Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#31

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:50 pm

But since as per you, religion cannot be separated from politics where does that leave people like you? No longer Muslims? Same as those who follow Muawiyah and Yazid? Unable to follow the teachings of the prophet (ﷺ) because your leaders are corrupt? Or can you go back to the times when things were better? Maybe the time of the prophet (ﷺ) himself? Or did you put all your eggs in your Dai's basket?

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#32

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:00 am

anajmi wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:15 am
anyone who mentions ra besides the name of whom, who faught with rightly guided caliph deserves LA after his name.
you cannot claim that who fought with rightly guided caliph--both are right.
Both cannot be right. But both can definitely be wrong.
first of all congrats--i think first time answered to me without namecalling or abusing-that is little gud news to me
though i dont mind name calling or even abusing--it does not affect me
now logically yes, both can be wrong and that means the 4th caliph may not be rightly guided(may be or may not be) again thanks for clearing.
secondly only some radicals and ahle sunnat wa jamaat beleive siffin was politcal war.
some say there is some ambiguious ness in it
ok --even if it was a politcal war
Karbala was definitely not by any stretch of imagination.
some say rehmatullah after yazeed
i have personally seen videos of that --the likes of zakir naik--dont know about you
and they give refernce of hadith that whoever will fight romans will enter jannah.
actually the correct authentic hadith is whoever will fight the first battle with romans.
yazid was in the 11th battle according to some historians

Biradar
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#33

Unread post by Biradar » Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:51 am

anajmi wrote: Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:50 pm But since as per you, religion cannot be separated from politics where does that leave people like you? No longer Muslims? Same as those who follow Muawiyah and Yazid? Unable to follow the teachings of the prophet (ﷺ) because your leaders are corrupt? Or can you go back to the times when things were better? Maybe the time of the prophet (ﷺ) himself? Or did you put all your eggs in your Dai's basket?
Don't get your lungi all in knots! Calm down.

I already told you my view on da'is. There is no need to "go back to the times when things were better". If you remove the superstitious beliefs, some historical differences and some foolish tyrants from the picture, then the Tayebbi belief system is actually pretty much based on what the majority (Sunni, i.e) beliefs are based on. I have never heard any Bohra saying that the key elements of Sharia should not be followed (prayers, fasting, zakaat, hajj etc). I have said this many times here: the Bohra way of prayers is actually more similar to the mainstream Sunni practice (with minor differences) than with Twelver Shia practice. Let us now focus too much on differences. For Allah is forgiving and even if He has much to forgive, He will do it, as long as we try our best.

Don't take what say the Aga Khan followers or some ghulat Shias do and try to foist them on Bohras. Relax and try to think rationally; and please don't mix issues.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#34

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:39 pm

So religion can be separated from politics? We can remove Muawiyah and Yazid from the picture (as you suggest removing tyrants from the picture) or not (maybe you want to remove only some tyrants from the picture and not all?) cause then it doesn't suit our political agenda? Sorry I am getting my lungi all tied up in knots trying to follow what the heck it is that you are saying.

Biradar
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#35

Unread post by Biradar » Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:20 pm

anajmi wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:39 pm So religion can be separated from politics? We can remove Muawiyah and Yazid from the picture (as you suggest removing tyrants from the picture) or not (maybe you want to remove only some tyrants from the picture and not all?) cause then it doesn't suit our political agenda? Sorry I am getting my lungi all tied up in knots trying to follow what the heck it is that you are saying.
My goodness! How hard it is to explain to someone who lungi is all in knots :) Muawiyah (LA) and Yazid (LA) are not in any picture for Shias or Bohras, except the picture of deepest part of hell, where they will burn for all eternity.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#36

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:02 pm

Aw come on. Muawiyah and Yazid are the cornerstone of bohra religion. They get mentioned almost as much as Ali and Hussain if not more. So much so that the last few bohra Dais actually followed in the footsteps of Muawiyah and Yazid (as we both agree). And other Shias too who value their Gaddi far more than religion (like the Aga Khanis) that they have given up on the basic tenets of Islam. Again all this is as per your agreement. Guess who actually ignores Muawiyah and Yazid? Everyone except the Shias and the Bohras!! Guess who brought up Muawiyah and Yazid on this thread?

Sorry for continuing on this, but it is too much fun seeing you all tied up in my lungi. :-)

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#37

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:26 pm

secondly only some radicals and ahle sunnat wa jamaat beleive siffin was politcal war.
some say there is some ambiguious ness in it
ok --even if it was a politcal war
Karbala was definitely not by any stretch of imagination.
Can you please tell me the differences between a war that is religious and a war that is political?

And try not to read bro Biradar's posts for your answers cause he has no clue. He got all tied up in my lungi trying to explain the difference.

Bohra spring
Posts: 1377
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:37 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#38

Unread post by Bohra spring » Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:42 pm

My opinion SBM Bhai.

Lady Khadija AS died in least almost no controversial circumstances compared to Lady Aisha AS and Lady Fatema AS.

History volumes are written based on controversial moments.

Second reason , Ahlul Bayt did not know a lot about Lady Khadija , she died when Lady Fatema was young and Lady Fatema died of controversial situation when she was young mother. Lady Aisha was the Prophet SAW ,wife, if with envy and personal legacy. Not uncommon human characteristic and also did not know Lady Khadija AS as she too married young after the death of Lady Khadija AS.

All history that is regurgitated and spiced up was written decades after Imam Ali AS or 3 Khilafah died. Who really knows what actually happened and what was left out other than narrations dependent on human abilities and emotions who came in when Islam was in a crisis and civil war. What we now know about Lady Khadija AS is all we know and may be only a snapshot of her real greatness.

There are many literatures out there that have tried stitched together the stories of Khadija AS. She was not a typical Muslim woman chacterised by 21st century perspective. Some of it will overshadow Lady Fatema AS and Lady Aisha which at moment are the biggest sources or basis of Islamic theology we now have. I hope you understand my points.

Like wise the Prophet SAW had 2 daughters also we know less about, sons who died, and other wives. So just because we don't find in narrations does not mean events or activities did not happen. Furthermore if we don't focus on what divides us what would we do with so much time in our majalises, other than just worship Allah and remember the Prophet SAW? Now that is not Sunni or Shia ulemas interest

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#39

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:18 am

also she died in mecca before migration to medina.
much of the history is after migration as that is victorious period v/s painful period---in short of gud words for both

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#40

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:11 am

So no one can tell me the difference between a religious war and a political war as per the Shia/Bohra?

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#41

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Wed Nov 03, 2021 5:53 am

for me atleast it is clear though i do not claim to be scholar or anything on that.
free to disagree
what prophet did was religio-political war as he wanted to establish in nascent stages.
siffin was paritial religio-political war
jamal, neherwan and another (name forgot) was religious war.
Karbala in its truest was ONLY and ONLY religious.
all others are political war

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#42

Unread post by anajmi » Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:03 pm

You didn't answer my question though. What is the difference between a religious war and a political war? What is the criteria to classify a war as one or the other? Since you are absolutely certain about Karbala being a religious war and not political, you should be able to answer that question fairly easily.

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#43

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:51 am

in simple terms--i am not a lawyer or technical expert to define in definite words
war fought to preserve deen
war fought to expand empire

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#44

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:53 am

Ok. That is one way to look at it. But it doesn't make any sense. If the war of Karbala was a religious war, then was Yazid fighting to preserve the deen? Definitely not. Was he fighting to expand his empire? kind of yes since if Hussain would've agreed to accept him as his khalifa, Yazid would've had more power. But he did that after killing Hussain in any case. Now, was Hussain fighting to preserve deen? How? Was Yazid asking to change prayers from 5 to 3? Was he asking to change Ramandan from Calendar to Moon? Did he claim that the true Quran was hidden? No. Was Hussain the rightful ruler? Possibly. Why? Because he was Ali (ra)'s son? Of course not. Khilafat / Imamat / Daawat, is not a jaageer to pass from father to son, unlike what it is today. Was he the right person because he was better than Yazid? Sure. Yazid was not chosen by the people. Yazid was chosen by his father. The Quran doesn't establish guidelines about who can rule and who cannot other than the condition that the ruler needs to be just, and a bunch of other qualities. Succession is not in the Quran. This is something we have to figure out ourselves.

So after Hussain lost, did anything in Deen change? other than the rise of the hidden Imams and the corrupt Dais? As bro Biradar pointed out, the tenets of Islam pretty much remained the same for the majority. A minority deviated, but that is to be expected in any huge movement. If anything, the only people who didn't preserve deen as it was delivered by the prophet (ﷺ) are the ones who claim to follow Ali(ra) and Hussain (ra). Have you seen Bohras flock behind their Dai? Kissing his cars tires? dying to get a glimpse of him, the Aga Khanis who have completely given up on anything remotely Islamic? Is this the deen that Hussain fought to preserve?

Religion did not benefit nor did it suffer harm (except maybe in the cases I have mentioned above) as a result of Karbala. If Hussain (ra) had won, would he have changed 5 prayers to 3? or from Moon to Calendar? or no praying behind the Imam in Mecca? If Hussain had won, would you still have had hidden Imams and Corrupt Dais? Perhaps not. Now that could be argued as the preserving of the deen!!!

Biradar
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#45

Unread post by Biradar » Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:52 pm

Anajmi is engaging in what is termed “sophistry”, i.e. a plausible but misleading argument. The reality is that he is somehow convinced himself that, sure, Laeen Yazid was a bad guy but that does not mean that the fact he was responsible for the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, or that Laeen Muawiyah and Aaesha fought against M. Ali was bad or due to religious reasons. According to him, these were mere political fights. Nothing to see here, move on.

However, what he forgets is that M. Ali and Imam Hussain are the only ones (of the five) who are called the Panjatan, i.e. the Five Purified Ones. This is directly mentioned in the Qur’an and no Shia disputes that the Verse of Purification refers to them and only them. Hence, anyone who opposed them is opposing the Will of Allah Himself, and hence, by definition, destined for hell. All opposition to them is religious. Yes, the love of power and wealth is a big part of it, but the reality is that these wars occurred due to the various laeens’ opposition of fundamental aspect of the Qur’an, i.e. the rejection of the Verse of Purification and all that it implied.

Now, clearly there was a dispute on the leadership. However, in the Shi’a view of things there are two types of leadership: temporal and spiritual. The ideal situation is when both are united in one. Often that is not possible. However, spiritual leadership only resided in the person of M. Ali and the Imams who descended from him. Hence, the battles against M. Ali, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain were all religious war and those who opposed them were destined for hell. In general, all wars against the rightful successors of the Prophet are religious wars. However, clearly not everyone agrees who the rightful successors of the Prophet are and so there is some ambiguity, specially in later history. However, no such ambiguity exists for Laeen Yazid and his equally hell-bound father, Laeen Muawiyah.

Anyway, it is clear that Anajmi represents a view that is not shared by many Sunnis, and of course, by no Shia. In the past he was saying strange (positive) things about Yazid too, as I pointed out to an old thread above. He has a habit of sophistic arguments of this sort. That is what led to the thread so many years ago in which he was roundly denounced but then he apologized and people moved on. From what I understand Anajmi does not really care about Yazid, except to use this laeen figure to annoy everyone else.

It is pointless continuing this argument. As one sees from the old thread this discussion is now more than 10-12 years old. Nothing got resolved then, nothing will get resolved now. Time to move on. Allah knows best.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#46

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Nov 04, 2021 3:19 pm

However, what he forgets is that M. Ali and Imam Hussain are the only ones (of the five) who are called the Panjatan, i.e. the Five Purified Ones. This is directly mentioned in the Qur’an and no Shia disputes that the Verse of Purification refers to them and only them.
Actually, the purposeful misinterpretation of this ayah is the primary cause of the corruption in the Shias. There is no "Panjatan" concept in Islam. There is no "Verse of Purification". There are multiple verses that talk about purification in different contexts.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#47

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Nov 04, 2021 7:11 pm

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ
The Messenger ˹firmly˺ believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They ˹all˺ believe in Allah, His angels, His Books, and His messengers. ˹They proclaim,˺ “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say, “We hear and obey. ˹We seek˺ Your forgiveness, our Lord! And to You ˹alone˺ is the final return.”

2:285

The above is clear and unambiguous requirement of faith. I can post many other such clear ayahs.

However, you will not find a single unambiguous ayah in the Quran requiring belief in this Panjatan. If you take pieces from here and there then you can create belief in the paanch pandav or Saat Saheli or even baara haandi.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#48

Unread post by anajmi » Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:30 pm

no Shia disputes
That isn't saying much. No SMB Dawoodi disputes the authority of SMB. No Qutbi Dawoodi disputes, whoever their Dai is. No Alavi Bohra disputes the authority of their Dai. No Aga Khani disputes Aga Khan. So saying No Shia Disputes whatever, doesn't hold any water.

Kaka Akela
Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#49

Unread post by Kaka Akela » Fri Nov 05, 2021 5:40 pm

anajmi: No answer seems to satisfy. You think your questions are smart but they are kind of ridiculous and repetitive. Same questions you are repeating 10 different ways and Biradar has given you answers 10 different ways, but you seem to not accept any reasonable answer. Also, this is an old topic that was discussed thoroughly 10 years ago and closed.
Regurgitating same question has become tasteless now.
please go back and hide under the rock you came out of, and give us all some relief.

Sheikh Ali sadiq
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:44 pm

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#50

Unread post by Sheikh Ali sadiq » Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:18 am

Dawoodi bohra are dumb when it comes to following each farmaan by the present leader but at least they are not dumb as anajmi who is defending shaitaan like muawiya and his lanati son.

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#51

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Nov 06, 2021 11:33 am

kakaji, there are no new questions. There are only the same age old questions. If you want to ask new questions and get new answers, you might want to go to a different forum. Biradar hasn't answered anything. He pretends to be knowledgeable but doesn't know if he is going or coming.

For example, he outright dismissed mamajiwala's claim that Hussain fought to protect Deen. Because the Bohras have actually destroyed the deen. But he can't say that. So he claims it doesn't matter what Hussain fought for, if you fight against Hussain you are hell bound. As long as you claim to follow hussain, it doesn't matter how corrupt you are, you are going to heaven and if you oppose Hussain or even claim that Hussain's fight was only political, doesn't matter how big of a mumin you are, you are going to hell.

Biradar once again proves that he is a full on Mushrik. It is not faith in Allah that decides heaven or hell, it is faith in Hussain according to him.

Please do not fall into Shaitaan's trap and indulge in this kind of shirk.

Now watch how Biradar twists my words and says that anajmi is saying that Yazid was a big mumin.

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#52

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:49 am

anajmi wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:53 am kind of yes since if Hussain would've agreed to accept him as his khalifa, Yazid would've had more power.
NO
umaayad dynasty came to end in a few years.
and if it YES.
then why did he wanted pledge from Husain in first place?
he was already ruling a big empire and one person not pledging to him would not make any difference to his empire-like they say in gujrati--ek kaankri bhi ehni mahal ni naa kharti.

this was all due to him insisting on his pledge from Husain.
Husain also said that he will leave his kingdom and go elsewhere(some say yemen, some Hind--whatever) if he is so insisting on his pledge.

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#53

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:51 am

anajmi wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:53 am Now, was Hussain fighting to preserve deen? How? Was Yazid asking to change prayers from 5 to 3? Was he asking to change Ramandan from Calendar to Moon? Did he claim that the true Quran was hidden?
Actually all of it and more than the that--
forget 5 to 3 and moon and hidden and zahir quran--there would be no namaaz to start with
third party historians have asserted the fact(anybody can search the history-instead asking for link) that he famously said there is no messenger and revealation--it has all been made up by a mad man.
he raided prophets mosque in madina and made it horse stable where they urinated and shitted for 3 days--this is also asserted by third party historians.
so how who does this even if someone is remotely claiming to be muslim--even a kafir would not do that.
you forgot to mention one thing while asking about moon and namaaz and quran.
you should have asked--would he have made alcohol halal as he himself was drinking it.

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#54

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:52 am

anajmi wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:53 am The Quran doesn't establish guidelines about who can rule and who cannot other than the condition that the ruler needs to be just, and a bunch of other qualities.
so was he just or unjust?
does quran specify to rise against unjust?--actually he was not even a muslim.
even he, his father and grandfather were same
it is authenticated and accepted by radicals themselves that omar had objected and had reservation to abu suffayan becoming muslim and had voiced his concern to abu bakr, saying he is only saying due to fear of sword
but he was himself foolish and naive and said that we dont question what is in ones heart, and only believe what one says with his mouth.
omar kept quiet due to respect for abu bakr.
later on his khilafat also--he did not give much importance to abu sufyan.
he was one of the few who did not migrate to medina and stayed in mecca.
abu suffyan who before becoming muslim was one of the noble and powerful people of mecca
everybody respected him and had high status---always had a grude that now he is a commoner and nobody cares.
he led a delegation with amr bin sohail to medina to meet omar to voice his concern and to place himself in a power position.
but omar for many days--didnt even grand him a audience.
he became impatient and angry that a man like his stature, who commanded great respect before--being treated like this.
then he went to Ali for intercession and said O Abal hasan--you are from prophet family.
take my case to omar. Ali only said he would see what he can do. but did not guarantee anything.
Actually karbala has its root also in the enemity between banu hashim and banu umayya
which dates back to grand grand father of prophet.--two sons of Abde manaf--hashim and umayya.
if it was only a political war as some claim--then what was the need to bring thousands against just 72?
what was the need to stop water for three days?
sure they knew 72 are no match to mighty army.--with or without water
what was the need to kill six month old?
what was the need to run horses on dead bodies? they had already won the war.
what was the need to parade ladies in front of the bazaar.
he was just showing enemity he had with banu hashim, as he famously said and authenticated by historians that he said 'today my forefathers in heaven will be very pleased with me as i have taken revenge of badar.
in badar--mostly of banu umayya were killed and hardly or no record of banu hashim.
this also shows he did not believe in messenger and revealation.
actually the first two khalifa were neither from hashim or umayya clan.
the third usman was from umayya and he appinted his corrupt relatives in important positions--one being mauawaiya.
the first one lasted only 2 years and prophet had just left.
the second lasted for around 12 years--he was naive and not as capable as Ali and he himself took advice from Ali in many administration matters.
abu bakr only appointed him coz he was very loyal to him
so outwardly in muslim caliphate, there was relatively calm.
Ali kept quiet to preserve the deen in its nascent stages or no muslim would remain on the face of the earth, if he took sword
but problem began with corrupt usman ascending the throne.
so karbala was not like any other similar war.
it has many deep aspects going back to abde manaf and started zaheri with badar and culminated with karbala

qutub_mamajiwala
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 4:17 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#55

Unread post by qutub_mamajiwala » Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:53 am

anajmi wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:53 am

So after Hussain lost, did anything in Deen change?
YES
many people came to know how treacherously and without any reason prophets grandson was killed. many people turn against him. this was evident in his darbar itself where many noble men from different kingdom were present, where he paraded the ahlul bait.
people would not have come to know about him if he had not insisted on bait, and left husain alone.
as about the dai--i am not their lawyer to argue for them
you can continue your rattle against him--doesnt make difference to me

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#56

Unread post by anajmi » Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:41 pm

he raided prophets mosque in madina and made it horse stable where they urinated and shitted for 3 days--this is also asserted by third party historians.
Even if we are to assume that this is true, who was it that fixed this? The hidden Imams before they went into hiding? Anyway, I think this discussion, as Biradar said, isn't going to go anywhere. Time to move on.

Sheikh Ali sadiq
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 12:44 pm

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#57

Unread post by Sheikh Ali sadiq » Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:00 am

Shame on Wahabi rascals they deny all historical facts to defend dogs like muawiya and his son yazeed

anajmi cant be sunni, because sunnis are still better then wahabi redicals.

RedBox
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#58

Unread post by RedBox » Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:49 pm

Sunni scholars cant ignore Ali and his fazilat.

But only few andh bkat muawiya lover tries to defend those.

Attachments
VID-20211111-WA0048.mp4
Sunni alim on panjatan fazail
(23.79 MiB) Downloaded 87 times

anajmi
Posts: 13506
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#59

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Nov 11, 2021 2:26 pm

you guys are so stupid it is unbelievable. Have you listened to the video you posted? The speaker refers to Ayesha (ra) as Syeda Ayesha radiAllahu anha Ummul Mumineen!!! And since you haven't actually paid attention to the video you yourself posted, I cannot expect you to understand anything that I have written.

RedBox
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:41 am

Re: Why Khadijah does not get mentioned

#60

Unread post by RedBox » Thu Nov 11, 2021 3:28 pm

Ayesha ko chhod ..... hadith sunle bhaiyye