Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - theNabster

Pages: [1] 2 ... 134
Salam SarahY

As a descendant of Ali, it is my right to lodge my grievance to Allah for the crimes of Abu Bakr, Umar ibn alkhattab, Uthman, Aisha, Abu Sufyan, Mu'awyah & Yazid against Ali, Fatima & ahl al bayt.

There is enough evidence to my satisfaction that they disobeyed direct directives of a Prophet & Messenger who lived among them & who never said succession should be by votes (by extension will people vote for a Messenger or Prophet?)

That being said my stand is:

I reject the Shia creed & the Imamate it is based on.
I also reject the Sunni creed which canonised Hadiths as abrogating Qur'an.

My creed is described in Qur'an only.
It is Abraham's creed which Mohamed (P) followed.

Nabil H


Yes I could understand that perspective. However, as far as I am aware the Shia (Twelverer) perspective is that Ali's succession was a decree from God, which is why it is so significant. If something is a decree from God you would assume there would be more dispute and uproar.

I'm sure the argument of what could've or should've been could go on forever and no doubt many injustices have happened.

Salam SarahY

I think the dignified stand was that of Ali who for the sake of unity did not challenge with his followers Abu Bakr & Uthman.

Just posted on @Twitter a continuation on my exploring Shia doctrine & why I reject their imamate system -

Imamate are like Rabbinate or Priesthood.

Allah in Qur'an says that He did not decree Rabbinate, therefore by induction He cannot have decreed Imamate, & this is why I reject both,

also He adds that they did not give their invention its proper due, i.e. they didn't follow it properly even if though they invented it.

Rabbinate is traced back to Aaron (P) brother of Moses (P) who implemented it (after Moses' death) - as he believed this will protect Children of Israel from another Golden Calf incident.

Priesthood is a continuation of Rabbinate in Christianity.

So my stand which is Qur'an is that I cannot support Shia doctrine nor can I support the imamate it is based on.

Note: Controversial & might offend sectarians -
Elucidating the Sunni Shia sectarian cleavage - On the treachery of Hejaz House of Quraysh against the family of Prophet Mohamed aka in Qur'an as ahl al beyt.

After reading a thread on Abu Hanifa here, I started revisiting hadiths & will not accept any other madhab after Abu Hanifa as Abu Hanifa was chronologically the first one to gather hadiths, & those after him made a mess of it allowing leaderships to dictate content even when erroneous so long as it benefitted them, it seems also the first one of importance to do so was one of the most prominent companion of Prophet Mohamed (P).

This is collated from threads i put on @Twitter & collated in @Facebook - I now input them here.

Caution: this is what I feel is right, & I do not wish to debate it, I am just stating my stand & feelings about the matter which in fact I happen to feel strongly about. We need context to Qur'an, hadiths offer some, reports from other sources offer some, etc. Qur'an says listen to what is said & follow the best thereof, that this is a sign of intelligence for a Believer.

One of my dear activists pundits followers on @Twitter referred me to a small essay written by a Shia scholar, it was published on a Shia website, & the website piqued my curiosity as I was never seriously exposed to Shia theological literature.

I am an interesting case with multiple origins lineage: Arab, Jew, Berber, Turk, Visigoth...
I am a descendant of Aures Jewess Queen Kahina Dahyia & of Idriss II through mother & father.
My ancestor Idriss II is a descendant of Hasan son of Ali & Fatima daughter of Prophet Mohamed, Idriss II's father is a descendant of Idriss I who was the founder of Morocco.

So I am now exploring my Arab heritage, & one thing I neglected because of my reluctance to endorse sects & sectarians was to look into the Shia side of the story regarding Prophet Mohamed mission of delivering Qur'an, but I am now convinced, thanks to convincing articles published on that website giving enough rationales to my satisfaction that the progeny of Mohamed, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hossein & descendants also known as ahl al beyt got a very rough deal from Quraysh.

This is a controversial subject I tried to avoid, but I felt the urge to hear the Shia side of the divide that plagued the Islamic Community after the assassination of Ali cousin of Prophet Mohamed & husband of his daughter Fatima (Fatima's mother being Khadija, first wife of Prophet Mohamed).
I put a thread on this in @Twitter & I will give the link later...

1st @Twitter link -

Thread on exploring my Arab heritage discussing ahl al beyt & Qureysh betrayal - Part 2 -

Analysis, background & comments -

I am Arab Jew, but also descendant of Prophet Mohamed through mother & father via Sidi M'hamed Moussa... Idris II, Idris I founder of Morocco, up to Hassan, Ali & Fatima, I only accept Qur'an as binding - reading this made me angry at the four 1st Caliphs.

This is the start of a thread exploring my Arab heritage & one thing I neglected because of my reluctance to endorse sects & sectarians, but it looks like progeny of Mohamed, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hossein & descendants also known as ahl al beyt got a very rough deal from Quraysh.

It is very unlikely I will endorse the Shia creed though as I do not accept their imamate theological tenets & structure, but Ali should have been the first Caliph & his descendant Hassan or Husseyn the second Caliph. This is based on the records available on Mohamed (P).

In my view & understanding of the history, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al Khatab & Uthman were usurpers who stole the leadership from ahl al beyt. What we inherited was Muawiya & his son Yazid who were closer to Rome's Caligula than to devout servants of Allah.

So & deeply sadly from the word go after the death of Mohamed (P), the nascent Medina Muslim community was undermined by power struggles among the closest companions of the Prophet who ignored his recommendation to appoint Ali as his successor, they will be questioned about this.

Personally I see in the Ottoman Turks an effort to bring back a measure of decency to the structuring of theology in a Kingdom, indeed Turks were the ones Allah said He will replace Arabs with, He replaced the power hungry House of Quraysh by the Kayi Oghuz descendant Turks.

Arabs in the form of Donmeh & Najd who already were fierce opponents of Islam in times of Mohamed (P) again in the 20th century betrayed the Ottoman Muslims by siding with the British Crown & taking over the whole Arab peninsula inclusive of Hejaz, Najran, Jizan & Asir.

& that is all I have to say on this subject, only those who accept & implement Qur'an without malice in their lives are whom we can call Believers, anything else is hypocrisy/nifaq.

In fact reading with horror how Fatima, Ali, Hassan & Huseyn were treated by Abu Bakr, Quraysh, Umar & Uthman urges me to carry on writing about these matters which concern my own heritage as descendant of Hassan myself, these were in violation to Prophet Mohamed's instructions.
I can appreciate why this cleaved Islam into two factions & until recently I have not taken sides, preferring to refer to Qur'an as the only legitimate arbiter of events concerning Believers & those who accept it as scripture.

Reading Hadith al-Kisa, The Narration / Tradition of the Cloak moved me greatly & I can accept the truth of it, this shifts my perception somewhat, but goes within the light that I am revisiting hadiths, & it is only logical that I listen to both sides of the divide.

Hadith al-Kisa, The Narration of the Cloak posted here together with commentary by Gholam Hossein MasoudPhD in law and member of the University Academic Board - via @al_islam_org -

For many years (from mid 1980's) up until rejecting them in 2000, I immersed myself into Sunni theology even though didn't make much effort to do so as I was just surfing the Sunnis' wave I chose to associate with.

So until @owhy3 referred me the website Shia was a mystery to me.
"What you were doing is the right approach for understanding a major religion and culture that the West still ignore at its own risk, fact that TW allow and facilitate such exchanges is positive whatsoever"...

My ex sunni associates had only bad things to say about the Shia, your link is helping me to understand better what is at stake, the power struggle between Quraysh & the family of the Prophet they usurped power from shows me that none are really innocent among either factions.

But the Quraysh & Abu Sufyan clan are more to blame for Islam's undermining from the word go in fact, leading to the Umayyads caligulesque reign followed by the Abbasids decadent follow up which ended with the Mongols' destruction. Still early for me to make a clear statement.
Bear in mind that I am not a scholar or cleric, thank God for that as I would have been brainwashed in one of the sects.

For now all I can understand is that indeed the family of the Prophet were badly wronged, their honour besmirched & them being massacred by the power hungry Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu'3awiyah, Yazid & Abassids through Imam Shafi'3 & their followers afterwards.

The descendants of the Prophet owe their lives to fleeing towards North Africa, me being one descendant in point.

While reading the article, I couldn't help feel the love shown by the writer towards the family of Prophet Mohamed, Fatima, Ali, Hassan & Huseyn;
I felt moved to tears, maybe a testament to my feeling its authenticity, after all these are my ancestors, even though I'm also mixed Arab Jew Berber Turk.

Maybe this would prompt me to swerve again & appreciate the treasures I was deprived of through the Sunni narratives of my mid-1980 to 2000 mystical journey started in Brighton, Sussex, UK & which took me to Richmond, Vancouver, BC, Singapore, Malaysia & Russia.

I will keep feeding this thread with my theological findings & what it means for Muslims, especially leaderships, "obey the Messenger & you will not obey him until there is no rancour in your hearts about what he orders you, & you submit in full submission".

I declare & accept that all of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman did not obey posthumously the Messenger's express directive that they should honour & protect ahl al beyt who are Prophet Mohamed's family Fatima, Ali, Hassan & Huseyn whom I am related to by lineage as being my ancestors.

Furthermore they didn't obey the Messenger's directive to make Ali the heir in leadership of the Muslim Ummah, he should've been the first Caliph/Commander/Imam, they therefore are usurpers, this is why Islam got destabilised giving a chance to cancers like Umayyads to take over.

Before I continue I'd like to praise, glorify & thank Allah the majestic creator of all that is who is beyond any of the fabrications #Hypocrites & subversives of truth, liars attribute to Him, Allah who inspired in me to look into the veracity & truth of traditions & hadiths.

Verily there are good & bad traditions, bad traditions send the souls of humans astray, glorifying turpitude, inequity & injustice & the good traditions encourage & nurture what is good for the soul, for salvation & pleasing to the god of mankind, the king of mankind.

Attributing lies about Allah & His Messenger & immediate family to reap a paltry gain of power & lucre is vile & a grievous wrong towards one's soul & His Creator, a token of ingratitude that can only lead to the fire.

Yet it is exactly what at the highest level of leadership was done against the Prophet & his family, I feel very privileged Allah has opened my eyes & woken me of my slumber to look into the events after the death of Prophet Mohamed & the deep & serious gravity of what they did.

The fabrication of hadiths or sayings of Prophet Mohamed to benefit leaderships happened even in the life of Prophet Mohamed, when he was alive those who followed him inclusive of his companions were mandated by Allah to obey him, & it is what they are meant to do.

It would have been impossible for a companion of the Prophet to disobey an express order he made as God gave him authority that they should obey him, as revelations were pouring live if Mohamed (P) made a mistake in what he ordered, it was swift to correct him.

Also the orders Prophet Mohamed gave before his death would have been still valid after his death to his contemporaries, his companions, whether they were explicitly described in Qur'an or not.

What makes me reject completely the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar & Uthman is that they failed to obey direct orders from the Prophet as regards his son in law Ali & his daughter Fatima, one that sticks in mind is that of Fadak as described here -

This analysis is damning to Abu Bakr who made a grievous sin not only disobeying a direct order from Mohamed (P), but in the process defiling the honour, dignity & integrity of Mohamed's daughter, worse Abu Bakr went as far as fabricating a hadith he attributed to Mohamed (P) ./.

./. ... worse Abu Bakr went as far as fabricating a hadith he attributed to Mohamed (P) to deny Fatima daughter of Mohamed her inheritance rights...
It is not befitting of someone who was to lead the Muslim community that he be in contempt of a Prophet's direct order but also he would fabricate a saying he attributes to him to implement his edict against Fatima, & it gets worse as violence was afterwards used against her.

The hadith he fabricated is in clear contravention of the Quranic text itself, it fabricates that descendants of Prophets do not & cannot inherit property to their offspring, this was a lie against Mohamed (P) who would never state an edict that contradicts Qur'an!

It made a very damaging precedent for the future of the nascent Muslim community whom the closest companions of the Prophet Abu Bakr & Omar started, that it is OK to be expedient & create false hadiths to get what they wanted, something Mu'3awiha used later to undermine Ali.

That was I believe the evil seed that led to the evil reign of Mu'3awiya, his son Yazid & early divisions whom Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr was complicit to, which finally led to martyrdom of Ali, poisoning of his son Hasan & slaying/martyrdom of his son Huseyn in Karbala.

Allah who knows everything is witness to my grievance, the Muslim community has suffered greatly from this evil & it is time to put the record straight which has been obfuscated through false narratives & fake hadiths by unprincipled clerics & scholars who perpetuated the lies.

Unprincipled clerics & scholars perpetuated lies against Ali & Ahl-Al-Beyt so the Arabs of Quraysh, Abu Bakr, Omar & Uthman be absolved of any wrongdoing.

I got the info from the book called "Hanafi principles of testing hadith" by Shaykh Atabek Shukurov. It deals with classical hanafi principles, not modern hanafi version which is significantly influenced by Shafi principles.

You can see some of his interviews here:

The purpose of the info was just to show what was apparently done in the past. It seems pretty obvious from Traditional Islamic and historical sources that the elevated status of hadith took a while to establish itself  and became dominant post-Shafi.

Jews have the Talmud which is also riddled with inconsistencies & magical thinking, even as an Arab Jew, i never bothered about Talmud Rabbinical edicts, & since 2000 Qur'an is more than enough for me, the rest is just decoration & static.

When I see how harsh the retribution was for Abbasids to follow Imam Shafi'3 subversive edict & put hadiths on a pedestal, I'd rather steer clear from them & let scholars, sadly some vacuous & lame, deal with them.

As a practical example, if someone comes to me & tries to use hadith to convince me on any matter legal or otherwise, my response will be consistently to ask that person to prove it by Qur'an, otherwise it is invalid & spurious.

For reference I collated the thread I made on @Twitter & @Facebook & it contains all the info from posters above & my current stand on hadith & traditions -

Revisiting Hadiths after rejecting them in 2000.

This Topic: Did Abu Hanifa follow the Quran alone? on forum prompted me to start looking into Abu Hanifa who was one of the early Imams Muslim clerics who started gathering information around early Islam & followers - establishing his own madhhab/school.

Abu Hanifa came before Bukhari, Muslim & Imam Shafi'3.

When I was exposed to hadiths in the early mid 1980's through Sunnis I affiliated myself with, I was concerned about contradictions with Qur'an which they did not seem bothered with & in 2000 I rejected Hadiths completely.

However in later years I realised this was not the correct approach because hadiths though often unreliable had still information of a historical nature & also illustrated how early Muslims responded within their own challenges using Qur'an as guidance.

In this light, & in view a lot of hadiths corruptions came mostly with hadiths sourced to Bukhari, Muslim, & later, I am now revisiting those pre Bukhari & Abu Hanifa will be a good starting point.

I look at Hadiths like I look at popular culture, some of which are empowering.

Therefore ruling them out completely was not wise, however they are not binding & certainly not to be used to amend or modify the Qur'an letter & spirit, they are welcome when they reinforce it rather.

Hadiths, each generation has its own sets of hadiths, of how our wise men, rulers, thinkers, ideologues set up to solve issues based on their belief systems, for Muslims Believers it is Qur'an.

At Abu Hanifa time hadiths were still not accepted as Islamic.
It was during Malik & Al Shafi'3's time they became a source for Islam.

Hanafis according to Daniel Brown accepted hadiths very late, resisted but in the end joined rest of Sunnis, cf book "Canonization of Bukhari".

What Imam Shafi'3 did, which was a crime against Allah, was to make Hadiths more binding than Qur'an, he made Hadiths abrogate Qur'an, he will be punished harshly for this, & in fact Abbasids who embraced his doctrine/edicts/fatwas got destroyed by Mongols as punishment in 1258.

Imam Abu Hanifa apparently had a much stricter criteria for ahadith/traditions, and made much more limited/cautious use of them in his rulings. Especially in comparison to later scholars and Imams of other madhabs/schools e.g. Malik, Shafi, Hanbal.

In fact he rejected so many hadith that he was apparently accused in his lifetime of being a "hadith rejecter". He apparently clarified by saying he does not reject hadith but rejects incorrectly attributed hadith.

As such there was somewhat of a rivalry between him and muhadithin (scholars of hadith). For example, Bukhari (who came much later) famously does not take hadith from Abu Hanifa, or only does so indirectly.

cf references here - Imam Abu Hanifa: The Juggernaut of Islamic Jurisprudence -

His criteria for testing hadith, in brief:
1) does it go against Quran
2) does it go against established sunnah (precedent of prophet and companions)...
This is after having checked each narrator in the chain/isnad passes their narrator criteria (righteous, maturity, intellect...

Nabil H

Peace jkhan,

there is a fine line between idolatry hero worship & monotheism, because there is a natural tendency for humans to feel empowered or dispirited by examples in real life whom they hear about or who affect them directly like their parents, their peers, their teachers, mentors, rulers & so on.

Hadith are here to stay, & people are affected by them directly or indirectly, so we need to find a way to show ourselves & others how to deal with this situation because it is endemic & pervasive.

There is not just hadiths but cultural traditions of different clusters of humanity.

What Qur'an does is steer people away from idolatry & setting up partners against Allah, it does not issue edicts to destroy all their traditions they rely on to survive & thrive, an example of good traditions is Science & Empirical Research, an example of bad traditions is the Hollywood & mass media indoctrinations by Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Wahhabi & Zionists, etc.

I have rejected hadiths since 2000, but I consider this now a mistake, even though I will not actively look for hadiths to enlighten myself & prefer Qur'an, I am still affected by Hadiths which have been used by the mainstream for now over 1,000 years & counting.

Traditions define the character of a Nation, Country, Ethnicity, etc.
It is accepted as axiomatic in Qur'an that people are different in customs, habits, but what it does is seek to purify those from evil & idolatry.

To change this, Quran Only people like you & me need a State, like the Turks did in the 13th-14th century with the Ottoman Empire.

What preceded them like Abbasids, Fatimids & other sects were clearly in the wrong & got eventually destroyed.

Abbasids were the ones who made Hadiths canonical, & Fatimids were idolaters who worshiped Fatima, & the Moors in Spain who might have been the most Quran only of the lot got massacred by Spaniards Catholics, this is our history, sadly.

The Turks had to deal with the emergence of the Shia movement which today is Iran & affiliates.

Maybe there will be a resurrection of Islam from Yemen as I believe there could be, usually Muslims who are the most oppressed get blessed with enforcers who emerge from their struggles & martyrdoms.

& Allah knows best.
Nabil H

Of course many  have tried to argue the case against and for secondary sources
However GOD s argument  in Qoran is the strongest and the simplest,

This puts an end to any need of  any secondary source , the argument about the need of hadith  or sunna or any other source collapses:

GOD bless you all.

Peace & Allah's Mercy & Forgiveness,

I consider hadiths/traditions as informative, sometimes empowering, sometimes malicious, but not binding -

I apply to them what Allah advises in Qur'an - "those who listen to what is said & follow the best thereof, those are the ones endowed with intelligence"

Salam & Thanks Bro Wakas, I included these details about Abu Hanifa on my @Twitter feeds.

Salam brothers & sisters,

Finished watching the series Dirilis: Ertugrul (Resurrection: Ertugrul) & finished watching Season 1 of the sequel Kurulus: Osman (Establishment: Osman)

I can only say, wonderful series putting Islam & Turks in a favourable light. It was a disaster for Muslims that Ottoman Empire fell,

but Allah will bring forth a new group that will, God willing, resurrect the flame of Qur'an & Allah's Word,

as Allah promised, if they return, We will return.

Pages: [1] 2 ... 134