Kumpulan Diskusi billionaire

Originally posted by billionaire at 2004-1-22 07:04:
salam
we could see apparently that someone is trying to cause us hardtimes. So i cant but have to take precautious action before it turns even worst. So this is the grand finale to my enjoyful mom ...

..aik!!! Bila dah tak boleh nak jawab lagi dan dah habis idea dari jadian burung belatok... maka siBill pun nak menghilangkan diri!!!

..Kesian kat dia!!!  kenapa tak terjawab pertanyaan sdr moasri? Itu belum lagi tok guru dia...:cool:

Originally posted by billionaire at 5-1-2004 06:52 PM:
salam

mari kita cuba lihat tajuk ini. kalau orang2 Syiah ada dalilnya utk mengikuti Ahlul Bait a.s seperti dalil dari hadis Tsaqalain "Kitabullah dan Ithrahku, Ahlul Baitku" (muslim, A ...

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH, I pray that this reaches you all in the best of health and iman.

I have always wondered why, in our discussions, do we tend to lose our cool and become incited by differences of opinions. Whereas, if it was purely a matter of searching for the truth, a difference in opinion should only have encouraged us to review our own opinions, rather than provoke us. In my opinion, the reason is that we, generally do not go through the process of 'understanding'. We only follow what has previously been (presumably) understood by our ancestors. Thus, in our minds, the understanding of our ancestors is no longer, merely, an 'understanding' with a chance that it may be incorrect, but is as authentic as the Qur'an itself (that is, only if we believe the Qur'an to be authentic at all).

Nevertheless, ignoring your baseless comments, I would only like to give my opinion and the basis of that opinion, regarding the verses of the Qur'an and the narratives that you have cited.

You state:
If you read Qur'an you will find their special status indicated in Qur'an 33:33... in which they purified with a thorough purification.

The word 'Ahl' in the Arabic language is a masculine word. It is because of this reason that the pronouns used for the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' are masculine. Such gender is not real but is actually a linguistic gender in its nature. Thus, the masculine gender of the pronouns used for the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' do not, in any way, hinder interpreting the phrase for 'the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) - the revered mothers of the believers'. Just take a look at the verse under consideration, in its proper context. Al-Ahzaab 33: 28 - 34 reads as follows:

O Prophet, say to your wives: If you seek the life of this world and its pleasures, come I shall make provision for you and release you in the best of manners. But if you seek [the pleasures of] God and His apostle and the [blessings of the] life hereafter, know that God has prepared a great reward for those among you who act in the best of manners. O wives of the Prophet, those who are guilty of clear lewdness, from among you, shall be doubly punished. That is extremely easy for God. But those who are obedient to God and His messenger, from among you, and do good deeds, We shall doubly reward her and for her We have made a rich provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear God, then do not be overly complacent in your speech [with others], lest a flame of desire may light in the heart of the lecherous. And speak [to them] discreetly. And stay in your houses and do not display your adornments as was done in the days of ignorance, of old. And establish regular prayer and pay Zaka'h and obey Allah and His messenger. O household [of the Prophet], God only desires to remove all uncleanness from you and to completely purify you. And, [O wives of the Prophet,] adhere to the remembrance of what is being recited in your dwellings from the signs [or verses] of God and His wisdom. Indeed, God is fully aware of even the minutest.

Any one can see that the implication of the underlined phrase 'household' ("Ahl al-Bayet" in Arabic) in the above context can only be the 'wives of the Prophet'. When all the directives surrounding the phrase are meant only for the wives of the Prophet, how could the phrase 'household of the Prophet', which is actually a part of a verse, which describes the reason and the wisdom of the directives that precede and succeed it, be taken to imply anyone besides the wives.
Thus, it is quite obvious that the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' in the cited verses is meant only for the wives of the Prophet.

With reference to Qur'an 42:23 in which their love is required of us, and finally Qur'an 5:55.

Let us first take Al-Shooraa 42:23. The verse reads as:
Such is God's promise to His servants, who believe and do good deeds. Say: For this I demand of you no recompense. I ask you only to love the kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. God is forgiving and bountiful in His rewards.

I really do not know what exactly do you intend to prove from this verse. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that it has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the 'Ahl al-Bayet' or their status with reference to being a source of Islam.

Al-Maaidah 5: 55 reads as:
Indeed, your true friends are only Allah, His Prophet and those who have believed, who establish regular prayer, pay Zaka'h and those who remain bowed [to God's will].

Once again, it should be quite clear for the reader that the verse has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' or their position as a source of Islam.

Nevertheless, what our absolutely 'neutral' friend is trying to prove is that there is a narrative according to which, the qualities mentioned in this verse are actually those of Ali (ra). I have absolutely no doubt that Ali (ra) was indeed one of the many companions of the Prophet (pbuh), who fulfilled the qualities mentioned in the cited verse. However, we should not forget that the point under discussion is not whether Ali (ra) is amongst those mentioned in the verse. On the contrary, the point actually is whether the 'Ahl al-Bayet' of the Prophet (pbuh) are a source of Islam or not. Obviously, the cited verse is not even remotely related with the point under debate.

...to be continued..

Wallahu A'lam bi As-Sawab! Wasalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH..

Originally posted by Mat Kampong at 27-1-2004 04:39 PM:
..to be continued......

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH, I pray that this reaches you all in the best of health and iman.

The above discussion clearly shows that our friend has based his opinion regarding the sources of Islam purely on narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The opinion has absolutely no basis in the Qur'an. In fact, our friend had stated in his posting:
I am wondering if you are aware of the famous hadith al-thaqalyn (two weighty things), which the Prophet (saawaws) said he left for us on his last pilgrimage. He clearly and specifically said "Qur'an and Ahlul Bait." He NEVER said Qur'an and Sunnah. This hadith is present in ONLY ONE book (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim), has ONLY ONE narrator and is regarded as WEAK by the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim. It is NOT present in ANY of the Sahih Sittah. You are welcome to verify this. The "Quran/Ahlul Bait" version is present in 5/6 Sahih Sittah and its tawatur and isnad is not questioned. Of course, all Muslims must follow the Sunnah, but the Prophet (s) clearly tells us here who carries it.

The above statements clearly imply the fact that the opinion, which holds the 'Ahl al-Bayet' to be a source of Islam is not based on the Qur'an, but tries to find support from narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) - i.e. Hadith. Thus, it would seem pertinent that the particular narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), termed as 'Hadith al-thaqalayn' by our 'neutral' friend should be briefly analyzed, before any decisions are derived from it.

In the more accepted compilations of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn' has been reported by Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Daarimiy. Another important aspect to note about the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn' is that it has been narrated in two different versions.

In one of these versions, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
'I am going to leave in you two heavy burdens[1]. The first of them is the Book of Allah in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it'. Then he [i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)] prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: 'And my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household[2].'

Note:
[1] - Implying, in my opinion, two heavy responsibilities.
[2] - The phrase: "I remind you of God in matters relating to my household", implies that the Muslims should not forsake them and should always be respectful toward them. The repetition of the directive is to stress its importance.

This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) by Muslim, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Daarimiy. An important thing to note about the words ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in this version is that it does not place the 'Ahl al-Bayet' at the level of being a source of Islam. It only directs the Muslims to refrain from adopting an uncalled for attitude toward them. Obviously, the words: "I remind you of God, in matters relating to my household", can in no way be construed to imply that the Prophet intended to give his household the position of the source of Islam, parallel to that of the Qur'an. Thus, this version, obviously, is not of much use for those who would like to establish that the two sources of Islam are the Qur'an and the 'Ahl al-Bayet'.

In the second version of the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn', the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
I have left in you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray - The book of God and my progeny - i.e. my Ahl al-Bayet.
This version, with some variation has been narrated by Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Following are the chain of narrators of this version of the narrative:
A) The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes Nasr ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi - Zayed ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy - Ja`fer ibn Mohammed - Mohammed ibn Ali ibn Hussain...
The second person in the chain is Zayed ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his book "Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal" has quoted Abu Haatim as saying that Zayed is 'Munkir al-Hadith' - i.e. Zayed narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Ibn Hajar has considered him to be Dha'eef - i.e. a weak or an unreliable narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the said narrative, does not consider it to be 'Sahih'. On the contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that this narrative is 'Hasan' (which is less than 'Sahih') and is Ghareeb - i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized.

B) The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is: Al-Aswad ibn `aamir - Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek - Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy' -- Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan - Zayed ibn Thaabit...
The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa'eed has considered him 'extremely unreliable' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that his father said: 'I have noticed confusion in Shareek's principles' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa'eed replied: "He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused" (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: 'Narratives of Shareek are worthless' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says: '[Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating, [was] prejudiced' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa'eed al-Jauhariy says: 'Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred narratives' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu'een says: When Shareek's narratives contradict with someone else's, the other person is preferable to me' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal).
The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari says: 'His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and abominable) and nothing is known about him' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: 'nothing is known about him' (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).

C) The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is: Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy - Mohammed ibn Fudhayl - Al-A'mash - 'Atiyyah - Abu Sa'eed.
The first and the second narrator in this chain i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy and Mohammed ibn Fudhayl are both known to be Shi'ahs (i.e. Shiites). It is an established principle of most of the scholars of Hadith that if the content of a narrative is peculiar to a particular school of thought (as is the case in this narrative), then such a narrative would not be acceptable, if it is narrated by a person who ascribes to such a school (Al-Kifaayah fi'ilm al-Riwaayah). Besides this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not being liked by his contemporaries. (Dhu'afaa al-'Uqayliy). Moreover, Mohammed ibn Sa'd has said that 'his narratives are not considered by many to evidence a true saying of the Prophet (pbuh)' (Siyar A'laam al-Nubalaa).
The fourth narrator in this chain is 'Atiyyah ibn Sa'd. Yahya ibn Mu'een considers him to be dha'eef - i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa'eed (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Abu Dawood says: 'He cannot be trusted' (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).

Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith (cited above).

In view of the cited criticism on the chain of narrators of this narrative, it is obvious that no one can safely ascribe this saying to the Prophet (pbuh). It is, therefore, very respectfully submitted to our friend to kindly provide the chain of narrators, which in his opinion is clear of criticism and on the basis of which, this narrative can safely be ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh).

Wallahu A'lam bi As-Sawab! Wasalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH..

[ Last edited by Mat Kampong on 27-1-2004 at 06:42 PM ]

Oranggunung

Aku tidak mewakili sesiapa cuma mewakili aku. Mencari kebenaran ini memangnya sukar dengan jalan yang berliku-liku dan setelah terlepasnya dari belengu kejahilan turun temurun maka tiada yang dapat memisahkan aku dari berpegang padanya. Terima kasih Bill atas setiap hujah mu yang mantap dan penuh pemikiran keintelektualan menyanggahi pemikiran lawan. Mungkin atas ketidakmampuan mereka mematahkan hujah mu maka jalan Muawiyah lah yang di turuti. Aku salut pada sahabat-sahabat yang lain kerana dengan tangan yang terikat dan gerakan yang sentiasa di intip namun masih kental mempertahankan kebenaran petunjuk Ahlul-Bait. Semoga Allah memberikan mereka Hidayah sebagaimana Allah memberikan Hidayah pada Pencinta-Pencinta Ahlul-Bait.

nahzaluz

Bila nak pergi Karbala'?
Najaf pergi juga ke?
Kalau pergi, saya nak bagitau, kubur tu bukan kubur S. Ali. Kalau tak percaya tanya AB sendiri. Jgn tanya penjaga kubur. Dia cari makan jer...

moasri

Salam,

Nahzaluz....nanti leh dapat sijil ini mcm....

irfani

Originally posted by Oranggunung at 27-1-2004 11:23 PM:
Aku tidak mewakili sesiapa cuma mewakili aku. Mencari kebenaran ini memangnya sukar dengan jalan yang berliku-liku dan setelah terlepasnya dari belengu kejahilan turun temurun maka tiada yang dapat ...

Kita akan melihat dengan jenakanya bagaimanakah jalan yang penuh emosi  itu dapat membantu mereka memadamkan cahaya kebenaran yang penuh dengan bukti-bukti dan petunjuk.Bukan kenyataan yang kosong yang gelap.

Semoga Allah melimpahkan rahmat kepada Bill dan sekelian pencinta kebenaran.

[ Last edited by irfani on 28-1-2004 at 11:57 PM ]

nahzaluz

Ia bukan bahan jenaka Irfani. Ia adalah hakikat Syiah yang anda ikut sekarang. Atas nama AB mereka telah memperdaya anda, sedangkan anda tidak tahu. Mereka tunjukkan kepada anda yang nampak baik, yang anda boleh terima tetapi yang lain-lain mereka tak beritahu kepada anda.

Anda kena melihat Syiah itu secara keseluruhan.

WA.

nahzaluz

moasri,

Rupa-rupanya Syiah ambil kesempatan buat duit hasil dari ziarah kubur. 15 dinar. Banyak juga tu. Kalau duit kita berapa hah? I dinar berapa ringgit? Saper tahu?

Mungkin ada dua jenis penziarah. Satu tak mahu sijil. Satu lagi nak sijil buat kenang-kenangan. Jadi kalau nak sijil mungkin kena bayar.

Apapun kita tanya orang gunung bila dia balik dar Karbala' nanti.

irfani

Nahzalulz:Ia bukan bahan jenaka Irfani. Ia adalah hakikat Syiah yang anda ikut sekarang. Atas nama AB mereka telah memperdaya anda, sedangkan anda tidak tahu. Mereka tunjukkan kepada anda yang nampak baik, yang anda boleh terima tetapi yang lain-lain mereka tak beritahu kepada anda.

Anda kena melihat Syiah itu secara keseluruhan.

Irfani:kami bersedia untuk mendengar hakikat yang anda maksudkan itu,tetapi anda sepanjang pemerhatian saya tidak pun menjawab persoalan-persoalan penting yang diutarakan dan jawapan yang anda dan sahabat-sahabt anda berikan masih tidak memuaskan hati seoarng pencari kebenaran,bahkan jauh dari itu anda menggunakan kebebasan yang ada dalam forum ini untuk merendah-rendahkan orang lain,bahkan ia bukanlah sesuatu yang dibenarkan dalam Islam.

Jika anda mempunyai hujah untuk dibincangkan utarakanlah..dan anda tidak sepatutnya memutuskan sesuatu itu benar atau salah sebelum anda mengemukakan bukti,dan adalah lebih baik disini untuk membahaskan tentang itu daripada tindakan-tindakan anda untuk menjatuhkan seseorang atau sesuatu kumpulan yang jelas hanya membuat onar dan perpecahan dalam sesebuah masyarakat.

Atau mungkinkah saya perlu membuat kesimpulan anda dan sahabat-sahabt anda memang begitu dan manhaj anda memang begitu,dan seharusnya kami hanya membiarkan anda dengan rengekkan-renggekkan dan kata-kata kosong anda itu.

Kami telah pun mengemukakan bukti dan menerangkan hakikat-hakikat keputusan kami.Dengan itu anda seharusnya memikirkan,apakah anda Mk,moasri dan Tp,fikir orang yang dapat mendengar dan melihat adalah sama dengan orang yang buta dan tuli.Apakah orang yang mempunyai bukti dan saksi adalah sama dengan orang yang bercakap kosong dengan penuh emosi dan merendah-rendahkan orang...?

Anda perlu sedar ia tidk membantu apa-apa pun dalam forum ini,dan kami  tidak berminat dengan manhaj sedemikian.Manhaj kami adalah berdasarkan kepada keikhlasan dan kecintaan kepada Allah dan Rasul-Nya,segala langkah yang kami lakukan berdasarkan itu.

Posting anda ini adalah sebagai satu contoh yang meyedihkan yang tidak sepatutnya dibincangkan disini:

moasri,

Rupa-rupanya Syiah ambil kesempatan buat duit hasil dari ziarah kubur. 15 dinar. Banyak juga tu. Kalau duit kita berapa hah? I dinar berapa ringgit? Saper tahu?

Mungkin ada dua jenis penziarah. Satu tak mahu sijil. Satu lagi nak sijil buat kenang-kenangan. Jadi kalau nak sijil mungkin kena bayar.

Apapun kita tanya orang gunung bila dia balik dar Karbala' nanti.

Irfani:Apakah adil berkata sedemikian tanpa menegmukakan bukti?

moasri

Salam,

Irfani:Apakah adil berkata sedemikian tanpa menegmukakan bukti?

Sijil tu la bukti dia. Ke tak nampak sijil tuh?

Originally posted by irfani at 2004-1-29 04:54:
Irfani:kami bersedia untuk mendengar hakikat yang anda maksudkan itu,tetapi anda sepanjang pemerhatian saya tidak pun menjawab persoalan-persoalan penting yang diutarakan dan jawapan yang anda dan sahabat-sahabt anda berikan masih tidak memuaskan hati seoarng pencari kebenaran,bahkan jauh dari itu anda menggunakan kebebasan yang ada dalam forum ini untuk merendah-rendahkan orang lain,bahkan ia bukanlah sesuatu yang dibenarkan dalam Islam. ...

Wahai irfani,
Berikut adalah hujjah yang diberi oleh Sdr MK mengenai salah satu persoalan yang puak anda utarakan... silalah jawab ulasan-ulasn tersebut dan jangan buat tak nampak pulak.

[quote]Originally posted by Mat Kampong at 2004-1-27 08:39, dibawah posting: Ikut Ahlul Bait ataupun ikut selain darinya?

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH, I pray that this reaches you all in the best of health and iman.

I have always wondered why, in our discussions, do we tend to lose our cool and become incited by differences of opinions. Whereas, if it was purely a matter of searching for the truth, a difference in opinion should only have encouraged us to review our own opinions, rather than provoke us. In my opinion, the reason is that we, generally do not go through the process of 'understanding'. We only follow what has previously been (presumably) understood by our ancestors. Thus, in our minds, the understanding of our ancestors is no longer, merely, an 'understanding' with a chance that it may be incorrect, but is as authentic as the Qur'an itself (that is, only if we believe the Qur'an to be authentic at all).

Nevertheless, ignoring your baseless comments, I would only like to give my opinion and the basis of that opinion, regarding the verses of the Qur'an and the narratives that you have cited.

You state:
If you read Qur'an you will find their special status indicated in Qur'an 33:33... in which they purified with a thorough purification.

The word 'Ahl' in the Arabic language is a masculine word. It is because of this reason that the pronouns used for the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' are masculine. Such gender is not real but is actually a linguistic gender in its nature. Thus, the masculine gender of the pronouns used for the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' do not, in any way, hinder interpreting the phrase for 'the wives of the Prophet (pbuh) - the revered mothers of the believers'. Just take a look at the verse under consideration, in its proper context. Al-Ahzaab 33: 28 - 34 reads as follows:

O Prophet, say to your wives: If you seek the life of this world and its pleasures, come I shall make provision for you and release you in the best of manners. But if you seek [the pleasures of] God and His apostle and the [blessings of the] life hereafter, know that God has prepared a great reward for those among you who act in the best of manners. O wives of the Prophet, those who are guilty of clear lewdness, from among you, shall be doubly punished. That is extremely easy for God. But those who are obedient to God and His messenger, from among you, and do good deeds, We shall doubly reward her and for her We have made a rich provision. O wives of the Prophet, you are not like other women. If you fear God, then do not be overly complacent in your speech [with others], lest a flame of desire may light in the heart of the lecherous. And speak [to them] discreetly. And stay in your houses and do not display your adornments as was done in the days of ignorance, of old. And establish regular prayer and pay Zaka'h and obey Allah and His messenger. O household [of the Prophet], God only desires to remove all uncleanness from you and to completely purify you. And, [O wives of the Prophet,] adhere to the remembrance of what is being recited in your dwellings from the signs [or verses] of God and His wisdom. Indeed, God is fully aware of even the minutest.

Any one can see that the implication of the underlined phrase 'household' ("Ahl al-Bayet" in Arabic) in the above context can only be the 'wives of the Prophet'. When all the directives surrounding the phrase are meant only for the wives of the Prophet, how could the phrase 'household of the Prophet', which is actually a part of a verse, which describes the reason and the wisdom of the directives that precede and succeed it, be taken to imply anyone besides the wives.
Thus, it is quite obvious that the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' in the cited verses is meant only for the wives of the Prophet.

With reference to Qur'an 42:23 in which their love is required of us, and finally Qur'an 5:55.

Let us first take Al-Shooraa 42:23. The verse reads as:
Such is God's promise to His servants, who believe and do good deeds. Say: For this I demand of you no recompense. I ask you only to love the kindred. He that does a good deed shall be repaid many times over. God is forgiving and bountiful in His rewards.

I really do not know what exactly do you intend to prove from this verse. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that it has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the 'Ahl al-Bayet' or their status with reference to being a source of Islam.

Al-Maaidah 5: 55 reads as:
Indeed, your true friends are only Allah, His Prophet and those who have believed, who establish regular prayer, pay Zaka'h and those who remain bowed [to God's will].

Once again, it should be quite clear for the reader that the verse has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of the phrase 'Ahl al-Bayet' or their position as a source of Islam.

Nevertheless, what our absolutely 'neutral' friend is trying to prove is that there is a narrative according to which, the qualities mentioned in this verse are actually those of Ali (ra). I have absolutely no doubt that Ali (ra) was indeed one of the many companions of the Prophet (pbuh), who fulfilled the qualities mentioned in the cited verse. However, we should not forget that the point under discussion is not whether Ali (ra) is amongst those mentioned in the verse. On the contrary, the point actually is whether the 'Ahl al-Bayet' of the Prophet (pbuh) are a source of Islam or not. Obviously, the cited verse is not even remotely related with the point under debate.

...to be continued..

Wallahu A'lam bi As-Sawab! Wasalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH

Originally posted by irfani at 2004-1-29 04:54:
Jika anda mempunyai hujah untuk dibincangkan utarakanlah..dan anda tidak sepatutnya memutuskan sesuatu itu benar atau salah sebelum anda mengemukakan bukti,dan adalah lebih baik disini untuk membahaskan tentang itu daripada tindakan-tindakan anda untuk menjatuhkan seseorang atau sesuatu kumpulan yang jelas hanya membuat onar dan perpecahan dalam sesebuah masyarakat....

Wahai irfani,
Berikut adalah sambungan dari hujjah yang diberi oleh sdr MK.... ulas! jangan tak ulas pulak.

Originally posted by Mat Kampong at 2004-1-27 08:41, dibawah posting: Ikut Ahlul Bait ataupun ikut selain darinya?

Bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH, I pray that this reaches you all in the best of health and iman.

The above discussion clearly shows that our friend has based his opinion regarding the sources of Islam purely on narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). The opinion has absolutely no basis in the Qur'an. In fact, our friend had stated in his posting:
I am wondering if you are aware of the famous hadith al-thaqalyn (two weighty things), which the Prophet (saawaws) said he left for us on his last pilgrimage. He clearly and specifically said "Qur'an and Ahlul Bait." He NEVER said Qur'an and Sunnah. This hadith is present in ONLY ONE book (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim), has ONLY ONE narrator and is regarded as WEAK by the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim. It is NOT present in ANY of the Sahih Sittah. You are welcome to verify this. The "Quran/Ahlul Bait" version is present in 5/6 Sahih Sittah and its tawatur and isnad is not questioned. Of course, all Muslims must follow the Sunnah, but the Prophet (s) clearly tells us here who carries it.

The above statements clearly imply the fact that the opinion, which holds the 'Ahl al-Bayet' to be a source of Islam is not based on the Qur'an, but tries to find support from narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) - i.e. Hadith. Thus, it would seem pertinent that the particular narrative ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), termed as 'Hadith al-thaqalayn' by our 'neutral' friend should be briefly analyzed, before any decisions are derived from it.

In the more accepted compilations of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn' has been reported by Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Daarimiy. Another important aspect to note about the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn' is that it has been narrated in two different versions.

In one of these versions, the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
'I am going to leave in you two heavy burdens[1]. The first of them is the Book of Allah in it is the true guidance and the light. Therefore, hold fast to it'. Then he [i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)] prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he said: 'And my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my household[2].'

Note:
[1] - Implying, in my opinion, two heavy responsibilities.
[2] - The phrase: "I remind you of God in matters relating to my household", implies that the Muslims should not forsake them and should always be respectful toward them. The repetition of the directive is to stress its importance.

This version has been reported (with very minor variations, if any) by Muslim, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Daarimiy. An important thing to note about the words ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) in this version is that it does not place the 'Ahl al-Bayet' at the level of being a source of Islam. It only directs the Muslims to refrain from adopting an uncalled for attitude toward them. Obviously, the words: "I remind you of God, in matters relating to my household", can in no way be construed to imply that the Prophet intended to give his household the position of the source of Islam, parallel to that of the Qur'an. Thus, this version, obviously, is not of much use for those who would like to establish that the two sources of Islam are the Qur'an and the 'Ahl al-Bayet'.

In the second version of the 'Hadith al-Thaqalayn', the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said:
I have left in you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you shall never go astray - The book of God and my progeny - i.e. my Ahl al-Bayet.
This version, with some variation has been narrated by Tirmidhi and Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Following are the chain of narrators of this version of the narrative:
A) The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes Nasr ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi - Zayed ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy - Ja`fer ibn Mohammed - Mohammed ibn Ali ibn Hussain...
The second person in the chain is Zayed ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his book "Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal" has quoted Abu Haatim as saying that Zayed is 'Munkir al-Hadith' - i.e. Zayed narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Ibn Hajar has considered him to be Dha'eef - i.e. a weak or an unreliable narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the said narrative, does not consider it to be 'Sahih'. On the contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that this narrative is 'Hasan' (which is less than 'Sahih') and is Ghareeb - i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized.

B) The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal is: Al-Aswad ibn `aamir - Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek - Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy' -- Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan - Zayed ibn Thaabit...
The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa'eed has considered him 'extremely unreliable' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that his father said: 'I have noticed confusion in Shareek's principles' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa'eed replied: "He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused" (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: 'Narratives of Shareek are worthless' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says: '[Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating, [was] prejudiced' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa'eed al-Jauhariy says: 'Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred narratives' (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu'een says: When Shareek's narratives contradict with someone else's, the other person is preferable to me' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal).
The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari says: 'His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and abominable) and nothing is known about him' (Meezaan al-Ai'tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: 'nothing is known about him' (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).

C) The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is: Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy - Mohammed ibn Fudhayl - Al-A'mash - 'Atiyyah - Abu Sa'eed.
The first and the second narrator in this chain i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir al-Koofiy and Mohammed ibn Fudhayl are both known to be Shi'ahs (i.e. Shiites). It is an established principle of most of the scholars of Hadith that if the content of a narrative is peculiar to a particular school of thought (as is the case in this narrative), then such a narrative would not be acceptable, if it is narrated by a person who ascribes to such a school (Al-Kifaayah fi'ilm al-Riwaayah). Besides this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not being liked by his contemporaries. (Dhu'afaa al-'Uqayliy). Moreover, Mohammed ibn Sa'd has said that 'his narratives are not considered by many to evidence a true saying of the Prophet (pbuh)' (Siyar A'laam al-Nubalaa).
The fourth narrator in this chain is 'Atiyyah ibn Sa'd. Yahya ibn Mu'een considers him to be dha'eef - i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa'eed (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu'afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Abu Dawood says: 'He cannot be trusted' (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).

Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith (cited above).

In view of the cited criticism on the chain of narrators of this narrative, it is obvious that no one can safely ascribe this saying to the Prophet (pbuh). It is, therefore, very respectfully submitted to our friend to kindly provide the chain of narrators, which in his opinion is clear of criticism and on the basis of which, this narrative can safely be ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh).

Wallahu A'lam bi As-Sawab! Wasalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa BarakatuH.. ...

Originally posted by nahzaluz at 2004-1-28 07:03:
Kalau pergi, saya nak bagitau, kubur tu bukan kubur S. Ali. Kalau tak percaya tanya AB sendiri. Jgn tanya penjaga kubur. Dia cari makan jer......

Salam nahzaluz,

Jadi, kalau bukan kubur S. Ali..., maka kubur tu kubuq sapa?

irfani

Salam.

Nahzalulz:Ia bukan bahan jenaka Irfani. Ia adalah hakikat Syiah yang anda ikut sekarang. Atas nama AB mereka telah memperdaya anda, sedangkan anda tidak tahu. Mereka tunjukkan kepada anda yang nampak baik, yang anda boleh terima tetapi yang lain-lain mereka tak beritahu kepada anda.

Anda kena melihat Syiah itu secara keseluruhan

Irfani:Bahkan lebih dari pandangan secara keseluruhan seorang mu'min itu perlu mengkaji secara detail setiap hujah yang dipegang agar dia benar-benar yakin.

Memang benar kita perlu membuat pandangan secara umum terhadap keberadaan puak-puak.Namun kita tidak boleh menafikan bahwa kebenaran sering kali diperangi dan digunakan oleh pihak penguasa dalam melestarikan niat jahat mereka.Dengan ini kebenaran tidak begitu tampak.

Syeikh Jalaluddin Ar-Rumi ada meyebutkan dalam wasiat sufinya..

Si Bodoh mengutip wang palsu kerana ianya seperti wang tulen.Sekiranya dalam dunia ini tidak ada wang tulen,bagaimana orang membuat wang palsu.

seterusnya beliau menyambung..

Palsu tidak ada sekiranya tidak ada yang tulen.Kerana cintakan kebenaran itulah mendorong orang membuat salah.Ibarat Racun kalau dibaluti dengan gula akan dimakan orang.

Irfani: Disini beliau meyebutkan bahawa kebenaran itu adalah penggerak terhadap kepalsuan.

"Ibarat Racun kalau dibaluti dengan gula akan dimakan orang."

Kepalsuan harus menggunakan hujah-hujah kebenaran untuk menarik minat mayarakat-masyarakat yang masih bersih fitrah Islamnya.

Jika tiada kebenaran kepalsuan itu pasti tidak ada.Keberadaan kepalsuan itu adalah umpama parasit dan tidak lebih dari itu.Ia hanya bergantung kepada kuasa kebenaran untuk melestarikan cita-citanya.

Siapakah golongan sasaran kepalsuan?

"Kerana cintakan kebenaran itulah mendorong orang membuat salah"
"Si Bodoh mengutip wang palsu kerana ianya seperti wang tulen"

Disini Jalaluddin Ar-Rumi menggambarkan bahawa sasaran kepalsuan itu ialah golongan manusia yang masih bersih fitrah Islamnya,yang bersifat mencintai kebenaran hanya saja disebabkan kurangnya Ilmu pengetahun golongan yang masih mentah terhadap kebinalan zaman ini mudah terpedaya.

"Ibarat Racun kalau dibaluti dengan gula akan dimakan orang."

Yang dimaksudkan disini ialah,seorang yang yang hendak melakukan kezaliman tidak akan meyeru suatu masyarkat yang terdiri dari anggota-anggota masyarakat yang hanif yang masih bersih dari dibelenggu kebutaan hati dengan hujah kebtahilan.

Ia meyru masyarakat untuk memerangi kebenaran dengan menggunakan hujah kebenaran..
  
Oleh itu,Nahzalulz berdasarkan hujah-hujah itu saya berpendapat adalah tidak benar untuk menguhukumi sesuatu kebenaran atau kepalsuan hanya berdasarkan pandangan-pandangan umum sahaja.Kerana keberadaan kebenaran itu sentiasa dieksploitasi.Denagn itu ia harus dibedah dan dicari hakikkat dan bukti-buktinya dan lebih dari pandangan umum sahaja.

wassalam

[ Last edited by irfani on 29-1-2004 at 07:01 PM ]

irfani

Nahzalulz:Kalau anda kata S. Ali layak selepas nabi, no hal. Tapi kalau bersama-sama dgn itu anda mengatakan sesat para sahabat, kafir belaka kecuali 7 orang, S. Abu Bakar dll rampas hak S. Ali dsbnya, maka itulah tergelincir!

Kalau anda kata betapa besar dan tingginya kedudukan S. Fatimah, itu betul. Tapi bersama dgn itu anda membenarkan riwayat yang mengatakan para sahabat pergi serang rumah S. Fatimah hingga membawa kepada keguguran Muhsin, maka itulah tergelincir!

Kalau anda kata hadis al-Thaqalain sahih, itu betul. Tapi bersama-sama dgn itu anda mengatakan wajib ikut AB sebab kebenaran itu hanya ada pada AB sahaja, tak ada pada para sahabat yang lain kecuali yang ikut AB, itulah tergelincir!

kalau anda kata anda mempertahankan hak-hak S. Husain dan AB yang lain, itu betul. Tapi bila saya tahu hakikatnya adalah sebaliknya, maka sebenarnya memang tergelincir!

Irfani:ini adalah sebagai suatu contoh apa yang saya maksudkan,memang benar dalam Islam adalah agama yang menganjurkan perdamaian.

Namun hujah perdamaian itulah anda gunakan bagi menutup kejadian sebenar yang berlaku terhadap orang yang dizalimi.

Apakah motif anda?

Seperti yang disebut oleh Jalaluddin Ar-Rumi tersebut.Anda cuba membaluti racun dengan gula!

Supaya orang-orang yang masih mentah dan bersih yang tidak tahu kejadian sebenar yang berlaku terhadap Ahlul BAyt a.s tidak membedah kejadian tersebut kerana ia melibatkan orang-orang yang dekat dengan NAbi secara lahiriah.

Maka anda menggunakan hujah perdamaian dan logika lemah terhadap keberadaan lahiriah sahabat Nabi.Dengan ini anda cuba menutupi pekara sebenar.
Ornag yang mendalami sejarah,membaca Al-Quran faham benar apa yang anda lakukan.

Dengan itulah,anda hanya mampu untuk membuat kenytaan-keyataan secara rambang dan tidak mampu untuk membedah secara mendalam untuk mencari siapa benar dan siapa salah.

Samaada anda telah diracuni oleh orang yang memberi anda makan sebelumnya atau anda sendiri yang membuat racun tersebut,kami tidak menegathuinya namun racun tersebut jelas kami hidu kebusukkanya!

[ Last edited by irfani on 29-1-2004 at 07:14 PM ]

Oranggunung

Terima kasih kepada nahzaluz dan Moasri kerana menimbulkan persoalan tentang tanah suci Karbala. Sebagaimana yang ingin diketahui oleh burung pipit dalam pertanyaannya, 'Jadi, kalau bukan kubur S. Ali..., maka kubur tu kubuq sapa?' aku juga ingin mengajukan soalan yang sama. Mungkin kalian berdua telah sampai ke sana dan cubalah ceritakan sedikit tentang tempat tersebut tapi janganlah mengambil dari sumber Wahabi yang memang menafikan semua maqam-maqam dan kalau boleh termasuk juga maqam Rasulullah.
Tahniah kepada Moasri kerana berjaya mendapat sijil kehadirannya di Karbala ! Aku memang seorang yang sukakan pengembaraan dan banyak tempat telah ku lawati dan ku ziarahi. Memang kegemaran ku juga mengumpulkan sijil-sijil dalam semua lawatan yang telah ku lakukan termasuk tempat-tempat menarik di Eropah serta berjaya juga mendapat sijil setelah memanjat tembok besar negeri China dll.lagi. Aku juga berjaya mendapat sijil dan pengiktirafan setelah menunaikan fardhu Haji sehingga mendapat gelaran Tuan Haji.
Memang cita-cita ku ingin melawat Karbala jika kesempatan mengizinkan, InsyaAllah, kerana disamping mencari kebenaran,ingin juga melihat keindahan kesenian Islam hasil manifestasi mencintai Ahlul-Bait. Keindahan inilah yang tidak terdapat pada mazhab selain daripada syiah.

nahzaluz

Nak sumber dari Syiah sendiri?

Insya Allah.

Oranggunung

The death of the Commander of the faithful, peace be on him occurred before dawn of Friday, the twenty-first of the month of Ramadan, in the year 40 A.H. He was a victim of the sword. Ibn Muljam al-Muradi, may God curse him, killed him at the mosque of Kufa, which he had come out to in order to wake the people for the dawn prayer on the night of the nineteenth of the month of Ramadan. He had been lying in wait for him from the beginning of the night. When he (the Commander of the faithful) passed by him while the latter was hiding his design by feigning sleep amid a group of people who were asleep, he (Ibn Muljam) sprang out and struck him on the top of his head with his sword which was poisoned. He lingered through the day of the nineteenth and the night and day of the twentieth and the first third of the night of the twenty-first. Then he, peace be on him, died a martyr and met his Lord, Most High, as one who has been wronged. He, peace be on him, knew of that before its time and he told the people of it before its time. His two sons, al- Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be on them, performed (the tasks) of washing him and shrouding him according to his bequest. Then they carried him to al-Ghari at Najaf in Kufa and they buried him there. They removed the traces of the place of his burial according to his bequest which was made about that to hath of them by him, because of what he, peace be on him, knew about the regime of the Umayyads (which would come) after him, and their hostile attitude towards him. (For he knew) the evil action and abuse to which they would be led by their wicked intentions if they had been able to know that (place). His grave, peace be on him, remained hidden until al-Sadiq Jafar b. Muhammad, peace be on them, pointed it out during the Abbasid regime. For he visited it when he came to visit Abu Ja'far (al-Mansur) while the latter was in al-Hira. Then the Shi'a knew of it and they began from that time to make visitation to his (grave), peace be on him and on his pure offspring.

On the day of his death he was 63 years of age.

nahzaluz

Tentang haramnya membina binaan atas kubur:

Imam al-Syirazi berkata: Syiah percaya bahawa membina binaan dan kubah di atas kubur para Nabi, Imam dan tokoh Islam adalah seafdal-afdal amalah mendekatkan diri kepada Allah [sila rujuk: al-Fiqh al-'Aqa'id ms 365]

Pendapat ini bertentangan dgn riwayat Syiah sendiri:

Diriwayatkan dari Abi Abdillah bahawa beliau berkata: Rasulullah s.a.w melarang bersolat, duduk dan membangunkan binaan di atas kubur [sila rujuk: Wasa'il Syiah 2/869 dan Mustadrak al-Wasa'il 1/127]

WA