even though the pagans (polytheists) may detest (it). That “… Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds … with this am I commanded, and I am of the Muslims”. Then I enjoin you O Hassan and my entire children and family and to whomever my book reaches, that you should fear Allah, your Lord. “ So die not except as Muslims “And hold fast, all together by the Rope of which Allah (stretches out for you) and be not divided among yourselves.” I heard the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) saying “ keeping Straight (making peace in) the relations between you is better that too much fasting and prayer (in which the relations are severed), the guilt that wipes away religion is the severing of relations. There is no power except with Allah. Maintain your next of kin and make good your relations with them, so that accountability will be light on you. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of the orphans, you should not leave them without food (even for alternate days) they should not be neglected in your presence. (Fear) Allah, in the affairs of your neighbors, they are the will of the Messenger of Allah, for he kept on enjoining us (to do good to them) to the extent that we thought he would apportion to them a share of the inheritance. (Fear) Allah in the commandments of the Quran, so that no other people will act upon it before you. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of the House of your Lord, it should not be disserted as long as you live, for if it became disserted you will not be aware of each other. (Fear) Allah in the affairs of Ramadan, for fasting it is a shield for you from the fire. (Fear) Allah as regards Jihad for the sake of Allah with your hands, wealth and tongues. (Fear) Allah in the payment of Zakat for it extinguishes the anger of the Lord. (Fear) Allah in the covenant of your Prophet, he should not be wronged in your midst. (Fear) Allah in what your right hands possess (servants and maids). Beware not to fear any blame in implementing Allah’s commandments. It is enough for you (to remember) “ Speak good to people” as Allah has commanded you. Do not abandon ‘enjoining good and forbidding evil (Al-Amr bi al-Maruf Wa al-Nahy an al-Munkar)’, lest the worst of you be made rulers over you, and the best of you will pray, and their prayers will not be accepted. I advise you my children with maintaining your relations and generosity. I exhort you against cutting your relations, competing in amassing wealth and division. “Help you one another in virtue and piety; but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allah-Verily, Allah is severe in punishment.” May Allah protect you, members of the Household (of the Prophet (peace be upon him), May he preserve the (message) of your Prophet in you. I bid you farewell. My greetings of peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you”. (21)

For the reason (mentioned above) this precious, spiritual and ethical will did not play any role in recommending Imam Hassan for he Caliphate, because it is devoid of any pointer to it. It was not also an alternative to the Shura system which members of the Prophets household stick to as a constitution for the Muslims.

 

THE SECLUSION OF IMAM ZAYN AL-ABIDIN****************************

 

Imam Ali bin Hussain did give his oath of allegiance to Yazid bin Mu’awiyah, after the incident (battle) of Harrah. (2#cool# He refused to lead the Shiites, who were demanding revenge on the murder of his father Imam Hussain, who were getting ready for a revolt, nor did he claim the Imamate, or fight for it, as Sheikh Saduq has said, “he withdrew from the people and did not meet anyone, and on one meets him, except his closest companions. He devoted himself to the worship of Allah; only little knowledge has come from him. (29

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

13- 13- 13- Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol 2 p. 128

14- 14- 14- Tabari, vol. 3 p. 450

15- 15- 15- Kitab Salim bin Qays Al-Hilali, p. 182, Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 8 p. 555 (old edition)

16- 16- 16- Kulayni: Rawdah al-Kafi, pp. 292-293 Majlisi: op. cit, vol. 74. p. 309

17- 17- 17- Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol. 3 p. 295, Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, vol.1 p. 212

18- 18- 18- Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, p. 43

19- 19- 19- Majlisi: op.cit. Vol. 7 chapter on “ Tradition attributed to Salim, not available in his book.”

20- 20- 20- Mufid: Al-Irshad, p. 187

21- 21- 21- Hafidh Abu Bakr bin Abi al-Dunya: Maqtal al-Imam Amir al-Muminin, pp. 41-42 (ed. Mustapha Murtada al-Qazwini, published- Markaz Al- Dirasat wa al- Buhuth al-Ilmiyya, Beirut.)

22- 22- 22- Ibn Abi al-Hadid: Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah vol. 4 p. 8, p. 13 and Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2 p. 44

23- 23- 23- Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 44 p. 65 chapter on How to reconcile the History of Imam Hassan Mujtabah and the Great Trial (Fitnah), vol. 2, p. 183

24- 24- 24- Mufid: Al-Irshad. P. 199

25- 25- 25- ibid. p. 200

26- 26- 26- ibid. p. 204

27- 27- 27- Saduq Ali bin Babawaih: Al-Imamah wa al-Tabsirah Min al-Hayrah, p. 198 Al-Saffar: Basair al-Darajat, p. 148 and 198

28- 28- 28- Kulayni: Al-Kafi, al-Rawdah, p. 196

29- 29- 29- Saduq: Ikmal al-Din, p. 91

30- 30- 30- Saduq: Al-Amali, p. 396 Majlisi, p. 59

31- 31- 31- Tarikh al-Tabari: vol. 7 p. 48

32- 32- 32- Masudi: Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 3, p. 84

33- 33- 33- Ibid. vol. 2 p. 62

34- 34- 34- Nukhbati: Firaq al-Shiah p. 21 Ashari: Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq. P. 18

35- 35- 35- Nukhbati: Firaq al-Shiah p. 421 Ashari: Al-Maqalat wa al-Firaq p. 18

36- 36- 36- Nukhbati, ibid. p. 54

37- 37- 37- Ibn Asakir: Al-Tahdihib, vol. 4 p. 162

38- 38- 38- Al- Saffar: Basair al-Darajat, p. 153 and 156

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

But the most surprising proof about the nonexistence of events of ghadeer,to me,is the fact that the event or wilayet of Ali is not mentioned anywhere in what is considered to be second most important book of shiaism.

Shifa Al Kamala By Imam Ali Ibn al Husyn.

 

While Link is pondering on this fact,here is Imam Zain or Ali on rights of leadership.Is he admonishing his father Husyn?

 

 

 

The right of the possessor of authority (khalif) is that you know that God has made you a trial (fitna) for him. God is testing him through the authority He has given him over you. You should not expose yourself to his displeasure, for thereby you cast yourself by your own hands into destruction and become his partner in his sin when he brings evil down upon you.

TREATISE ON RIGHTS (RISALAT AL-H

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Birth of Ali in the Kaaba (superior?):

 

----- It is not authentically reported that Hazrat Ali was born in the Kaba.

 

However, it is firmly established that the Companion Hakim ibn Hizam ibn Khuwaylid ibn AbdulUzza ibn Qusay Al Qurashi was born in the Kaba, as Imam Muslim stated in his Sahih (Kitab al-Buyu, Bab al-Sidq fi al-Bay wa al-Bayan). See also al-Hakim, Mustadrak (1990 ed. 3:549) and Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (#1802).

 

Hakim ibn Hizam is the first entry in Ibn Mandah's remarkable book, Man Asha Miatan wa Ishrina Sanatan min al-Sahabah (Those of the Companions Who Lived 120 years).

 

 

2. The Claim that Umar used to beat his wife as reported in Ibn Majah and Musnad Ahmad:

 

----- Both Ibn Majah's and Ahmad's chains are through "Dawud al-Awdi, from Abdul Rahman al-Musli." This narration does not come to us through any other path. And Dawud is weak while Abdul Rahman is unknown. Umar knew more than anyone that Allah will ask a man about beating even his beast of burden or his slave on the Day of Judgment, let alone his wife.

 

 

3. The Claim that Umar banned women from Mosques:

 

----- Yes, but only those who stayed there for loitering not those attending fard Salat.

 

Khawla bint Qays said: "We were women, in the Mosque [in Madina al-Munawwara], who may have mixed with the men at times and perhaps even flirted (ghazalna) and even harmed themselves in this intermixing; so Umar said: I swear I shall make free women of you again.

So he brought us out (akhrajana) of the Mosque." Kanz al-Ummal #23131 from Ibn Sad's Tabaqat.

 

Umar never prevented nor forbade women from attending the mosque for the five obligatory prayers or Nawafil/Tarwaih.

 

This general permission and conditional prohibition is how he understood the meaning of the hadith of the Prophet : "Do not forbid the bondswomen of Allah from going to the mosques of Allah."

 

In fact Umar himself narrated that the Prophet said more explicitly, "If your women ask permission to go out to Salat, do not forbid them!" Musnad Ahmad (1:40).

 

 

4. The hadith regarding the Ahly Bait:

 

----- The Prophet said about Ahlul-Bayt: Do not be ahead of them for you will perish, do not turn away from them for you will perish, and do not try to teach them since they know more than you do!

 

 

This narration comes to us only through "Abdullah ibn Bukayr, from Hakim ibn Jubayr": two Rafidis known for munkar ("rejected") narrations. Al-Tabarani, al-Mujam al-Kabir (3:66 #2681, 5:166 #4971).

 

 

5. The hadith from Ibn MAsud regarding Alis Khilafat:

 

----- Abdullah Ibn Masud narrated: The messenger of Allah ordered me to follow him, on the night of the Jinn. I went with him until we reached the hight of Mecca. He said: "I was promised that the Jinn and human will believe in me. As to the human they believed in me, as to the Jinn you have seen." He continued: "I feel that my end is drawing near." I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Abu Bakr as your Caliph? He turned away from me, so I realized that he disagreed; I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Umar as your Caliph? He turned away from me, so I realized that he disagreed; I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Ali as your Caliph? He said: "That's him. By the One whom there is no God beside Him, if you chose him and obeyd him He image013.gif entered you into Paradise all together." References: - Majma al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v8, p314 - Also mentioned by al-Tabarani

 

Al-Haythami said: "Al-Tabarani (in al-Mujam al-Kabir 10:67) narrates it and its chain contains Yahya ibn Yala al-Aslami who is weak."

 

Ibn Hajar in al-Taqrib actually grades this narrator as "weak and Shia." Since this particular narration promotes Shiism, it is categorically rejected until verified independently, but then it it not found anywhere else.

 

In addition, most of its narrators seem to be complete unknowns, as if they never narrated anything else in their lives except this report.

 

Finally: In Sahih Muslim from Alqama: I asked Ibn Masud if he was with the Messenger of Allah on the night of the Jinn and he said no.

 

 

6. Regarding Assalatu Khairum Minan Naum in Adhaan:

 

----- As mentioned in Muwata of Imam Malik. It is a Mursal report.

 

The reports which mention it being said during the time of the Prophet are Sahih of Ibn Khuzaymah 385, 386; Sahih of Ibn Habbaan 1682; Sunan of Abu Dawud 500, 501, 504; Sunan Nasai 633, 647, 707; Sunan Ibn Majah 716; Sunan Nisai Al Kubra 1597, 1611; Sunan Bahaqi Al Kubraa 1617, 1824, 1831, 1832, 1833, 1835, 1731, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1840, 1845, and many others in Musnad Ahmad and other books.

 

7. Did Ayesha do Sajda on hearing of Alis death?:

 

----- Reported Mursal in Tabaris Tarikh with no chain of narration. Therefore it s categorically rejected as unsupported.

 

If you wish you can open it up and check for yourself.

 

8. Did Ayesha call for Uthmans Killing (kill Nathal)?:

 

----- Reported in sources such as Lisan Al Arab, Sharh Nahajul Balagha, Tadkhirath al Khawwas, Asadul Ghaba, Manaqib, Iqd al Fareed, Tarihk Kamil.

 

Source 1: Lisan Al Arab by Ibn Mansur, a lexicon of Arabic language. It is not a history book. Therefore, there is no Sanad nor is their any other way to authenticate this Hadith. Therefore it is rejected.

Source 2: Sharh Nahajul Balagha by Ibn Al Hadid, the Mutazilite, it is neither considered a secondary or primary source, rather an obscure source and therefore once again rejected.

 

Source 3: Tadkirath Al Khawas, a secondary source. Reported Mursal with no chain of narration.

 

Source 4: Asadul Ghaba, an unknown source to me. Once again no Sanad and therfore rejected.

 

Source 5: Manaqib by Khawarzmi. A secondary source. He was considered weak and lenient when it came to hadith.

Source 6: Iqd al Fareed by Ibn abd Rabuh, who had massive Shia inclinations and this book is considered an Obscure source. Also it is not a book on history but rather is a literary book.

 

Source 7: Tarkih Kamil by Ibn Athir, who relied heavily on Tabari (whose book is not all authentic). Tabaris history is considered an "Annal" which means it is a compilation of history and events and narrations without actually examining the Sanad. Still, let us see the chains of narration.

 

Chain 1: Goes through Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan who is unknown. Then comes Husayn bin Nasr who is also unknown. Then Nasr bin Muazhim who is considered unreliable and a forger of hadith.

Chain 2: Nasr is the first person again and as we know he is rejected. Then comes Sayf Bin Umar who is considered a Liar and a forgerer as you all know. Then comes Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn Alam who are both unknown.

 

Chain 3: Nasr once again. Then comes Umar bin Sad who is unknown. Umar narrates from Asad bin Abdullah once again Unknown. Asad narrates from "A learned person he met" and therefore unknown again

Quote: In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 we read that:

 

"Musruq said to Ayesha, 'Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him".

Ayesha categorically denied this claim very bluntly as mentioned in Tabaris Tarikh, Tarikh Ibn Kathir and Al bidayah. If people will go according what others think then Ali killed Uthman because they accuse dhim of writing to them to!

 

Quote: In Iqd al Fareed page Volume 2 page 210 we learn that:

 

"Marwan approached Ayesha and said 'Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him".

 

Also in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 218 and al Imama wal Siyasa page 45 we are told that:

 

"Sad ibne Abi Waqqas was asked 'who killed Uthman? Sad replied, 'the sword was lifted by Ayesha and it was sharpened by Talha".

 

Also in Iqd al Fareed on Volume 2 page 219 we read that:

 

"Mugheera bin Shuba approached Ayesha and she said to him, 'In Jamal some of the arrows that were fired, nearly pierced my skin.' Mugheera replied 'If only an arrow had killed you that would have acted as repentance for the fact that you had incited the people to kill Uthman”

 

Iqd al Fareed, an obscure source and therefore is rejected according to our Ulema.

 

Quote: In al Imama wal Siyasa page 60 we read that:

 

"Someone asked Muhammad bin Talha who killed Uthman? He replied that "one third of his death was attributable to Ayesha and one third was due to my father Talha

There is no proof who wrote this book. It is only "Attributed" to Ibn Qutaybah and this is the Majority opinion. It is therefore rejected.

 

 

 

 

***********______________________________________

 

shia hadith zu abu bakr ra

 

 

Here are some more for the Rafidhi:

 

عن عروة بن عبد الله قال : سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي عليهما السلام عن حلية السيوف ، فقال : لا بأس به ، قد حلى أبو بكر الصديق سيفه ، قلت : فتقول الصديق ؟ ! قال : فوثب وثبة واستقبل القبلة وقال : نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق ، فمن لم يقل له الصديق فلا صدق الله له قولا في الدنيا ولا في الآخرة ! ! .

 

Bihaar al-Anwaar, al-Majlisi, vol. 92 p. 651

Kashful-Ghummah, al-Arbilly, vol. 2, p. 360

 

"Reported Urwah bin Abdullah: I asked Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali [as] about the swords' ornamentation (i,e with silver pieces), he said: There is no problem with that for Abu Bakr Assiddiq has ornamented his sword (with silver). I said: Did you say Assiddiq? (Urwah) Said: He then jumped, faced the Qiblah and said: Yes Assiddiq, Yes Assiddiq, Yes Assiddiq, he who does not call him Assiddiq, may Allah never testify to any of his words neither in this life nor the hereafter."

 

 

Here are some more for the Rafidhi:

 

عن عروة بن عبد الله قال : سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي عليهما السلام عن حلية السيوف ، فقال : لا بأس به ، قد حلى أبو بكر الصديق سيفه ، قلت : فتقول الصديق ؟ ! قال : فوثب وثبة واستقبل القبلة وقال : نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق ، نعم الصديق ، فمن لم يقل له الصديق فلا صدق الله له قولا في الدنيا ولا في الآخرة ! ! .

 

Bihaar al-Anwaar, al-Majlisi, vol. 92 p. 651

Kashful-Ghummah, al-Arbilly, vol. 2, p. 360

 

"Reported Urwah bin Abdullah: I asked Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali [as] about the swords' ornamentation (i,e with silver pieces), he said: There is no problem with that for Abu Bakr Assiddiq has ornamented his sword (with silver). I said: Did you say Assiddiq? (Urwah) Said: He then jumped, faced the Qiblah and said: Yes Assiddiq, Yes Assiddiq, Yes Assiddiq, he who does not call him Assiddiq, may Allah never testify to any of his words neither in this life nor the hereafter."

 

 

 

 

*****************

 

shia sagen:

 

mam Ali[as] helped Hazrat Umar..........

 

Why did Hazrat Umer admit?

lau la Aliyyan lahalakal Umar

 

Translation

If Ali (as) wasn't there, Umar would have perished.

 

Wasn't Allah enough for Hazrat Umer.

Of course, Allah is enough for all of us. But, we also need a source (wasilaah) to seek Allah's help...in this case. Imam Ali image019.gif was the souce.

*

 

 

 

If you think about it, and contemplate on the meaning, you will discover that this "Statement" is against you rather than being for you.

 

(1) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] usurped the Rights of Ali, and

 

(2) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] pulled Ali [ra] by a rope all the way from his home to Saqifat Bani Sa'idah to forcefully give his pledge to Abu Bakr, and

 

(3) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] did break Fatima's [ra] Rib, and

 

(4) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] caused Fatimah to have a miscarriage, and

 

(5) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] did whip Fatimah on her arm, and

 

(6) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] did cause Ahlul-Bayt a lot of harm and injustice, and

 

(7) If Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] did [................] fill in the blank with all the lies.

 

The question comes to mind, why didn't Ali leave him to perish? LOL

 

Wasn't it a good chance for Ali to leave him perish in order to ascend to the position that is his right? Isn't that a mind buggling?

 

Did not Amirul-Mu'mineen Omar [ra] plan to lead the forces against the Persians himself, and Ali [ra] advised him not to? Wasn't it a good chance for him to over throw the government in Omar's absense or at least whishes he dies on the front lines?

 

O well, but the Rafidha refuse to think, what can we do

 

*******************************

 

 

saqifa und die verdrehung durch die Shia!!!!!

 

 

 

Disapproving the false Shi'a Claims through The Holy Quran, Hadith And The History(Non-Muslim & Muslim).

 

===================================================

 

1) The prophet (saww) is called delirious on his death bed.

 

The hadeeth that you mentioned were narrated in many different versions. Some of these versions were Saheeh and others were weak. However, Al-Bukhari had narrated one of these versions with an authentic attribution.

 

The hadeeth mentions that the Prophet peace be upon him was in a sever form of an illness. The Companions were feeling sorry for what was happening to the Prophet peace be upon him and wished if they could do anything to help him. Nevertheless, the Prophet peace be upon him was thinking about his Ummah, not about himself.

 

The Prophet peace be upon him was suffering from a severe headache when he asked his Companions for something to write on. The Prophet peace be upon him said that what he would write would save his Ummah from going astray forever.

 

So Omar said, “Pain had taken over the Prophet peace be upon him.” Omar meant that the Prophet peace be upon him was tired, therefore, do not increase his pain and leave him alone. Then someone (The scholars said that this person might be a newcomer to Islam) said in a questioning form, “What is wrong with him? Is he hallucinating?” Meaning, is he aware of what he is talking about or had the fever affected him? It is widely known that prophets could be sick, and that does not slander in their infallibility. Anyhow, the person who asked the question did a mistake. He thought that involuntary speech due to fever is applicable to the Messenger of Allah as it is applicable to the rest of the people. He was wrong, definitely.

 

Then nonsense talk erupted between people. Some agreed with Omar to leave the Prophet and to let him have some rest while others disagreed with Omar. It had never been recorded or mentioned that Ali or any Companions had inferred disrespect to the Prophet peace be upon him from the words of Omar. If the Prophet peace e upon him were insisted in writing that book, then neither Omar nor anyone else would be able to prevent him. If Allah had ordered the Prophet peace be upon him to write the book, then the Prophet had no choice but to write it down, regardless if Omar agreed or not! However, the book was optional.

 

The Shia say that the Prophet peace be upon him wanted to write his will. The Shia claim that the will was for Ali to be the successor in leading the Ummah. However, we understand from the Shia that the Prophet wanted to give the leadership to Ali to save his Ummah from going astray? Then can someone explain to us how come there were lots of afflictions and wars in the caliphate of Ali? The caliphate of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, or Ali is fallible against going astray. What could save are the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.

 

Allah says, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination.” [Al-Nissa, 59] Therefore, only the book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger would save us if we ever differed or disagreed.

 

We want to address the Shia here and ask them: What would they say if a man claimed that the book that the Prophet peace be upon him wanted to write had contained the will for Omar to succeed him as a caliphate? At the caliphate of Omar, the Islamic nation was in prosperity and managed to defeat the most two powerful nations at that time? If you reflect on this, then you will find this could be infallibility from going astray. However, Ahl Al-Sunnah are fair people. None of us would claim such a claim, but we gave an example for the purpose of illustrations only.

 

===================================================

 

2) After his death the people decided they "HAD' to have a leader right away!

 

Election to the Caliphate:

 

The Prophet's closest Companion, Abu Bakr, was not present when the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) breathed his last in the apartment of his beloved wife of later years, Aisha, Abu Bakr's daughter. When he came to know of the Prophet's passing, Abu Bakr hurried to the house of sorrow.

 

"How blessed was your life and how beatific is your death,"

 

he whispered as he kissed the cheek of his beloved friend and master who now was no more.

 

When Abu Bakr came out of the Prophet's apartment and broke the news, disbelief and dismay gripped the community of Muslims in Medina. Muhammad (peace be on him) had been the leader, the guide and the bearer of Divine revelation through whom they had been brought from idolatry and barbarism into the way of God. How could he die? Even Umar, one of the bravest and strongest of the Prophet's Companions, lost his composure and drew his sword and threatened to kill anyone who said that the Prophet was dead. Abu Bakr gently pushed him aside, ascended the steps of the lectern in the mosque and addressed the people, saying

 

 

"O people, verily whoever worshipped Muhammad, behold! Muhammad is indeed dead. But whoever worships God, behold! God is alive and will never die."

And then he concluded with a verse from the Qur'an:

 

"And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Many Messengers have gone before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?" [3:144]

 

 

On hearing these words, the people were consoled. Despondency gave place to confidence and tranquility. This critical moment had passed. But the Muslim community was now faced with an extremely serious problem: that of choosing a leader. After some discussion among the Companions of the Prophet who had assembled in order to select a leader, it became apparent that no one was better suited for this responsibility than Abu Bakr. A portion of the speech the First Caliph gave after his election has already been quoted in the introduction.

 

===================================================

 

3) Due to this HAD to reason they missed the Prophet (Saww) burial. (or did they not?)

 

After hearing Abu Bakr and knowing for certain that Muhammad had died, they dispersed. Some of the al Ansar gathered around Sa'd ibn `Ubadah in the courtyard of Banu Sa'idah. `Ali ibn Abu Talib, al Zubayr ibn al `Awwam, and Talhah ibn `Ubaydullah gathered in the house of Fatimah; and al Muhajirun, together with the Usayd ibn Hudayr as well as Banu `Abd al Ashhal, gathered around Abu Bakr. Soon a man came to Abu Bakr and `Umar to inform them that al Ansar were gathering around Sa'd ibn `Ubadah. The informant added that the two leaders should go out and reorganize Muslim leadership before the division of the Muslim community got any worse. Since the Prophet of God-may God's peace and blessing be upon him-was still laid out in his house and unburied, it was surely unbecoming that the Muslims begin to divide among themselves. `Umar pleaded with Abu Bakr to go with him immediately to al Ansar and see what they were doing. On the way thither, they were met by two upright and trustworthy Ansar men who, when questioned, remarked that al Ansar were contemplating separatist ideas. When the two Ansar men questioned Abu Bakr and `Umar in turn and learned from them that they were going to al Ansar's gathering, they advised them not to go but to try to settle the Muhajirun's own affairs. `Umar was determined to go and Abu Bakr was not difficult to persuade on this point. They came to the courtyard of Banu Sa'idah and found that al Ansar had gathered around a man wrapped up in a blanket. `Umar ibn al Khattab asked who the man was, and he was told that that was Sa'd ibn `Ubadah suffering from a serious sickness. `Umar and Abu Bakr, joined at this moment by a number of Muhajirun, took their seats in the assembly. Soon, a speaker rose and addressed a1 Ansar in the following words after praising God and thanking Him: "We are al Ansar-ie., the helpers of God and the army of Islam. You, the Muhajirun, are only a brigade in the army. Nonetheless, a group of you have gone to the extreme of seeking to deprive us of our natural leadership and to deny us our rights."

 

Stopping the Muslims to divide just after the death of Prophet S.A.W, was much more important than being on the burial of Prophet S.A.W.

 

Abu Bakr, Just followed this Quranic verse over being on the funeral of Prophet S.A.W:

 

"Muhammad is but a prophet before whom many prophets have come and gone. Should he die or be killed, will you abjure your faith? Know that whoever abjures his faith will cause no harm to God, but God will surely reward those who are grateful to him." [Qur'an, 3:144]

 

Even after choosing to follow The Holy Quran over being at the burial of his beloved Prophet S.A.W, which wouldve been his desire, the only thing he gets after so many years is hatred from the shi'as.

 

MashaALLAH, we respect the decision of Abu Bakr R.A, and we praise him because for it is him why we Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammaah are united.

 

===================================================

 

Thank You

 

image006.gif

 

salam 3alaykum

[Abdullah 149]

 

 

Und warum behauptet Umar Ibn Al Chatab, dass er Abu Bakr in einem Streit bei Sakifa zum Kalifen gemacht hatte und,

 

dass jeder der in der selben Art zum Kalifen wird getötet werden soll und derjenige der ihm den Bayat gegeben hat ebenfalls.

 

Also die Sunna des Propheten und Allahs swt ist. Töte den Kalifen und den ersten der den Bayat gemacht hat.

 

Aus einem längeren Hadith Sahih Bukhary.

 

Wo steht das im Quran.

 

 

[IslamicREV 7]

AS

 

Einige beigreifen es einfach nicht. Lieber "Gast" du kannst bis zum Morgengrauen aus Sahih-Bukhari zitieren. Dort sind tausende Ahadith gefälscht und daher sind deine Argumente lächerlich. Abu Huraira wurde bereits entlarvt als Lügner. Du hast die Fronten gewechselt, weil du von Anfang an nicht wusstest, was Schiiten eigentlich sind und daher warst du leichte Beute für unsere Wahabi-Freunde. Das merkt man alles an deiner Schreibweise. Du weisst das Bukhari gefälscht ist und sprichst trotzdem von Sahih und Mutawatir Hadithen, weil ohne dieses Dogma dein Glauben zusammenbricht. Du setzt Bukhari und Muslim auf einer Stufe mit Quran.

 

ws

[Guest Fatima]

 

 

AS

 

Einige beigreifen es einfach nicht. Lieber "Gast" du kannst bis zum Morgengrauen aus Sahih-Bukhari zitieren. Dort sind tausende Ahadith gefälscht und daher sind deine Argumente lächerlich.

 

Nee, kann er nicht, er ist nämlich längst gelöscht. sorry, ich hab das Zeugs da wohl übersehen, denn sonst hätte ich es gelöscht.

 

Abu Huraira wurde bereits entlarvt als Lügner. Du hast die Fronten gewechselt, weil du von Anfang an nicht wusstest, was Schiiten eigentlich sind und daher warst du leichte Beute für unsere Wahabi-Freunde. Das merkt man alles an deiner Schreibweise. Du weisst das Bukhari gefälscht ist und sprichst trotzdem von Sahih und Mutawatir Hadithen, weil ohne dieses Dogma dein Glauben zusammenbricht. Du setzt Bukhari und Muslim auf einer Stufe mit Quran

.

 

Erstens das, und zweitens weiß er wohl nicht mal, was sahih und mutawatir überhaupt ist. Naja, jedem das Seine. Wer seinen Verstand an die Wahabiten abgibt, ist selbst Schuld.

 

 

 

 

Fatima

[Guest Fatima]

 

hat jemand noch den Link zu Tahrir ul- wasilah? Ich hab ihn leider verloren

 

[Guest Fatima]

 

So, Schwester Saman hatte diese pn von mir dankenswerterweise abgespeichert, denn der link zu Tahrir al- wasilah geht nicht mehr :

 

Die Fatwa von Imam Khomeini (r.a.) wird auf "einschlägigen" Seiten munter falsch übersetzt! Seltsamerweise fällt das keinem Arabischsprachigem auf, oder es wird bewusst verschwiegen , obwohl das Original mit gepostet wurde!

 

 

 

 

Es ist schwerstens verabscheut, in seine Frau von hinten (Analverkehr) einzudringen, und sollte man es vorsichtshalber lassen, besonders ohne Einverständnis der Frau.

 

Wo ist da das Problem?

 

 

12: Es ist nicht erlaubt, mit seiner Frau geschlechtlich zu verkehren (wat´), bevor sie das 9. Lebensjahr vollendet hat, sei es Dauerehe oder zeitlich begrenzt, aber andere Vergnügungen, wie Streicheln mit Lust, Umarmen und Streicheln , dann macht das nichts, selbst wenn sie ein Säugling ist. .

Wenn er mit ihr vor ihrem 9. Lebensjahr verkehrt und sie dabei nicht entjungfert hat, dann erwächst ihm daraus nichts, als dass er schlimmstenfalls eine Sünde begangen hat (d..h wohl keine diyyah). Doch wenn er sie entjungfert hat, so dass Urin- und Mensis ausgang einer geworden ist i, oder wenn Mensis- und Darmausgang einer geworden ist, dann ist es ihm für immer verboten, mit ihr zu verkehren, und vorsichtshalber im 2. Fall. Doch auf jeden Fall tritt sie nicht aus dem Ehestatus mit ihm aus im schlimmsten Fall , und die Erbgesetze gelten für sie, und auch das Verbot, eine 5. (Frau zu heiraten) , das Verbot, ihre Schwester neben ihr zu heiraten und ähnliches, und er muss für sie sorgen, so lange sie am Leben ist. Doch wenn er sich von ihr scheidet, sie nach der Scheidung geheiratet hat, dann ist er als Vorsichtsmaßnahme seiner Verantwortung damit nicht ledig , und ihm obliegt die Entschädiungszahlung für (unerlaubte )Entjungferung, und das ist die Entschädigungszahlung für das (zu Unrecht getötete) Leben. Wenn sie eine freie Frau war, dann ist das die Hälfte des Blutgeldes für einen Mann, zusätzlich zur Morgengabe (mahr), die ihr durch den Ehebund und die erste eheliche Beiwohnung zusteht, und wenn er mit seiner Frau nach Vollendung ihres 9. Lebensjahrs Verkehr hatte und sie entjungfert hat , dann ist sie ihm nicht verboten und es wird auch kein Blutgeld festgesetzt , aber vorsichtshalber Unterhalt , solange s ie am Leben ist..." der Rest ist unter dem leider nicht mehr zugreifbaren Link.

 

 

 

http://www.wilayah.ir/ar/library/books/tah...tahrir25.php#a7

بشهوة و الضم و التفخيذ فلا بأس بها حتى فى الرضيعة ، و لو وطأها قبل التسع و لم يفضها لم يترتب عليه شى‏ء غير الاثم على الاقوى ، و إن أفضاها بأن جعل مسلكى البول و الحيض واحدا أو مسلكى الحيض و الغائط واحدا حرم عليه وطؤها أبدا لكن على الاحوط فى الصورة الثانية ، و على أي حال لم تخرج عن زوجيته على الاقوى ، فيجري عليها أحكامها من التوارث و حرمة الخامسة و حرمة أختها معها و غيرها ، و يجب عليه نفقتها مادامت حية و إن طلقها بل و إن تزوجت بعد الطلاق على الاحوط ، بل لا يخلو من قوة ، و يجب عليه دية الافضاء ، و هى دية النفس ، فإذا كانت حرة فلها نصف دية الرجل مضافا إلى المهر الذي استحقته بالعقد و الدخول ، و لو دخل بزوجته بعد إكمال التسع فأفضاها لم تحرم عليه و لم تثبت الدية ، و لكن الاحوط الانفاق عليها مادامت حية و إن كان الاقوى عدم الوجوب

Vergleichen wir die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen:

 

"Ein Mann darf sexuelles Vergnügen mit einem Kind haben, welches so jung wie ein Baby ist. Jedoch sollte er nicht (vaginal) in sie eindringen, doch ist das anale Beiwohnen in Ordnung.

 

 

Das steht da nicht!

 

Wenn der Mann jedoch (vaginal) in sie eindringt und das Kind beschädigt (entjungfert) sollte er für immer verantwortlich für ihren Lebensunterhalt sein. Dieses Mädchen zählt jedoch nicht zu einer seiner vier ständigen Frauen. Es kommt für den Mann nicht in Frage die Schwester dieses Mädchens zu heiraten." Zitat Ende.

 

Es steht hier also mit keinem Wort, dass der Mann dem Mädchen etwas tun darf oder vor Vollendung des 9. Lebensjahrs mit ihr verkehren darf! Die Regelungen sind nur für den Fall, in dem sozusagen das Kind bereits in den Brunnen gefallen ist.

 

Insha´allah trägt das ein wenig zur Klärung bei.

 

[Guest Rajaa]

Salam ...

 

für mich ist da gerade eine Unklarheit: Konnte / kann man Mädchen praktisch ab der Geburt heiraten? Wie ist es dann mit der Zustimmung des Mädchens zu dieser Ehe? Wie war das geregelt, bzw. wie ist das heute? Weiss jemand etwas darüber?

 

Wassalam

Rajaa

[Guest Fatima]

 

Man darf nicht vergessen, dass die Fataawa aus eine Zeit stammen, wo es noch normal war, dass Mädchen früher reiften als heute, in manchen Gegenden der Welt ist es heute noch so. Es darf ja ohnehin kein Verkehr stattfinden, wenn das Mädchen die 9 Jahre noch nicht vollendet hat. So war es ja auch bei Aisha, wie sunnitische Quellen zeigen.

Die Ehe ist dann sahih, wenn das Mädchen im Alter der religiösen Verpflichtung, als ab 9 Mondjahren, seine Zustimmung gibt. Erst dann kann sie ja überhaupt vollzogen werden.

 

[Guest Rajaa]

Salam ...

 

ja, das ist auch einsichtig, mir war nur das mit der Zustimmung des Mädchens nicht klar, also dass die dann nachgeholt wird und das Mädchen sich entscheiden kann.

 

Mir fällt dazu spontan ein, dass ich mit 9 Jahren einen durchaus ernst gemeinten Heiratsantrag von einem etliche Jahre älteren Jungen aus der Nachbarschaft bekommen habe, ich glaube er war da 15 oder 16. (Letztens fiel mir das Foto in die Hände, auf dem ich mit der Rose drauf bin, die er mir dazu geschenkt hat, ich sitze da nett davor, mit Zöpfen und einer Handarbeit beschäftigt. )

 

Unter anderen Bedingungen - andere Sitten in einem anderen Land - wäre da vielleicht durchaus was draus geworden aus diesem Antrag. Man kann jedenfalls nicht immer davon ausgehen, was man hier + jetzt so vor Augen hat!

 

Wassalam

Rajaa

[Batul 13]

 

Ich muss hier noch mal nachfragen, wie es sein kann, dass ein Mädchen im Alter von 9 (Mond)jahren islamisch gesehen schon heiraten darf. Ich empfinde dieses Alter aus vielerlei hinsichten viel zu jung. Ich meine, wenn ich mich so zurückerinnere an die Zeit, in der ich 9 Jahre alt war, da hatte ich alles andere im Kopf, aber bestimmt nicht das andere Geschlecht geschweige denn die Heirat, und wenn mich meine Freundinnen nicht getäuscht haben, dann war das bei den meisten jedenfalls so oder so ähnlich. Abgesehen von der geschlechtreife und der Einwilligung zu einer Heirat, kann ich nicht verstehen, warum dies erlaubt sein sollte, da ein Mädchen in dem Alter idR nicht genug Lebenserfahrung hat, um ein eigenständiges Heim zu führen, und die Versorgung der Familie zu sichern...Ich habe damit einfach ein Problem dies zu verstehen wieso das akzeptal sein kann ein Mädchen in so einem Alter, dass eventuell noch mit Puppen spielt, zu verheiraten. Das unser Prophet Aisha im Alter von neun Jahren geheiratet hat, empfinde ich wieder als zwei Paar Schuhe, da das wie Schwester Fatima erwähnt hat, eine ganz andere Zeit war, in der die Menschen einfach früher reif wurden. Außerdem war diese Heirat eine Art göttliches Gebot. Aber kann man das so leicht auf unsere heutige Zeit an jedem Ort übertragen?

Vielleicht kann mir jemand aus dieser Verwirrung raushelfen. Ich wäre euch auf alle Fälle sehr sehr dankbar.

 

Liebe Grüße

 

 

Batul

[Guest Rajaa]

Salam ...

 

ich denke, es ist als die unterste Grenze angegeben, WENN alle anderen Bedingungen stimmen (körperliche Reife, geistiges Einverständnis, allgemein in der jeweiligen Gesellschaft entsprechend frühes Heiratsalter usw. usw.).

 

Jeder liebevolle gute muslimische Vater wird einer Ehe seiner Tochter nur dann zustimmen, wenn es zu ihrem Wohl ist und sie es möchte, alles andere ist unislamisch! Und zwar auch dann, wenn man zu einer Zeit und in einem Land lebt, in dem so frühe Ehen üblich sind. Das ist ja seine Pflicht. Nur weil das unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen die Untergrenze ist, bedeutet es ja nicht, dass man es tun "muss". Ich glaube, es gibt aktuell auch kein Land, in dem so frühe Ehen vorkommen.

 

Wassalam

Rajaa

[Yamin Naqvi 13]

Abgesehen von der geschlechtreife und der Einwilligung zu einer Heirat, kann ich nicht verstehen, warum dies erlaubt sein sollte, da ein Mädchen in dem Alter idR nicht genug Lebenserfahrung hat, um ein eigenständiges Heim zu führen, und die Versorgung der Familie zu sichern...

 

 

dazu ist sie garnicht verpflichtet. Der Ehemann ist dazu verpflichtet. Wenn sie es trotzdem macht, ist es gut und sie verdient sich so sehr viel Hasanahs. Schade, dass viele immer noch glauben, die Ehefrau sei für die Führung des Heims verpflichtet. Sie ist zu nichts verpflichtet im Islam, nicht mal zum Kochen.

 

Das einzige, wozu sie verpflichtet ist, ist die sexuelle Befriedigung ihres Ehemannes zu gewährleisten - dazu ist er aber auch verpflichtet, im Umkehrschluss. Im Islam gleicht der Status der Ehefrau, der einer Königin. Leider wird dies aber selten in die Realität umgesetzt.

 

[Guest Fatima]

Abgesehen von der geschlechtreife und der Einwilligung zu einer Heirat, kann ich nicht verstehen, warum dies erlaubt sein sollte, da ein Mädchen in dem Alter idR nicht genug Lebenserfahrung hat, um ein eigenständiges Heim zu führen, und die Versorgung der Familie zu sichern...

 

 

dazu ist sie garnicht verpflichtet. Der Ehemann ist dazu verpflichtet. Wenn sie es trotzdem macht, ist es gut und sie verdient sich so sehr viel Hasanahs. Schade, dass viele immer noch glauben, die Ehefrau sei für die Führung des Heims verpflichtet. Sie ist zu nichts verpflichtet im Islam, nicht mal zum Kochen.

 

Das einzige, wozu sie verpflichtet ist, ist die sexuelle Befriedigung ihres Ehemannes zu gewährleisten - dazu ist er aber auch verpflichtet, im Umkehrschluss. Im Islam gleicht der Status der Ehefrau, der einer Königin. Leider wird dies aber selten in die Realität umgesetzt.

 

 

 

Danke für diesen wunderschönen Beitrag. Insha´allah wirst du mit deiner Frau in Dunja und Akhira glücklich .

Im Islam gleicht der Status der Ehefrau, der einer Königin. Leider wird dies aber selten in die Realität umgesetzt.

 

Leider selten ,aber solche Ehemänner gibt es doch! Einen mindestens kenn ich persönlich