Shia of Ali & massacre of nahrawan?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

As a sunni I believe that Ali was a righteous caliph & ameerulmomineen at the time of his rule.
Thus his position was legitimate vs those who rebelled.

I will post part of an ibadhi sect article regarding the people of nahrawan during Ali's rule.

The aim is not too promote its contents, but merely to highlight this alternate view of history shared by a section of the muslim ummah known today as ibadhi's who mainly reside in Oman & parts of north africa.

The shia always play the victim card & how they were persecuted throughout history.

Here, we see one of the earliest events of a historical narrative of a massacre by the shia of Ali.

As I said, this is the ibadhi narrative & not the sunni one.

Here it is:


The Shi‘a who surrounded Ali were anxious, in their efforts to create their state, lest the people of Nahrawan should establish relations with the rest of the people and convince them with arguments and proof that the acceptance of arbitration had been a political mistake, that Ali’s caliphacy (after the arbitration and his removal from office) was no longer valid, that the oath of allegiance to him was no longer binding, and that the real caliph was Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi, who was given the oath of allegiance by a good number of Muslims. The Shi‘a feared that those at Nahrawan would establish contact with the people, and it was for this reason that they wanted to eradicate their opinions, lest they be disseminated among people, who might then understand them and become convinced of their validity.

It was only possible to eradicate these opinions by eradicating the people who held them. Had Ali hesitated in this matter and avoided bloodshed, everything would have been lost. Thus, he had to be pushed to take this decisive and crucial step by any means possible.

They were able to convince him through Al-Ash‘ath. He took the step, initiated the fight and eradicated the people of Nahrawan. But he was not able to eradicate the idea that they proclaimed, that idea which has filtered through with its truth and reality into the minds of many, until it became a principle that its upholders defend with patience, courage and resilience.

4000 of Al-Muhakkimah, were killed in Al-Nahrawan Battle, including the Imam of the people of Nahrawan, Abdullah ibn Wahb Al-Rasibi. Ibadhi sources indicate that most of the martyrs were jurists, Quran reciters and people of hounor in religion and opinion. Among them were Owais Al-Qurni, Hurqus ibn Zuhair Al-Sa'di, and other best companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Continued:

Ibn Muljam met up with two other Kharijites namely al-Burak ibn Abd Allah and Amr ibn Bakr al-Tamimi at Mecca, and concluded that the situation of the Muslims at the time was due to the errors of Ali, Muawiah and Amr ibn As, governor of Egypt. They decided to kill the three in order to resolve the "deplorable situation" of their time and also avenge their companions killed at Nahrawan.

So ibn muljam is seen as a hero by some as he avenged the massacre of his people by killing Ali.

[Hadrami]

The shia always play the victim card & how they were persecuted throughout history.

Because the only way they can hide their hatred and persecution of others is by hyping their own persecution. Sounds like zionist doesnt it?

Ibadiyah are nawasib, their belief is to hate Ali to the bone and that he is hellbound. Hypocritically, Iran & Oman love each other. Has anyone ever heard Iran condemning Oman for such belief towards Ahlulbayt? I dont think so.

[Hani]

I like how Hurqus bin Zuhayr is viewed as hero, I recall nothing heroic about him, he participated in `Uthman's siege. I wonder how many of their Khariji books survived.

[Hani]

here's a website with some of their books:
http://www.istiqama.net/books/all-books.htm

The only Khariji book I read was Musnad-ul-Rabi`, which is a Hadith book, similar in its narrations to those the nation is familiar with, weak in its chains, containing one prophetic-narration that clearly condemns `Ali.

Our scholars of Hadith rightly weakened the whole book and even deemed it fabricated, Ibadhis think its authentic just like Zaydis think Musnad Zayd is authentic and Imamis think Sulaym bin Qays is authentic.

Another thing I know about Ibadhi Khawarij, is that just like Ithna`Asharis, they took Mu`tazili `Aqidah and carbon copied it into their own books.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

here's a website with some of their books:
http://www.istiqama.net/books/all-books.htm

The only Khariji book I read was Musnad-ul-Rabi`, which is a Hadith book, similar in its narrations to those the nation is familiar with, weak in its chains, containing one prophetic-narration that clearly condemns `Ali.

Our scholars of Hadith rightly weakened the whole book and even deemed it fabricated, Ibadhis think its authentic just like Zaydis think Musnad Zayd is authentic and Imamis think Sulaym bin Qays is authentic.

Another thing I know about Ibadhi Khawarij, is that just like Ithna`Asharis, they took Mu`tazili `Aqidah and carbon copied it into their own books.

Is it possible to put up the english translation of the narration that has a negative view of Ali?

[أبو ماريا المرزم]

The people of Nahrawan had no right to separate from the main body of Muslims. The original khawarij made takfir on Ali  Ra because they thought the arbiration was a violation of rule belonging only to Allah. They believed Ali Ra did not rule by what Allah revealed when he arbitrated. What Ali ra did, was in fact, sanctioned in the sharia according to Qur'an 49:9. The people of Nahrawan also transgressed because they killed Abdullah Ibn Khabab and gutted his wife.

[Hani]

Is it possible to put up the english translation of the narration that has a negative view of Ali?

Aba Sufiyan said: I was told by `Abdul-Malik, he said: I heard Hammad bin Ishaq al-Khawarizmi say: When this verse was revealed {And be wary of the tribulation that will not only engulf the oppressors among you} Alongside the Prophet (saw) were Abu Bakr and `Umar may Allah be pleased with them as well as `Ali and `Uthman. Abu Bakr asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" He (saw) replied: "Under the sand." Then `Umar asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" He (saw) replied: "Under the sand." Then `Uthman asked so he (saw) replied: "Through you, it will be ignited and start." `Ali stood and asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" The Prophet (saw) responded: "You will be at its forefront and you shall be its leader, you will walk into it like a tied up beast."

Source: Musnad al-Rabi`.

As in, `Ali is from the heads of that Fitnah and he'll plunge right into it.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Is it possible to put up the english translation of the narration that has a negative view of Ali?

Aba Sufiyan said: I was told by `Abdul-Malik, he said: I heard Hammad bin Ishaq al-Khawarizmi say: When this verse was revealed {And be wary of the tribulation that will not only engulf the oppressors among you} Alongside the Prophet (saw) were Abu Bakr and `Umar may Allah be pleased with them as well as `Ali and `Uthman. Abu Bakr asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" He (saw) replied: "Under the sand." Then `Umar asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" He (saw) replied: "Under the sand." Then `Uthman asked so he (saw) replied: "Through you, it will be ignited and start." `Ali stood and asked: "Where will I be on that day O Messenger of God (saw)?" The Prophet (saw) responded: "You will be at its forefront and you shall be its leader, you will walk into it like a tied up beast."

Source: Musnad al-Rabi`.

As in, `Ali is from the heads of that Fitnah and he'll plunge right into it.

How do we reconcile this report with the fact that the khawarij were known for being truthful narrators?

[Hani]

I'll say it politely, all innovators were lying pieces of horseradish, Mu`tazilah made up a bunch of lies, Shia made the most lies, Khawarij lied like the rest of them.