Racism In Shi'ism

[Dreamer]

what say you regarding that hadith in sahih muslim where hz aisha (God forbid) is doing such an act????? You regard this as true?????? if you say no u must argue with abu hurayra who accepts all sahih hadith lol

[Abu Hurayrah]

if any narration contradicts quran throw it away.... u who follow muawiyya wldnt knw that

So which Qur'aan ? The Qur'aan that the Sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them) wrote?

And no, Aisha (ra) never did that, that ruling is only applicable to sucklings below two years. So I don't know what your point is.
And Dreamer, last time, tell me, WHICH QUR'AAN?

And, don't post 4 posts in a row, think before you post.

[unknownprince]

for your information, there are many Pashtuns who believe we are descended from the Israeli tribes, and there are many stories told about this. This is not unheard of, and I am sure many here on PF have heard about it, but back to the OP

[Dreamer]

So which Qur'aan ? The Qur'aan that the Sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them) wrote?

And no, Aisha (ra) never did that, that ruling is only applicable to sucklings below two years. So I don't know what your point is.

UR SAHIH collection says otherwise! besides she couldnt lactate! she was never prgenant or gave birth

[Dreamer]

for your information, there are many Pashtuns who believe we are descended from the Israeli tribes, and there are many stories told about this. This is not unheard of, and I am sure many here on PF have heard about it, but back to the OP

its a false story... just because u say something is does not make it reality

[Abu Hurayrah]

UR SAHIH collection says otherwise! besides she couldnt lactate! she was never prgenant or gave birth

And she never did, that destroys your argument all together. Which Qur'aan? For the 4th time.

[Dreamer]

perhaps u didnt read

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3425:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (puberty) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.

[unknownprince]

its a false story... just because u say something is does not make it reality

What you just said does not make sense? Its a false story. That doesn't break down anything I just said. This is pretty widespread "story" in Afghanistan and greater Pashtunistan, and I consider any Pashtun who thinks we are from Scythians to be inferior because that is a false story. We have no cultural similarities with Persians whatsoever. Study their culture, and study ours. We are two distinct different people.

If you are a Pashtun, and your grandfathers are still alive, go and ask them. They will tell you. If they are Pashtun, they will know this story. All Pashtuns are aware of this "story."

[Haider Bangash 2.0]

NOTE TO MODS: Please delete this post, accidentally posted at the wrong thread. Thank you.

[Abu Hurayrah]

perhaps u didnt read

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3425

That was not Aishah (ra), but the daughter of Suhail.

Abu Hurairah, you're not one of the most brilliant people around, are ya?
But even then, it doesn't take a genius to think just a teed bit.

Who are you ? I am not brilliant, and I personally don't need your admiration or justification. Thank you.

Since I don't have time to go over each hadith to show you how your reasoning and thinking is flawed, I'll just mention a few points.

1. The hadiths you posted ... are "Sahih Hadiths" how and to whom? Who decided they're sahih? Because the criteria for the authenticity of hadiths include that they must NEVER consider one group of people superior or inferior to another. (Which means all those hadiths that praise Yemenese are clearly unauathentic and were written for political reasons.)

The particular 'hadith' are narrated by Ali bin Ibrahim, who is considered trustworthy. If you go on and read the whole chain of narrators is available in Arabic. The fact that Al Kafi is no scribble book for the Shia, is proved by various imams and Ayatullah with high authority, aswell as the holy ''infallibles''.

And besides, my question was, on what basis is a strong narration in the shia fiqh of hadith being dismissed? Because the internet mullahs as yourself dismiss the narration on the basis of ''In the Sunni hadith, I red also racist narrations''

Did I ask you to make a comparison? Did I ask Dreamer to make a comparison?
You can't just reject A, by comparing it with B, (Which you don't even believe in).
I can remember when you accused Umar ibn Khattaab for being an innovator. Where was your answer and research? For he was not. And here, I am pointing out the words of the infallible imams of the Shia' in the context of a trustworthy narration.

Because the criteria for the authenticity of hadiths include that they must NEVER consider one group of people superior or inferior to another. (Which means all those hadiths that praise Yemenese are clearly unauathentic and were written for political reasons.)

Which criteria? Give me the Qaa'ida on this in the Shia ulum al hadith instead of philosophising on the matter.

And remember that just because a hadith has been claimed as authentic doesn't at all necessarily make it authentic so. You should consider studying this further. It's a huge phenomenon in Islamic thinking today. Even Sangar will agree with you that not all the hadiths in SAHIH Bukhari/Muslim are authentic just becuase they are categorized as sahih.

There is an Ijmaa' on Sahih Bukhari. All scholars from East to West testify to this. There is minor critisism on some Ahadith, which is understandable, but not always true.
IN Sahih Bukhari there are 7563 narrations with repetitions, and only 20 narrations are sometimes criticized. Two of whom contain a weak narrator in the sanad, which can be defended, because they both have collaborating evidence.

What makes and what doesn't make a Hadith authentic or not, is not up to you. And you are not able to differentiate between the isnaad, understand the matn or tell us who was, and who was not trustworthy. That is upto the people who studied ulum al Hadith, and the muhaddithien. Not you or me. If there is an Ijmaa' on something, and through centuries all scholars testified to the trustworthiness of the books, and author, and the scholars are all agreed upon it, it is part of the Deen. And you, are just a nobody to say, well, it isn't.

There are off course narrations in other collections which are agreed upon trustworthy by some scholars, and others have said they are Dha'eef. That is not the case in Sahih Bukhari.

2. Let's assume these hadiths are indeed authentic, and they imply that *SHIISM* is a racist sect of Islam. ... ahh, but I know hundreds of SUNNI hadiths that are categorized as authentic and are degrading to blacks (Africans), non-Yemenese, non-Arabs, and

Are you here defending your roots or what? Who is going to give you a medal here?
I did not open this topic to talk about Ahl Sunnah. The Hadith I posted are sound, nobody is going to assume anything about the Racism of the infallible Imam Abdullah and Ali. It is a disgrace that those people ascribe such saying to these men.
Since you don't have an answer and throw back with accusations, I will ask you to place the Hadith here, so we can all read what you are talking about.

I still have my assignments from Hadith class, along with all my papers that I wrote there. It won't be a three-mile run to show you which hadiths I'm talking about.

Goes to show you don't know much about your OWN sect of beliefs -- no need to deny that you're not a "Sunni," though. I mean, many Muslims will say, "I'm not a Shiite ... but I don't believe in sects. So I'm JUST a Muslim!" Doesn't work.

Why don't you post the Hadith, go and post them. So why are you burning from inside?
There is no fire, just bring your burhaan, if you are truthfull.

3. Shiism = Islam, whether you like it or not. If Shiism is racist or racism, a part of Islam is racism! Not that Sunnism is all that thoughtful to begin with, but, yeah, each one is as Islamic as the other.

Shi'ism is a culture, its a political movement, and all that caracterizes ****es and Shi'ism is the bleeding in Ashura, the singing, the cursing, the books of their Holy imams, which they reject when they feel like it and because it is against any form of Aql , Maatam, Taqiyyah and Tatbir. That is Shi'ism, and none of it existed in the time of Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. Shi'as are amongst the muslims, (except their scholars) but Shi'ism is not Islaam. If you say it is, let us talk about it and you tell me how Shi'ism came into existence. So you shouldn't run away now, but talk as two mature people. I am willing to use my time and talk with you on this.

4. Most importantly, did you read the first hadith you posted yourself? Or did you just copy and paste something that was titled "IMPORTANT!!! RACISM IN SHIISM!!! MUST READ!!!!" highlighted in like three different colors? Because if you actually read what you posted, you'd have realized that NO group of people willingly accepted Islam right away.

This is the first Hadith:

إياكم ونكاح الزنج فإنه خلق مشوه

Beware of marrying Negroes, for they are an ugly creation. What has the conquest of Persia got anything to do with it? Even if the people where unbelievers of Majlus, is it oke to call a whole race ugly creations?

How long did it take the Meccans, those besides the Prophet's companions and family, to accept Islam? Does that make SUNNI Islam (or, more specifically, what is today WAHHABI Islam) any worse than the other sects/sub-sects? What did the Meccans tell the Prophet when he would share the message of God with them?

This has totally nothing to do with our discussion and the Hadith of your infallible Imams on NEGROES.

5. Even more importantly, how does that become a part of "Shiism"? How doe something become Shiism just because Persians (that even before they accepted Islam, mind you) did/say something about something? If the "Commander of the Believers" said XYZ, why does that have to mean that ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL those who believe in the leadership of the Commander of the Believers believe just like him?
Or does it actually say: God has favored Shiites over non-Shiites, because we are better than everyone else?

- That is because any non Shia is a KAFIR according to the Shia creed.
- That is because all the IMAMS and their sayings are holy, since they where infallible according to the ****es. They can not make any mistake, and they will even know what is in your whomb when a woman gets pregnant. They know the unseen, according to their aqeedah.

So when you have an imam who is believed to be infallible, he can say whatever he wants, they even permit anal sex and the ****es are defending it. Here is what Dreamer said about his holy imams, which he only knows, by reading Al Kafi (Which he now rejects).

Dreamer says:
The imams were followers of Islam any report that they contradicted islam is false even if thats in al kafee... shia do not have "sahih" hadith... a hadith is 2 be judged by its content if it goes against islam then its false

And when I asked him, What is actually Islam and who wrote the Qur'aan which you read? , I asked him this four times, and did not received an answer. The only thing they are left with , will be the Qur'aan.

And the Qur'aan is off course written by the pious Sahaba radiallahu anhum ajma'ien. But they curse the Sahaba and shout here and there that all of them where apostates except a few. So those ''apostates'' wrote the Qur'aan, which is now your ''Islaam'' and if any sound hadith of your infallibles contradicts that Qur'aan (which was written by the Sahaba) that is false. Masha Allah, that is very rational thinking don't you agree with me?

To continue, there is no mention of what and why a narration as the ones I posted in this topic are being rejected. On what basis? Just because the European Convention of Human Rights was found in 1953, you reject it, because your imam made a mistake, because the narration is weak due to some people in the sanad, or you just don't know and find it extremely annoying that I bring this issue up?

I will tell you what is stupid, It is stupid when a shia comes to you (performing Taqiyyah ie. lying to you) and tells you that you and me are brothers in Islaam.
At the same time, cursing your mother, and knowing that you are a person with a one way ticket to the Hellfire. (since everyone who rejects the concept of their ''imaamah'' is a kaafir according to their infallible imaam.

Ahl us Sunnah never makes takfir on shi'a except when an Aalim with knowledge, does khuruj from Islaam by words and deeds.

When I said you're not among the smartest people ever, that's what I mean. You are so biased you don't even think. The Persians didn't accept Islam right away just like no other group of later-converts, unless they were forced to one way or another (e.g., jizya, wars).

What has that got to do with the Negroes being an ugly creation? Jizziyah is not forcing anything. You are paying Jiziyah in the US or UK, which is called tax, the Shi'as in Iran are paying Khums, for their hidden Imam and so on. The difference between tax and Jizyah is that the Jiziyah is only for non muslims, while the muslims on the other hand, are obligated to pay Zakat, and the non believers are not. And I really don't know what those narrations have to do with Persian conquests, Jiziya etc. Here is the first hadith, you tell me:

1. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Mas’adah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mu’mineen Ali [as] said:

“Beware of marrying the Negroes (Zunj) for they are an ugly creation.” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 1)

So ... grow up and start studying with a more impartial mind so that you can actually learn something and teach others something too. We already have enough of illiteracy among us, and it's reaching its threshold with the silliness you're posting against a group people about whom you know nothing besides that you paste from anti-Shiite websites and THEIR twisted interpretations of what Shiites believe.

I also gave you reference to the shia website where this narration can be found. I don't bother you calling me an illiterate, I would be saddened by being called an illiterate by an intelligent person, but now, I feel even honoured.

[شمله ور خراساني]

I am very interested in reading the scholar of hadeeth "qrrattugai's" research in hadeeth.

I would love to see that.

[شمله ور خراساني]

i have a very interesting article on taqqiya. Maybe our Shi'ite brothers and sister can elaborate Al Taqqiyah Revealed «

[Dreamer]

That was not Aishah (ra), but the daughter of Suhail.

Who are you ? I am not brilliant, and I personally don't need your admiration or justification. Thank you.

The particular 'hadith' are narrated by Ali bin Ibrahim, who is considered trustworthy. If you go on and read the whole chain of narrators is available in Arabic. The fact that Al Kafi is no scribble book for the Shia, is proved by various imams and Ayatullah with high authority, aswell as the holy ''infallibles''.

And besides, my question was, on what basis is a strong narration in the shia fiqh of hadith being dismissed? Because the internet mullahs as yourself dismiss the narration on the basis of ''In the Sunni hadith, I red also racist narrations''

Did I ask you to make a comparison? Did I ask Dreamer to make a comparison?
You can't just reject A, by comparing it with B, (Which you don't even believe in).
I can remember when you accused Umar ibn Khattaab for being an innovator. Where was your answer and research? For he was not. And here, I am pointing out the words of the infallible imams of the Shia' in the context of a trustworthy narration.

Which criteria? Give me the Qaa'ida on this in the Shia ulum al hadith instead of philosophising on the matter.

There is an Ijmaa' on Sahih Bukhari. All scholars from East to West testify to this. There is minor critisism on some Ahadith, which is understandable, but not always true.
IN Sahih Bukhari there are 7563 narrations with repetitions, and only 20 narrations are sometimes criticized. Two of whom contain a weak narrator in the sanad, which can be defended, because they both have collaborating evidence.

What makes and what doesn't make a Hadith authentic or not, is not up to you. And you are not able to differentiate between the isnaad, understand the matn or tell us who was, and who was not trustworthy. That is upto the people who studied ulum al Hadith, and the muhaddithien. Not you or me. If there is an Ijmaa' on something, and through centuries all scholars testified to the trustworthiness of the books, and author, and the scholars are all agreed upon it, it is part of the Deen. And you, are just a nobody to say, well, it isn't.

There are off course narrations in other collections which are agreed upon trustworthy by some scholars, and others have said they are Dha'eef. That is not the case in Sahih Bukhari.

Are you here defending your roots or what? Who is going to give you a medal here?
I did not open this topic to talk about Ahl Sunnah. The Hadith I posted are sound, nobody is going to assume anything about the Racism of the infallible Imam Abdullah and Ali. It is a disgrace that those people ascribe such saying to these men.
Since you don't have an answer and throw back with accusations, I will ask you to place the Hadith here, so we can all read what you are talking about.

Why don't you post the Hadith, go and post them. So why are you burning from inside?
There is no fire, just bring your burhaan, if you are truthfull.

Shi'ism is a culture, its a political movement, and all that caracterizes ****es and Shi'ism is the bleeding in Ashura, the singing, the cursing, the books of their Holy imams, which they reject when they feel like it and because it is against any form of Aql , Maatam, Taqiyyah and Tatbir. That is Shi'ism, and none of it existed in the time of Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. Shi'as are amongst the muslims, (except their scholars) but Shi'ism is not Islaam. If you say it is, let us talk about it and you tell me how Shi'ism came into existence. So you shouldn't run away now, but talk as two mature people. I am willing to use my time and talk with you on this.

This is the first Hadith:

إياكم ونكاح الزنج فإنه خلق مشوه

Beware of marrying Negroes, for they are an ugly creation. What has the conquest of Persia got anything to do with it? Even if the people where unbelievers of Majlus, is it oke to call a whole race ugly creations?


This has totally nothing to do with our discussion and the Hadith of your infallible Imams on NEGROES.


- That is because any non Shia is a KAFIR according to the Shia creed.
- That is because all the IMAMS and their sayings are holy, since they where infallible according to the ****es. They can not make any mistake, and they will even know what is in your whomb when a woman gets pregnant. They know the unseen, according to their aqeedah.

So when you have an imam who is believed to be infallible, he can say whatever he wants, they even permit anal sex and the ****es are defending it. Here is what Dreamer said about his holy imams, which he only knows, by reading Al Kafi (Which he now rejects).

And when I asked him, What is actually Islam and who wrote the Qur'aan which you read? , I asked him this four times, and did not received an answer. The only thing they are left with , will be the Qur'aan.

And the Qur'aan is off course written by the pious Sahaba radiallahu anhum ajma'ien. But they curse the Sahaba and shout here and there that all of them where apostates except a few. So those ''apostates'' wrote the Qur'aan, which is now your ''Islaam'' and if any sound hadith of your infallibles contradicts that Qur'aan (which was written by the Sahaba) that is false. Masha Allah, that is very rational thinking don't you agree with me?

To continue, there is no mention of what and why a narration as the ones I posted in this topic are being rejected. On what basis? Just because the European Convention of Human Rights was found in 1953, you reject it, because your imam made a mistake, because the narration is weak due to some people in the sanad, or you just don't know and find it extremely annoying that I bring this issue up?

I will tell you what is stupid, It is stupid when a shia comes to you (performing Taqiyyah ie. lying to you) and tells you that you and me are brothers in Islaam.
At the same time, cursing your mother, and knowing that you are a person with a one way ticket to the Hellfire. (since everyone who rejects the concept of their ''imaamah'' is a kaafir according to their infallible imaam.

Ahl us Sunnah never makes takfir on shi'a except when an Aalim with knowledge, does khuruj from Islaam by words and deeds.

What has that got to do with the Negroes being an ugly creation? Jizziyah is not forcing anything. You are paying Jiziyah in the US or UK, which is called tax, the Shi'as in Iran are paying Khums, for their hidden Imam and so on. The difference between tax and Jizyah is that the Jiziyah is only for non muslims, while the muslims on the other hand, are obligated to pay Zakat, and the non believers are not. And I really don't know what those narrations have to do with Persian conquests, Jiziya etc. Here is the first hadith, you tell me:

1. (Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Mas’adah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mu’mineen Ali [as] said:

“Beware of marrying the Negroes (Zunj) for they are an ugly creation.” (al-Kafi, fil Furoo’: Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom Are Disliked for Marriage, Narration 1)




I also gave you reference to the shia website where this narration can be found. I don't bother you calling me an illiterate, I would be saddened by being called an illiterate by an intelligent person, but now, I feel even honoured.

so ur saying prophet orderd women 2 suckle grown men? or his wives told ppl do tht???? DISGUSTING shame on u

[Abu Hurayrah]

so ur saying prophet orderd women 2 suckle grown men? or his wives told ppl do tht???? DISGUSTING shame on u

No he did not, the evidence is in the Qur'aan, and it is for infants. Younger then two year babies.
You should borrow or buy a new pair of glasses, maybe do something about your brains too. Aishah (ra) did not understand the aya on that moment, but she never did this act.

Now, you can answer my question, which I am asking you for the fifth time, talking about shameless.

[Dreamer]

No he did not, the evidence is in the Qur'aan, and it is for infants. Younger then two year babies.
You should borrow or buy a new pair of glasses, maybe do something about your brains too. Aishah (ra) did not understand the aya on that moment, but she never did this act.

Now, you can answer my question, which I am asking you for the fifth time, talking about shameless.

u might wanna READ UR OWN SAHIH HADITH which u believe so ardently its posted for u .... read it carefully.... Bukhari contains this filth and u accept it