Hujjat ul Islam speech

all kinds of people become marjas and hujjahs these days.

---
according to zahid sahib, he asks us to check usdu'l ghabah or isabah or al-isti'aab, tabaqat ibn sa'ad whether saHabah ever named their children ali or hamzah or hasan or husayn or ja'afar. while the venerable sahib (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) questions how much the saHabah loved the ahl al-bayt.

of course, we noted your precision: except sayyiduna ibn abbas raDiyallahu anhu naming his son ali and another sayyiduna Hasan al-baSri. also noted is the statement, 'after RasulAllah' sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. which would counter the dozen or so saHabah found in usdu'l ghabah named ali. nobody can claim they were named after mawla ali - because some of them were not even muslims when named ali.

so the criteria are:

1) names of SaHaba's children should be Hamzah, ali, jaafar, Hasan, Husayn (don't know if abbas is also included, but i won't push)

2) names should be after RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam

and validated by: usdu'l ghabah, istiaab, iSabah.

---
that is, it is relatively easy for me to show a couple of SaHabah naming their children one of the 5 names, compared to zahid shah who has to first prove that he knows concerning the saHabah mentioned in the four books:

1) how many children did each sahabi have?
2) how many were males?
3) what were their names?

because it is obvious that unless he knows ALL of them, he cannot say they didn't name them ali or hamzah or the rest; this will be obvious to anyone, except perhaps to the deranged lunatics who follow ZS and PAQ.

how can YOU - after 1400 years be sure of what even ibn sa'ad and those who followed him could not determine? (that is the number of children each saHabi sired and their names riDwanullahi ta'ala ajma'yin).

let us be reasonable and only work with the famous SaHabah. sayyiduna anas ibn malik raDiyallahu anhu is reported to have about 80 children; we ask zahid sahib to name half of them. بينوا توجروا

---
secondly, your rules are pretty tough and practically unachievable:

1) named AFTER RasulAllah's time sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam
2) found in books listing SaHabah.

or don't you (zahid) understand that a person who came AFTER RasulAllah sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam is not a SaHabi? (sorry for the obviousness: therefore futile to find it listed among the names of SaHabah)

---
regardless, even by these standards, zahid sahib fails.

in usdu'l ghabah #3787 `ali ibn adi ibn rabi'ah is mentioned (because it is conjectured that he is a sahabi); and abu `umar said: "that he being a SaHabi is unproven.." remember that his father is a SaHabi. there are two adi ibn rabi`ah (there is some debate whether they are two different people, or both the same person) in usdu'l ghabah: #3605 #3606.

---
i will be happy to look up any book that has detailed listing of all the children each SaHabi had; i apologise for my ignorance, but i have not come across any book that lists all the children of SaHabah [even balladhuri's ansab, trust me - or look it up].

in fact, even the list of SaHabah is only about 12,500 (vide isabah etc).

---
[the first video - grab it before they delete it; at around 11:10 or so]
 
Attacking Abu Hurairah radi Allahu 3anhu is about as rafidi as it gets.

This old jahil mutlaq is a closet rafidi.

This guy and that abdul qadir jilani guy are not just jahil tafdilis who can't read books, they are actually closet rafidis under taqiyya with an agenda.
 
Here see the rafidi shayateen (most of whom are murtads, as per the fatawa of prominent 3ulema) attacking Abu Hurairah in order to undermine Sahih Bukhari

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234979879-funny-abu-huraira/

see this too:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index...12-caliphs-doesnt-belong-to-shia/page__st__75

Very well said but you must be joking! At least apply your sense and logic regarding the authenticity of the narrators to yourself. Abu Hurairah [ra] accepted Islaam only 2 and a half years before the Prophet's [صلى الله عليه وسلم] death. How he criticised and comdemned, what his thought and behaviour was about the Prophet [صلى الله عليه وسلم] history clearly tells that. When Hazrath Umar [ra] made Abu Hurairah [ra] a governer during his Khilaafath Abu Hurairah [ra] went from rags to riches in a very short time. When Hazrath Umar [ra] summoned him and asked him to explain and give a detailed account of his wealth Abu Hurairah [ra] asolutely failed to do that and was punished on the orders of the second Khalif and was stripped of his title and sacked. Any person with a bit of sense would say that the man was unreliable. Take a look at how many narrations you have from Mr Abu Hurairah [ra]! 1000ands and 1000ands!! WHY??? Because they fall in favour of certain people you praise without thinking and investigating. It also justifies your believes to some extent so there is no need to look at the authenticity of this particular narrator.

this jahil and that mufakkir-e-rafdiyat peer abdul qadir of the uk - both have an agenda, to shake the very foundations of Sunni beliefs and to promote rafdiyat. may Allah disgrace them.
 
I wrote last year or even earlier I think that I had heard from a very senior sunni scholar who I didn't name that Abdul Qadir Shah and Zahid Shah were Shias.....and each time these guys open their mouth and say something they confirm this. Zahid Shah's son on yanabi.com is an even more blatant Shia than his father
 
Don't forget the serious (implied) accusation by Zahid that (astaghferullah) the Sahaba and also the Muhaditheen were "cowards". With one devilish statement, he demolishes the esteem of the entire fraternity upon whom our deen is built.
 
as sidi AH requested, kindly you guys keep these videos on your hard drives, we may need them later.

i think that now it has become a standard to plunder alhlussnah from within, like napak padri, paq, and now this molvi z, i have no doubt that deep in their heart they are rafiDis and they are are working on an agenda as molvi z has blurt out.
 
The naqhsbandijamaati guy has seriously lost hi marbles on the shia website. He might as well start slicing his chest with razors and wearing black clothes the way his views are going.

Just had a quick look there after quite a few days and they might as well call themselves shia.com as almost everything is pro shia and anti sunni. Can't seem to find anything that says anything positive about sunnis.
 
the way his views are going

that dirty hippy mental patient and enemy of Islam has no form or sense. he's like an amoeba. these days he's probably infatuated with some aspect of rafidiism or some rafidi orator's gibberish. mention mut3ah and a woman from his family in the same breath and he MIGHT find rafidiism not so attractive any more. in any case wait another few months, and he'll find a new toy to play with, maybe ismailism or qadyanism or perhaps he'll be fascinated by the adventures of bahaullah, or perhaps jesuits, or maybe his pretend-intellectual sophistication would be fascinated by mitt romney and he'd start exploring the church of morons.
 
Don't forget the serious (implied) accusation by Zahid that (astaghferullah) the Sahaba and also the Muhaditheen were "cowards".

Just watched the video again and what he says is outrageous. So basically everything according to him that the muhaditheen have written is therefore wrong because they did so in fear and in effect lied? In trying to establsih their shia beliefs they are saying anything that comes into their heads without giving it any thought.

This is exactly what our sunni scholars say is what the shias do, the taqiyya, the insults, the false pretence of the love for the Ahle Bait. You only have to read Fatawa-e-Rizwiya and its uncanny how these people are doing exactly what A'la Hazrat (rehmatullahi alai) has described and predicted they do and will do.
 
Back
Top