Ask a Shia

[Karbala]

In His Name the most High,


Salamun Alaikum


Hadji:


It has become a habit of yours to pick out and quote Shia scholars in order to discredit the whole Shia system. You are free to do so. Infact I admit that people like Sayed Khoei are major Ulema of our Madhab. But can I request something. Any quotes should either be in english or translated into english since I have a hard time with arabic. If not then you will have to wait a while while I try and get it translated. (ps can you give me the exact quote by Al-Khoei because I cant find it.)

These are what knowledgable translators have done with the verses.

These "knowledgeable" translators are mostly belonging to the Sunni creed. Since you object when I bring Shia translators its only fair that I shouldnt accept Sunni translation. Ive told you before I don't blindly follow people I prefer to see things with my own eyes.

According to these translations it is without a doubt that the verse is talking about the same group of people.

Do you doubt that "innama" can mean <b> But, Rather, On the Contrary, However, Yet </b> as defined in certain dictionaries? If you use these words then it is clear that the verse is excluding the wives since "innama" qualifies the previous statement hence "on the contrary" must be referring to the switching from wives to AhlulBayt.


Consider the following sentence.


"Jack is a good boy, <b>on the contrary</b> the rest of you are bad boys".


"Jack is a good boy, <b>Rather</b> the rest of you are bad boys".


"Jack is a good boy, <b>But</b> the rest of you are bad boys".


"Jack is a good boy, <b>However</b> the rest of you are bad boys".


"Jack is a good boy, <b>Yet</b> the rest of you are bad boys".


First part and second part of the sentence are connected while jack is excluded from the rest of the group. This is similar to the way I am interpreting "innama" and 33:33.


Hence 'Innama' can definitely be used to distinguish one group from another. If you object then there are numerous verses in the Quran to prove this.


The idolaters have no right to visit the mosques of Allah while bearing witness to unbelief against themselves, these it is whose doings are null, and in the fire shall they abide. Only <b>(Innama)</b> he shall visit the mosques of Allah who believes in Allah and the latter day, and keeps up prayer and pays the poor-rate and fears none but Allah; so (as for) these, it may be that they are of the followers of the right course. (Surat Tauba 17-18)


Are the idolators not excluded from the believers using the particle "innama"? Is this not a correct grammatical interpretation?


Surely he has no authority over those who believe and rely on their Lord. His authority is only <b>(Innama)</b> over those who befriend him and those who associate others with Him. (Surat An-Nahl 99-10)


Are the believers not separated from the friends of Shaitan using "innama"? Or according to you does the context demand that the friends of Shaitan be included amongst the believers?

[Karbala]

No, but according to my logic, it is senseless to ask the Prophet (pbuh) to be included in Ahlul-Bayt if you already are considered to be one of them by Allah (swt).

I dont understand? Umm Salamah asked to be included within the Kisa. So according to your logic why would she even ask if she already was included in AhlulBayt. Your logic just doesn't follow.

Why are verses 28-34 all talking about the Prophet's (pbuh) wives? Even verse 33 according to Shi'ites starts off talking about the wives. Why didn't Allah (swt) put the latter portion of verse 33 anywhere else in to Qur'an to avoid all this confusion?

This is a similar question to why the phrase "This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion;" is placed in the middle of 5:3. As I said Parenthetical phrases are not uncommon in the Quran. Just because the wives are mentioned the verse before and afterwards does not logically conclude that the wives MUST be included in AhlulBayt.

Why have Shi'tes struggled through time in order to prove that the latter part of 33 is not talking about the wives? Some scholars have went as far as to say that the Qur'an has been fabricated.

Bring me a quote in english and I will think about it. The unanimous opinion of all Shi'ite scholars as far as I have read is that there is no fabrication in the Quran. Such a belief will make one a non-muslim.

Nuh (as) didn't ask Allah (swt) to make his son a part of his ahl. He asked Allah (swt) to save his son who was being arrogant and thought that he could escape the wrath of Allah (swt). His situation and the situation of those that you consider as Ahlul-bayt aren't similar at all.

Read the verses brother. Nuh did not say "save my son" he said "My Lord! surely my son is of my Ahl". Allah then says "O Nuh! surely he is not of your Ahl".


Compare the the words of the Prophet(saw) when he says اللهم هؤلاء أهل بيتي، "Oh Allah these are my Ahlulbayt". If the verse 33:33 did not already include Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain, Allah should have replied to the Prophet in the same way Allah did to Nuh.

Inniki ala khair doesn't mean "you aren't included"...

It doesnt mean that she was included either. It makes more sense if it means she wasn't included. otherwise why didn't the Prophet(saw) just say "Yes you are of my AhlulBayt, just stay where you are".

Strange. I wasn't aware that the Shi'ites believed in adoption...

Ever heard of Zaid ibn Muhammad (Zaid ibn Haarithah)? Although it is Haram to call someone your son if you not their biological father after the Quranic commandment.

Please have some objectivity Karbala. I believe that some people get so close to their faiths that no matter what they see, they will choose to stick to their views without question. Try being as objective as possible before you get there and I promise that I will try my best to do the same.

Inshallah I will try to remain as objective as possible. May I urge you to do the same. just because I do not agree with you doesn't mean I am being close-minded. I hope we can learn more from each other.

[Karbala]

Well, I should stop because usually I use my brain and I explained to you from a native Arabic speaker viewpoint, which I verified with Tafseer of Shaarawi (if u have heard about him), besides being a prominent scholar, he is an excellent one in the Arabic language, the part of 33:33 has nothing to do with calling Fatma and her household as ma`soum Karbala.

It is true you are a native arabic speaker and I am not. What more can I do? I consulted arabic grammar books, dictionaries and other arabic native speakers as well as numerous examples in the Quran. I can either believe you or I can believe my own research. What do you suggest I do? I have not heard of Tafsir of Shaarawi. I do not blindly follow scholars. Tell me WHY you think Shaarawi is right? What are his REASONS?


33:33 has everything to do with Fatima and her household as Ma'soom as hadith Al-Kisa proves.

I m still on my position Karbala, but the problem is that u dont want to see this side, since it really serves as basic foundation.

Just because I don't agree with your position does not mean that there is a problem.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom


I never meant that just because u dont agree with me there is a problem Karbala, nor do I mean that u have to believe Tafseer Sharawy. However, also I made another post which is really how I feel. Which is i see the enemy is just pushing hard for us to stand and argue over who are really the Messenger's household, although this is not a a`qida foundation. Aqida means Tawheed of Allah's Names, Attributes, Tawheed in every aspect of our lives.


However, again because i use my mind, hadeeth al kisa is correct, whether or not it includes the wives, is your issue. The Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam asking Umm Salama to keep in her position because she is on Khair means she does not need this. Rijs is sins, filth...etc.


But did u think when did this hadeeth take place. It was after all of his daughters (sorry they are all his) died including also his only grandson Ruqqiyah and only Ummamah was left who was also the daughter of Othman. Thus, at that time he didnt have any other children but Fatima and her household.


Regarding the wives, as I said, this is how u understand it, one of the Quran miracles is that each one of us can understand according to his/her level of intellict.


But just to conclude this issue for me, how exactly they are Ma`soum? I mean in which sense. Because of many things proved in hadeeth.


Haji, I was going to make the same comment about the adoption issue, but thought they might be thinking that the Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam did adopt them befor Ayah of Tahreem of adoption was revealed in Ahzab as well, which of course was revealed after their birth, it was the time of marrying Zainab Bint Jahsh when he adopted Zaid. BTW Karbal, Zaid is the only companion whose name was clearly stated in Quran. Dont u see this as a very special rank unlike anyone else????

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom Karbala


Here is Sharway's Tafseer:


http://www.elsharawy.com/books.aspx?mstart...28&mend=1033035


U can read Arabic, right?


and pls re read post = 148

[Karbala]

Which is i see the enemy is just pushing hard for us to stand and argue over who are really the Messenger's household, although this is not a a`qida foundation. Aqida means Tawheed of Allah's Names, Attributes, Tawheed in every aspect of our lives.

Inshallah this discussion will simply serve to create mutual awareness. Sunnis and Shias are united on Tawheed. If you understand where the Shia come from then hopefully you can respect us and help the Ummah move forward.

The Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam asking Umm Salama to keep in her position because she is on Khair means she does not need this. Rijs is sins, filth...etc.

This interpretation is hard to accept because then you are saying that someone like Ali or Fatima needed to be purified of Rijs while Umm Salamah does not. This in turn makes Umm Salamah superior to Ali or Fatima. As far as I am aware in Sunni literature Umm Salamah is definitely not considered above Ali or Fatima.


Consider this hadith in Durr al-Manthur by Al-Suyuti.


وأخرج ابن جرير وابن أبي حاتم والطبراني عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " نزلت هذه الآية في خمسة: فيّ، وفي علي، وفاطمة، وحسن، وحسين، { إنما يريد الله ليذهب عنكم الرجس أهل البيت ويطهركم تطهيراً } ".


The hadith clearly says the verse was revealed about 5 people Mohammad, Ali, Fatima, Hassan and Hussain. I dont see how much clearer it can get?

But just to conclude this issue for me, how exactly they are Ma`soum? I mean in which sense. Because of many things proved in hadeeth.

Ma'soom in the sense they are sinless. I would like to read these hadith if you will provide them.

BTW Karbal, Zaid is the only companion whose name was clearly stated in Quran. Dont u see this as a very special rank unlike anyone else????

Zaid ibn Haarithah is a respected companion of the Prophet(saw). But I don't think Shia give him any specific importance just because he is mentioned in Quran. He is mentioned in Al-Ahzab:37 regarding adoption and calling sons by their biological fathers names.

[Hadji]

Bring me a quote in english and I will think about it. The unanimous opinion of all Shi'ite scholars as far as I have read is that there is no fabrication in the Quran. Such a belief will make one a non-muslim.

Why don't you just do what you normally do and use a dictionary? Do you consider Ni'matallah Aljaza'iri, Al Majlisi, Al Qummi, Al Khoie, and Al Kulaini as non-muslims...?

[Hadji]

http://www.aljaafaria.com/kotob/minhaj02/KH0074.HTM


Here is the jist of it.

[Karbala]

Salam,

Why don't you just do what you normally do and use a dictionary? Do you consider Ni'matallah Aljaza'iri, Al Majlisi, Al Qummi, Al Khoie, and Al Kulaini as non-muslims...?

OK but it may take a while. It would just be easier for me if someone translated into english. These scholars are all highly acclaimed by Shia. You see I am a bit suspicious about Al-Khoei ever doubting the perfect arrangement of the Quran or quoting opinions from Al- Kulaini and Al-Majlisi or Al-Qummi. The reason for this is that he has written a whole book confirming the authenticity of the Quran in its present form http://al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/


There are traditions of Tahreef from people Like Al-Kulaini and Al-Majlisi. But these arent the opinions of the authors but simply included for comprehensiveness. Nevertheless I will read the link you gave me. It may take me a while but Inshallah Ill get there.


Muslimah:


Thanks for the link. It may take me a while to read it but inshallah ill get there. I read your post 148 and you are right in everything you say. I interpret the quran according to the best of my ability just like you do. If there is one thing we can perhaps agree on is that Shia and Sunni both deserve to respect each other as muslims and not get into the takfeeri mess that has plagued the Ummah. We are all lovers of Allah and His final Messenger the best of creations Mohammad(saw).

[Hadji]

You see I am a bit suspicious about Al-Khoei ever doubting the perfect arrangement of the Quran or quoting opinions from Al- Kulaini and Al-Majlisi or Al-Qummi. The reason for this is that he has written a whole book confirming the authenticity of the Quran in its present form http://al-islam.org/tahrif_quran/

Yes, you see, I am suspicious as well. I've known of this book for a while and a Shi'ite neighbor of mine directed me to the same link once. Click on Third Doubt under Chapter 9.

Third Doubt
It is said that there are some widely reported and continuous reports from the Ahl ul-Bayt (‘a) which indicate the tampering having occurred.


The fact is that there is no indication in those reports to prove Tahrif in the sense which has been a subject of debate. Again, most of them are weak, reported from the book by Ahmed b. Muhammad As‑Sayari who has been acknowledged by all scholars of rijal as one of corrupt beliefs, like that he believed in reincarnation. Some of them are taken from Ali b. Ahmed al‑Kufi who has been described by the scholars of rijal as "kadhab" a liar; and that his beliefs were corrupt. Of course, the abundance of certain reports from Masumin (peace be upon them) gives us enough reason to presume that they have been correctly attributed. Among them are traditions which have been reliably reported, and therefore we do not see any need to go into the details of their authenticity.

Well, anyways, I found that interesting. Any comments?