Hassan (RA) & Hussain (RA) got slapped by their father

[Ameen]

Translation for second red-part:

Ok brother Imam Ali, this is what you put forward first;

"(after the murder of Usman, Ali) said to his sons: “How Commander of Faithful was murdered when you were (protecting him) on (his) door?” He slapped Hasan, beaten Husayn on his chest, abused Muhammad ibn Talha and cursed Abdullah ibn Zubair. Talha said to him: Don’t beat o Abul Hasan, don’t abuse and don’t curse. If he would give them Marwan, he wouldn’t be killed”.

Here it is mentioned that Hassan got slapped and Hussain got beaten.

This is what you put forward next;

1. Shia book states: It also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days Ali continued to play his conciliatory and mediatory role. He many times did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph, and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at the house of ‘Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were, however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed. Hearing the news, Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the Caliph. [(Origins and development of Shiaism by SHIA SCHOLAR S.H.M Jaffri. chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the ‘Alid Party) ; (Baladhurl, V, pp.62 if., 69); (Tabarl, I, pp. 2988 ); (Mas’udi, Muruj, II, p.232); (‘Iqd, IV, p.290)]

Here it is mentioned that Hussain got slapped and Hassan got hit (beaten). Absolutely the other way around. So what are we suppose to believe in??? What do you believe in since the events greatly differ??? Who got slapped and who got beaten, surely there can't be a huge misunderstanding, a huge difference??? A minor misunderstanding or difference between story tellers concerning the same story, incident or event is acceptable but this???

[Hani]

So what if they flipped Hasan and Husayn? that's a very minor detail.

[Optimus Prime]

So what if they flipped Hasan and Husayn? that's a very minor detail.

Not sure what you're on about.

Refer to the link for more detail for further clarification.

[Optimus Prime]

Translation for second red-part:

Ok brother Imam Ali, this is what you put forward first;

"(after the murder of Usman, Ali) said to his sons: “How Commander of Faithful was murdered when you were (protecting him) on (his) door?” He slapped Hasan, beaten Husayn on his chest, abused Muhammad ibn Talha and cursed Abdullah ibn Zubair. Talha said to him: Don’t beat o Abul Hasan, don’t abuse and don’t curse. If he would give them Marwan, he wouldn’t be killed”.

Here it is mentioned that Hassan got slapped and Hussain got beaten.

This is what you put forward next;

1. Shia book states: It also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days Ali continued to play his conciliatory and mediatory role. He many times did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph, and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at the house of ‘Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were, however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed. Hearing the news, Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the Caliph. [(Origins and development of Shiaism by SHIA SCHOLAR S.H.M Jaffri. chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the ‘Alid Party) ; (Baladhurl, V, pp.62 if., 69); (Tabarl, I, pp. 2988 ); (Mas’udi, Muruj, II, p.232); (‘Iqd, IV, p.290)]

Here it is mentioned that Hussain got slapped and Hassan got hit (beaten). Absolutely the other way around. So what are we suppose to believe in??? What do you believe in since the events greatly differ??? Who got slapped and who got beaten, surely there can't be a huge misunderstanding, a huge difference??? A minor misunderstanding or difference between story tellers concerning the same story, incident or event is acceptable but this???

Don't refer me to as a brother, kindly.

Both narrations can be reconciled if you ask me. I believe this is why brother sword_of_sunnah who I think wrote the article included them. Ali (RA) has every right to discipline his own kids, but Talha is not related to him, although Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA) is because his father is the first-cousin of Ali (RA). So, ibn Talha (RA) was bewildered at what just happened, and genuinely felt the situation was unavoidable, so pleaded to Ali (RA) doesn't strike him too. Remember, all of them were injured according to other sources after the death took place. The Khwarij had retreated once their task was accommplished.

You're overthinking this too much typically. Whether they were kicked, slapped, power-bomed or sonic boomed is not the point. The bottom line is my confused counter-part is that both of them got a physical bollocking from their father for failing to protect and secure the property of the Ameer of that time according to one of the narrations. This surely reflects that the three of them never took Uthman (RA) as their enemy. What adds further weight to this it's from a Rafidhi source.

Go figure.

[Ameen]

Translation for second red-part:

Ok brother Imam Ali, this is what you put forward first;

"(after the murder of Usman, Ali) said to his sons: “How Commander of Faithful was murdered when you were (protecting him) on (his) door?” He slapped Hasan, beaten Husayn on his chest, abused Muhammad ibn Talha and cursed Abdullah ibn Zubair. Talha said to him: Don’t beat o Abul Hasan, don’t abuse and don’t curse. If he would give them Marwan, he wouldn’t be killed”.

Here it is mentioned that Hassan got slapped and Hussain got beaten.

This is what you put forward next;

1. Shia book states: It also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days Ali continued to play his conciliatory and mediatory role. He many times did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph, and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at the house of ‘Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were, however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed. Hearing the news, Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the Caliph. [(Origins and development of Shiaism by SHIA SCHOLAR S.H.M Jaffri. chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the ‘Alid Party) ; (Baladhurl, V, pp.62 if., 69); (Tabarl, I, pp. 2988 ); (Mas’udi, Muruj, II, p.232); (‘Iqd, IV, p.290)]

Here it is mentioned that Hussain got slapped and Hassan got hit (beaten). Absolutely the other way around. So what are we suppose to believe in??? What do you believe in since the events greatly differ??? Who got slapped and who got beaten, surely there can't be a huge misunderstanding, a huge difference??? A minor misunderstanding or difference between story tellers concerning the same story, incident or event is acceptable but this???

Don't refer me to as a brother, kindly.

Both narrations can be reconciled if you ask me. I believe this is why brother sword_of_sunnah who I think wrote the article included them. Ali (RA) has every right to discipline his own kids, but Talha is not related to him, although Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA) is because his father is the first-cousin of Ali (RA). So, ibn Talha (RA) was bewildered at what just happened, and genuinely felt the situation was unavoidable, so pleaded to Ali (RA) doesn't strike him too. Remember, all of them were injured according to other sources after the death took place. The Khwarij had retreated once their task was accommplished.

You're overthinking this too much typically. Whether they were kicked, slapped, power-bomed or sonic boomed is not the point. The bottom line is my confused counter-part is that both of them got a physical bollocking from their father for failing to protect and secure the property of the Ameer of that time according to one of the narrations. This surely reflects that the three of them never took Uthman (RA) as their enemy. What adds further weight to this it's from a Rafidhi source.

Go figure.

You said,

"Don't refer to me as brother, kindly".

Thank you very much for your request but unfortunately I am going to turn it down. And here is the reason why, I follow Muhammad's (pbuh) Sunnah and the Prophet (pbuh) said,

"Either you are brothers in Islam or you are brothers in humanity".

The Prophet (pbuh) also said,

"Al Muslimo Akhul Muslim" meaning "A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim".

So brother here we have Muhammad's (pbuh) teaching and on the other hand I have your request. I am not going to turn down Muhammad's (pbuh) teachings because of your request. Who you follow and what is the reason for your request, I am not going to ask you that because this is not important to me. In fact it doesn't mean anything to me and I do not want to get in to the atmosphere, some of you want to create.

As far as the narrations you have put forward, it is clear that anything which suits your ideology and purpose is automatically authentic and reliable.

Both narrations collide and clash with each other. The basics are not even right and anyone with a bit of sense can tell there is something wrong here. You have two narrators telling a story/tale of the same incident/event and they don't even add up, they don't match.

You said,

"Remember all of them were injured" and you mention other sources. Who was injured and how they were injured and what sources??? You haven't mentioned anything. Please do correct me or inform me on this. I would like to know.

I am not over thinking or under thinking anything. It's to with reality and facts, which you are clearly disregarding.

[Optimus Prime]

Translation for second red-part:

Ok brother Imam Ali, this is what you put forward first;

"(after the murder of Usman, Ali) said to his sons: “How Commander of Faithful was murdered when you were (protecting him) on (his) door?” He slapped Hasan, beaten Husayn on his chest, abused Muhammad ibn Talha and cursed Abdullah ibn Zubair. Talha said to him: Don’t beat o Abul Hasan, don’t abuse and don’t curse. If he would give them Marwan, he wouldn’t be killed”.

Here it is mentioned that Hassan got slapped and Hussain got beaten.

This is what you put forward next;

1. Shia book states: It also seems clear that even during these last tumultuous days Ali continued to play his conciliatory and mediatory role. He many times did succeed in dispersing the unruly mob that wanted to hurt the Caliph, and during the siege he appointed his sons Hasan and Husayn to stand at the house of ‘Uthman and protect him from the angry crowd. They were, however, jostled and pushed aside by the mob, and the Caliph was killed. Hearing the news, Ali was the first to reach the scene and was so furious at what had transpired that he slapped the face of Husayn and hit Hasan for failing to save the life of the Caliph. [(Origins and development of Shiaism by SHIA SCHOLAR S.H.M Jaffri. chapter 4: The Re-emergence of the ‘Alid Party) ; (Baladhurl, V, pp.62 if., 69); (Tabarl, I, pp. 2988 ); (Mas’udi, Muruj, II, p.232); (‘Iqd, IV, p.290)]

Here it is mentioned that Hussain got slapped and Hassan got hit (beaten). Absolutely the other way around. So what are we suppose to believe in??? What do you believe in since the events greatly differ??? Who got slapped and who got beaten, surely there can't be a huge misunderstanding, a huge difference??? A minor misunderstanding or difference between story tellers concerning the same story, incident or event is acceptable but this???

Don't refer me to as a brother, kindly.

Both narrations can be reconciled if you ask me. I believe this is why brother sword_of_sunnah who I think wrote the article included them. Ali (RA) has every right to discipline his own kids, but Talha is not related to him, although Abdullah ibn Zubair (RA) is because his father is the first-cousin of Ali (RA). So, ibn Talha (RA) was bewildered at what just happened, and genuinely felt the situation was unavoidable, so pleaded to Ali (RA) doesn't strike him too. Remember, all of them were injured according to other sources after the death took place. The Khwarij had retreated once their task was accommplished.

You're overthinking this too much typically. Whether they were kicked, slapped, power-bomed or sonic boomed is not the point. The bottom line is my confused counter-part is that both of them got a physical bollocking from their father for failing to protect and secure the property of the Ameer of that time according to one of the narrations. This surely reflects that the three of them never took Uthman (RA) as their enemy. What adds further weight to this it's from a Rafidhi source.

Go figure.

You said,

"Don't refer to me as brother, kindly".

Thank you very much for your request but unfortunately I am going to turn it down. And here is the reason why, I follow Muhammad's (pbuh) Sunnah and the Prophet (pbuh) said,

"Either you are brothers in Islam or you are brothers in humanity".

The Prophet (pbuh) also said,

"Al Muslimo Akhul Muslim" meaning "A Muslim is a brother to another Muslim".

So brother here we have Muhammad's (pbuh) teaching and on the other hand I have your request. I am not going to turn down Muhammad's (pbuh) teachings because of your request. Who you follow and what is the reason for your request, I am not going to ask you that because this is not important to me. In fact it doesn't mean anything to me and I do not want to get in to the atmosphere, some of you want to create.

As far as the narrations you have put forward, it is clear that anything which suits your ideology and purpose is automatically authentic and reliable.

Both narrations collide and clash with each other. The basics are not even right and anyone with a bit of sense can tell there is something wrong here. You have two narrators telling a story/tale of the same incident/event and they don't even add up, they don't match.

You said,

"Remember all of them were injured" and you mention other sources. Who was injured and how they were injured and what sources??? You haven't mentioned anything. Please do correct me or inform me on this. I would like to know.

I am not over thinking or under thinking anything. It's to with reality and facts, which you are clearly disregarding.

Fair enough, but let it be known, I do not consider many Shias to be Muslims if they harbour mainstream Rafidhi beliefs.

Since this is a narration from a Rafidhi sources, you'd be better off consulting with the author of the article who will confirm it's authenticity. Reconciling the two narrations as I explained makes perfect sense when you consider the entire context, but automatically anything that portrays Ahlul Bhait (RA) to be mates with the companion (RA) will automatically be dismissed from your minds. It's a part of your mental conditioning, I guess. 

If the brother has included the narrations then I'm confident they have some backing up. Ask the brother yourself, he lurks these forums more than posts and you'll find many other brothers who think highly of him and his knowledge on Islamic history and rijal.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't accept anything that suits me or Sunni ideology. The concept of Hadith-picking is a trait that your fellow people are all too familiar with.

The very bulk and crux of our Hadith sources dispels your version and interpretation of Islamic history, Aqeedah and Sunnah.

So, there is no need for us to pick n' choose mate. Compute this in your command module.

[Ameen]

I don't accept anything that suits me or Sunni ideology. The concept of Hadith-picking is a trait that your fellow people are all too familiar with.

The very bulk and crux of our Hadith sources dispels your version and interpretation of Islamic history, Aqeedah and Sunnah.

So, there is no need for us to pick n' choose mate. Compute this in your command module.

You can carry on considering what ever you like but no one has given you or anyone else the authority to judge and decide who is a Muslim and who isn't, who is in the fold of Islam and who isn't. It's got nothing to do with my mental conditioning but how you have been brought up and brain washed about others.

You want to creat this fairy tale story that everything was sugar and honey and absolutely nothing went wrong between the early Muslims, when wars were fought and murders took place. It doesn't matter which generation, religion or community nothing has ever been perfect and exact between individuals.

They were early Muslims and that's what they were. It's about time you laid this matter to rest and stop showing them as some kind of holy saints who couldn't put a foot wrong.

[Optimus Prime]

I don't accept anything that suits me or Sunni ideology. The concept of Hadith-picking is a trait that your fellow people are all too familiar with.

The very bulk and crux of our Hadith sources dispels your version and interpretation of Islamic history, Aqeedah and Sunnah.

So, there is no need for us to pick n' choose mate. Compute this in your command module.

You can carry on considering what ever you like but no one has given you or anyone else the authority to judge and decide who is a Muslim and who isn't, who is in the fold of Islam and who isn't. It's got nothing to do with my mental conditioning but how you have been brought up and brain washed about others.

You want to creat this fairy tale story that everything was sugar and honey and absolutely nothing went wrong between the early Muslims, when wars were fought and murders took place. It doesn't matter which generation, religion or community nothing has ever been perfect and exact between individuals.

They were early Muslims and that's what they were. It's about time you laid this matter to rest and stop showing them as some kind of holy saints who couldn't put a foot wrong.

Sad khe java. Did I hit a raw nerve?

You can try your damdest to depict your skewed and evil version of Islam, but Allah is making people see the light and Alhamdulillah people are exiting your filthy creed. The few people on this forum is a testimony to that.

Wake up and smell the mang lassi my bredrin in humanity. Pledge your moohabat for Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA). Gwan'!

They were early Muslims, yes, and the BEST of Muslims. The disciples of the greatest of all teachers (SAW). The teacher (SAW) confessed this with his very own tongue.

Narrated Imran bin Husain: "Allah's Apostle said, 'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries). and then those who will follow the latter" 'Imran added, "I do not remember whether he mentioned two or three generations after his generation, then the Prophet added, 'There will come after you, people who will bear witness without being asked to do so, and will be treacherous and untrustworthy, and they will vow and never fulfill their vows, and fatness will appear among them."

To back that up:

“Not equal among you are those who spent and fought before the conquering (of Makkah with those among you who did so later). Such are higher in degree than those who spent and fought afterwards. But to all, Allâh has promised the best (reward)”

[al-Hadeed 57:10]

The ones who believe otherwise is far away from Islam. Many scholars have attested to this fact. Like it or lump it mate.

[Ameen]

Did you hit a raw nerve??? LOL! No, you actually banged your head against the wall. Pledging your muhabbath for the companions??? Who said anything about love or hate??? The companions didn't even pledge muhabbath for each other. They fought wars, exiled each other, attacked each other, slandered each other etc, you name it. All we can do is say that, well this narration is weak and that is unauthentic and that's not reliable bla bla and bla.

The narrations you have put forward are considered weak and unreliable by others, just as you have the right to consider. So you have to up your game and come up with something solid to prove it was all sugar and honey. "Sugar and spice, all things nice", This is what you believe in. Some fairy tale and wonderland you're living in. Is this what you want people to believe in.

For your information, you don't pledge muhabbath but pledge allegiance. Muhabbath is something you earn. Like I said, I do not have a problem or issue with the Shaikhain but in fact it's your statements and opinions. You keep saving your skin by bringing the twist in.

[Optimus Prime]

Did you hit a raw nerve??? LOL! No, you actually banged your head against the wall. Pledging your muhabbath for the companions??? Who said anything about love or hate??? The companions didn't even pledge muhabbath for each other. They fought wars, exiled each other, attacked each other, slandered each other etc, you name it. All we can do is say that, well this narration is weak and that is unauthentic and that's not reliable bla bla and bla.

The narrations you have put forward are considered weak and unreliable by others, just as you have the right to consider. So you have to up your game and come up with something solid to prove it was all sugar and honey. "Sugar and spice, all things nice", This is what you believe in. Some fairy tale and wonderland you're living in. Is this what you want people to believe in.

For your information, you don't pledge muhabbath but pledge allegiance. Muhabbath is something you earn. Like I said, I do not have a problem or issue with the Shaikhain but in fact it's your statements and opinions. You keep saving your skin by bringing the twist in.

Bang my head against the wall? No, Alhamdulillah, Allah has made me impervious from such form of insanity.

Now, to the point. Notice how the topic has now skewed in a whole new tangent. Another, indication, I've indeed trodded on a raw nerve, bechara'.

The narration is from Bukhari, thus it is self explanatory that is authentic beyond measures. So, the onus is on you to prove otherwise that the narration is unreliable. I await your explanation and findings.

I don't need to up my game. The Qur'an and Sunnah is my witness that the companions did indeed express all forms of muhabbat for one another. They faught wars against the Kufar, they helped spread deen to all corners of the globe (more or less), they wrote down revelation and compiled the Sunnah. I wonder if this is why the Prophet (SAW) said they are indeed the best of generations.

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.

Qur'an 48:29

Keep shooting yourself in the guts, mate. This is a form of reverence the companions showed and had for one another by being there from one another. Just like they did in Makkah when they were getting dirt kicked in their faces just because they refused to utter words of the Shaitain. Something your scholars are accustom too. 

If you wish to ultimately judge the companions then do so based on their unweighted contributions during the time of scrutiny when the seeds of Islam were being planted. Allah has confirmed he is pleased with them. When Allah is pleased with someone then not even the human mind cannot fanthom what sort of emotion that beeds. Ya' feel me, bro? 

What happened later was due to fitna. The Shia hero Abdullah ibn Saba instigated the whole political campaign, and unfortunately it lead to much violence and loss of life - no doubt. This does not, however, take away or undermine the sacrifices they made for Islam during the early days. When the Allah and his Messenger (SAW) has promised them Jannah then it is absolute, and unconditional. You can throw all the if/buts variables to the mix, and fool people all you want, but you're only poisonously deluding no one, but yourself. Come to terms with this before it's too late. Ask some of your former followers on here who've seen the light and stepped into it.

Historical events doesn't deter this heavenly fact otherwise we're questionning the divine wisdom of Allah and his Messenger (SAW).

In conclusion, I'm gonna' rock with the companions in Jannah, Insh'Allah (if I make it). That's a reality and not a fairytale mate. 

[Ameen]

Jamal and Safeen, was these wars fought against the Kuffars. The so called war of Zaka'ath, was this fought against the Kuffar??? Those who raised concern about certain governors with the third Khalif, were they amongst the Kuffar??? Why was Abu Zarr exiled by the third Khalif??? Did he become a Kafir??? There is plenty in history that tells you that people have disagreement and or develop difference. And this certainly came about after the Prophet (pbuh).

The verse you use that Allah is pleased with those, relates to those who were killed during battle and applied to the martyrs of that time. Take a look and study when and why the verse was revealed. You are using it to justify everyone by taking it out of context and proportion.

This is exactly what the so called terror groups are doing to justify the killings of humans as well as Muslims. I don't have time to shoot my self anywhere, never mind about the gut because I'm too busy shooting out reality and facts.

Come down to earth my friend and start getting use to the soil here, since this is where you are from and belong. Amongst the companions there were differences and disagreements and they went a hell of a lot further to sort them out.

Ibne Saba??? Wow, this one man was so influential and powerful that the third Khalif couldn't handle him. I wonder why he didn't become Khalif himself. Who was Ibne Saba??? Start a thread and bring out reality and facts about this man, if you are genuine and right. All you're doing is just using this imaginary character to divert people's attention from what really went on.

[Optimus Prime]

Jamal and Safeen, was these wars fought against the Kuffars. The so called war of Zaka'ath, was this fought against the Kuffar??? Those who raised concern about certain governors with the third Khalif, were they amongst the Kuffar??? Why was Abu Zarr exiled by the third Khalif??? Did he become a Kafir??? There is plenty in history that tells you that people have disagreement and or develop difference. And this certainly came about after the Prophet (pbuh).

The verse you use that Allah is pleased with those, relates to those who were killed during battle and applied to the martyrs of that time. Take a look and study when and why the verse was revealed. You are using it to justify everyone by taking it out of context and proportion.

This is exactly what the so called terror groups are doing to justify the killings of humans as well as Muslims. I don't have time to shoot my self anywhere, never mind about the gut because I'm too busy shooting out reality and facts.

Come down to earth my friend and start getting use to the soil here, since this is where you are from and belong. Amongst the companions there were differences and disagreements and they went a hell of a lot further to sort them out.

Ibne Saba??? Wow, this one man was so influential and powerful that the third Khalif couldn't handle him. I wonder why he didn't become Khalif himself. Who was Ibne Saba??? Start a thread and bring out reality and facts about this man, if you are genuine and right. All you're doing is just using this imaginary character to divert people's attention from what really went on.

Jamal and Siffin were wars that took place after when Islam was  complete, and after when the Allah and his Messenger (SAW) promised the companions, Jannah. Key word is after.

Besides, as I said the two wars does not disapprove or undermine the credibility of the companions (RA) when it comes to efforts they put in for Islam. We overlook these times of fitna because it's worthwhile focusing on these particular efforts during the time of the Prophet (SAW) that were ceritified and commended by Allah (Qur'an) and the Messenger SAW (Sunnah). This clearly shows this is where Allah wants us to fix our concentration.

Even the Ahlul Bhait (RA) had differences and disagreements between them? So what? Aqeel ibn Abi Talib (RA) fought against his cousins (RA), Abbas ibn Abu Mutalib (RA) fought against his nephew, Ali (RA) fought against his cousin Abullah ibn Zubair (RA), and Ali (RA) proposed to the wife of Abu Jahal and forgot there was a clause in the marriage with Fatima (RA) that restricted him for doing that (oops), and ended up upsetting the Prophet (SAW). What is the underlying theologocal point that you're trying to make?

Exactly. You have no point because when the Prophet (SAW) and Allah has promised many of the companions Jannah then it's a done-deal - no two ways about it. All your mumbo-jumbo about how the companions did xyz is nothing more than generic bakwaas, and sorry attempt to overshadow their ultimate accommplishments. No one is denying they erred, made mistakes, committed minor and major sins before/after Islam, however, their good/positive deeds have scored them the ultimate eternal prize - end of.

You love bringing up the battle Jamal, Siffin, and Rid'dah, but cowardly dismiss those battles that really mattered during the time of the Prophet (SAW), made a difference in Islam, and that Allah documented in the Qur'an. I wonder, why? It's about high time you start singing from a different hym sheet, mate because that tune you're playing is dated.

Abu Dhar (RA) was not exiled. Another Rafidhi myth. See link for further details: http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=13459

I'm well aware of the contextual circumstances surrounding the verse. It still refutes your point that the companions never expressed or pledge any muhabbat for one another. Being merciful towards your fellow means means tolerating any form of indifferences and appreciating the qualities of that person which, is the true and ultimate characteristic of a devout Muslim.

The topic of Abdullah ibn Saba is old and boring. Plus it's been discussed to death here. Knock yourself out and search for the earlier threads. Go, and re-fresh your memory. How can you forget? Here's your spiritual ancestor.

[Ameen]

You said,

"Jamal and Siffin were wars that took place after when Islam was  complete, and after when the Allah and his Messenger (SAW) promised the companions, Jannah. Key word is after.Exactly. You have no point because when the Prophet (SAW) and Allah has promised many of the companions Jannah then it's a done-deal - no two ways about it",

This exactly sounds like the Christian belief that Jesus sacrificed (gave up) his life for us to enter heaven. So they also believe they have a done deal to enter heaven (paradise). Man, we Muslims really need to wake up and learn a lot about Islam.
You said,

"We overlook these times of fitna",

This is exactly what your problem is, either you are over looking or you are under looking. Fitna is fitna and the one who creates it is known as a mischief maker (fitne baaz). This is where some people try and confuse the situation just to satisfy themselves and make others believe in it. Go by your principals and stand by them. This is exactly what my point is.

You do not have two individuals here of the same status and level. One is the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, the Ulul Amre of the time. And to obey him is and follow his command is compulsory according to the Quran and your Aqeedah. Those who challenged him and used their influence to rebel against him are the out laws based on the Ulul Amre verse and your Aqeedah.

What you are doing is bringing in up silly excuses to try and camouflage the situation, sometimes by bringing Sahabiath and Azwaj e Rasool in to it and sometimes by trying to even the situation by saying, "oh, it was the time of fitna".

Bhai sahib, even if it was the time of fitna then who was the fitne baaz??? Was the situation even??? Either change your Aqaid concerning the position of Ulul Amre, Hakim e Waqth or stand by your Aqaid. It's the double standards that I am pointing out.

you said,

"Even the Ahlul Bhait (RA) had differences and disagreements between them",

The people you have mentioned are not part of and from the Ahlul Baith. You need to be more specific and clear about this.

you said,

"No one is denying they erred, made mistakes, committed minor and major sins before/after Islam, however, their good/positive deeds have scored them the ultimate eternal prize - end of",

No one has the ultimate prize until you are dead and it's over. Then you will be judged by your words and actions based on your intentions and thoughts on the day of judgement. Don't follow hadiths and narrations that contradict the Quran because those are certainly not the words of the Messenger (pbuh).

you said,

"You love bringing up the battle Jamal, Siffin, and Rid'dah, but cowardly dismiss those battles that really mattered during the time of the Prophet (SAW), made a difference in Islam, and that Allah documented in the Qur'an",

I do not dismiss anything. The goodness/righteous does not over shadow the badness/wrongness or vice versa. This is exactly what you are trying to do, using the virtues and merits, status and level to over shadow and disregard the serious errors, faults, mistakes and wrongness.

you said,

"The topic of Abdullah ibn Saba is old and boring",

Absolutely. This is a fictional character who never existed and was created in the future as an excuse to camouflage the unrest during the reign of the third Khalif and to challenge the Shia ideology. Was the third Khalif that weak that he couldn't deal with Ibne Saba and put him in his place???

[Optimus Prime]

You said,

"Jamal and Siffin were wars that took place after when Islam was  complete, and after when the Allah and his Messenger (SAW) promised the companions, Jannah. Key word is after.Exactly. You have no point because when the Prophet (SAW) and Allah has promised many of the companions Jannah then it's a done-deal - no two ways about it",

This exactly sounds like the Christian belief that Jesus sacrificed (gave up) his life for us to enter heaven. So they also believe they have a done deal to enter heaven (paradise). Man, we Muslims really need to wake up and learn a lot about Islam.
You said,

"We overlook these times of fitna",

This is exactly what your problem is, either you are over looking or you are under looking. Fitna is fitna and the one who creates it is known as a mischief maker (fitne baaz). This is where some people try and confuse the situation just to satisfy themselves and make others believe in it. Go by your principals and stand by them. This is exactly what my point is.

You do not have two individuals here of the same status and level. One is the rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, the Ulul Amre of the time. And to obey him is and follow his command is compulsory according to the Quran and your Aqeedah. Those who challenged him and used their influence to rebel against him are the out laws based on the Ulul Amre verse and your Aqeedah.

What you are doing is bringing in up silly excuses to try and camouflage the situation, sometimes by bringing Sahabiath and Azwaj e Rasool in to it and sometimes by trying to even the situation by saying, "oh, it was the time of fitna".

Bhai sahib, even if it was the time of fitna then who was the fitne baaz??? Was the situation even??? Either change your Aqaid concerning the position of Ulul Amre, Hakim e Waqth or stand by your Aqaid. It's the double standards that I am pointing out.

you said,

"Even the Ahlul Bhait (RA) had differences and disagreements between them",

The people you have mentioned are not part of and from the Ahlul Baith. You need to be more specific and clear about this.

you said,

"No one is denying they erred, made mistakes, committed minor and major sins before/after Islam, however, their good/positive deeds have scored them the ultimate eternal prize - end of",

No one has the ultimate prize until you are dead and it's over. Then you will be judged by your words and actions based on your intentions and thoughts on the day of judgement. Don't follow hadiths and narrations that contradict the Quran because those are certainly not the words of the Messenger (pbuh).

you said,

"You love bringing up the battle Jamal, Siffin, and Rid'dah, but cowardly dismiss those battles that really mattered during the time of the Prophet (SAW), made a difference in Islam, and that Allah documented in the Qur'an",

I do not dismiss anything. The goodness/righteous does not over shadow the badness/wrongness or vice versa. This is exactly what you are trying to do, using the virtues and merits, status and level to over shadow and disregard the serious errors, faults, mistakes and wrongness.

you said,

"The topic of Abdullah ibn Saba is old and boring",

Absolutely. This is a fictional character who never existed and was created in the future as an excuse to camouflage the unrest during the reign of the third Khalif and to challenge the Shia ideology. Was the third Khalif that weak that he couldn't deal with Ibne Saba and put him in his place???

lol, that the best you got? Seriously?

You're dragging from one topic to another. This is getting boring.

Those mentioned are from Ahlul Bhait (RA). The descendants of Abbas (RA) and the wives of the Prophet (SAW) are included. Don't feed me your rubbish how it's only the 5 because all of them are second in line. The wives of the Prophet (SAW) are the kernel crux of the Ahlul Bhait (RA). The point remains is the family members of the Prophet (SAW) had issues and quarreled amongst themselves over sins/mistakes committed, but you don't hear us barking about them day in and day out. Instead we look past it, and say they too were humans, and decide to focus on their good qualities that can benefit us in our lives. This is pure practical definition of Sunnah.

The good qualities of some (some because the main heavy weights had passed away at this time and did not take part in the two battles) of the companions does excuse their shortcomings because the Prophet (SAW) and Allah has promised them the ultimate prize - NEWSFLASH! Their accomplishments in the time of the Prophet (SAW) is unprecedented and beyond contrastive. What, do I mean? I mean that Allah was THAT pleased with them, Allah told them BEFORE the day when your fate gets decided that you've passed, you've made it, you've scored or better put you've won the ultimate prize. The Day of Judgement will be nothing more than a formality for the majorty of them as it means it'll be divinely announced to the entire mankind. 

If that burns and tears your heart inside-out then you're developing traits of those people during the time of fitna. The analogy you use is weak as a feather. The Christians did NOTHING during or after the time Isa (AS) to warrant any form of divine honour. Future generations literally believe they can do what they want, when they want and how they want yet they will still receieve Jannah. How dare you make such a comparison with and against the nobility of the companions (RA). They are the essence of Islam and the reason why Islam has reached us all today. They went against their families when they entered the fold, spent their wealth, faught against the enemies of Allah and triumphantly gave their lives where it was required, so Islam can reach the four corners of the globe. The juxtapositon between the two analogies is unparalleled. This is a clear reflection how you really feel about the companions (RA). Blind hatred in a nutshell. 

Our narrations and Allah in the Qur'an confirm many of the companions (RA) have scored Jannah therefore your words are poison by comparison:

“And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajireen and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct - Allah(swt) is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.”

Such the narrations are from the Prophet (SAW) where as your narrations are from people who were never present at that time. Your views are based on your warped and ambiguous interpretations of Qur'anic verses.

I said it once, and I'll say it again. You can cunningly dodge the facts of how the companions (RA) helped Islam flourish and make as much noise as you want with what happened after the time of the Prophet (SAW) in order to get people to re-evaluate the position and views of some of the companions (RA), but it ain't going to work. 23 years of hard graft and labour does not all of a sudden count for 0 just because of all the scandals that took place later on. It was political unrest fo'sure, but such discussions is nothing more than political polemics not theological. It has nothing to do with Aqeedah. What happened, happened and that's where the buck stops.

Abdullah ibn Saba, is your ancestor and the founder of your Shaintanic cult. When I said it's boring and old. I meant I can't be arsed discussing him as it's:

a) Unrelated to this thread and our recent exchanges
b) He was a prick who took a thing or two from Paul who distorted Chrisanity in later years

Start a thread about it, and I'm sure many will be able to provide narrations from our sources  where Uthman (RA) did not want to resort to violence where it would result in the blood of Muslism being spilled. He opted for martyrdom instead which, shows the calibre of the man. Uthman (RA) denied Ali (RA) to shut your ancestor up, but when Ali (RA) got his turn. He didn't disappoint:

Abdullah Ibn Saba said to Ali [r.a] : You are God for sure, so Ali [r.a] deported him to Madain [Capital of Iran in the past], and it was said that he was a Jew and converted to Islam, And at the time when he was a Jew, claimed that Yousha' bin Noon [a.h] is after Moses [a.h]. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh], he claimed the same for Ali [r.a].

[Anwar Al-Nu'mania 2/234]

Abdullah Ibn-e-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Ali [r.a] is the true God [Na’uzubillah].

[Anwaar-ul-Na'umania, Vol#2, Pg#234 - Published Iran]

http://www.kr-hcy.com/references/shia/070.shtml

Finally, you've not pointed any double standards, but your stubborness to hold firmly to your alterior motive which, is to prove to anyone that may come across as a deliquient what the Rafdhi understanding of all this. Sure, go ahead. That's what this forum is about, but Insh'Allah it'll backfire and Allah will use it as a means to guide others just like how many of the members here who were ex-Shias/Rafidhis have been guided.

Insh'Allah.

[Optimus Prime]

Not that this is related to the main thread, but to squash another Rafidhi claim like the one with Abu Dhar being exiled by Uthman (RA) where he couldn't do nothing about the fitna.

Here is a narration where the Prophet (SAW) prophesied Uthman (RA) caliphate.

At-Tirmidhy reported in his Sunan from the Hadith of `A'ishah that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "O `Uthman, perhaps Allah shall make you wear a garment however if they want you to take it off, do not give it to them."

Source: p. 579, No. 3705, and Al Albany graded it as authentic in "Sahih Sunan At-Tirmidhy

Here is a narration the Prophet (SAW) prophesied his death:

Hadhrat Abdullah bin Umar (RA) relates that Rasulullah (SAW) said: "Fitnah (Mischief) will occur amongst you and this person (i.e. Uthman) will be killed unjustly".

Source: Tirmizi p.212 vol.2

Finally, when the fitna does happen, Prophet (SAW) said Uthman (RA) will be on haq:

Hadhrat Murrah bin Ka'b (RA) narrates that he heard Rasulullah (SAW) speak about (the era of) mischief as though it were going to occur shortly (after his departure from the world). Just then Uthman (RA) who was wrapped in a sheet, passed them by. Rasulullah (SAW) said, "On that day, this man will be on the correct path."

Source: Mishkaat p.562

In summary, he was following instructions of the Prophet (SAW) and knew he was on the path of justice and spirituality. It took some guts accepting death instead of intensifying the fitna.

May Allah bless Uthman (RA).

Ameen, say "AMEEN". 

[Ameen]

What absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Will respond to this when I'm free.

[Optimus Prime]

What absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Will respond to this when I'm free.

The truth hurts doesn't it?

Just bring it, I'll be waiting with itching anticipating. Refuting kafirly related content is something, I can get used to.

[Ameen]

Let me tell you what hurts,

Abu bakar was brave enough to declare war on those who refused to pay Zaka'ath,

Umar was strong enough to whip Muavia for showing off his dress,

Ali had the strength and courage to exile Ibne Saba,

But you're telling me that Usman was so weak that he couldn't put Ibne Saba in his place???

He allowed Ibne Saba to cause and create fitna???

If Abu Bakar could use force on those causing mischeif on the matter of Zaka'ath, Umar had the strength to whip someone for showing off and Ali had the courage to exile Ibne Saba then, why was Usman so weak in putting Ibne Saba and dealing with those who created and caused fitna???

You don't think far ahead, do you???

[Furkan]

FAIL ameen, just fail.