Some Zaydis lie upon Omar Al-Farooq just as the Twelvers do

[Ebn Hussein]

Many Sunnis think the Zaydis are the 'good' Shias. Many don't know that Zaydis themselves are divided into sub groups (the Houthis in North Yemen are Jaroudi Zaydis, the most extreme Zaydis who curse many Muhajir and Ansar Sahabah, they don't believe in the Imamite of the Imams of the Twelvers though. This has changed in the recent years when the leaders of the Zaydis enjoyed Majoosi Petro dollars and Mut'ah and 'studied' in Qom and came back as full blown Twelver Imamites) and all of them carry ugly heretical Mu'tazili beliefs and Tashayyu' (Shiism) that is often does not just resemble Twelver Imamism but is actually one and the same. Don't get me wrong I am not saying that the majority or all Zaydis are close to the Rafidis, I've read many quotes by Zaydi scholars actually REFUTING Imamites !) and calling them heretics. Nonetheless, the cancer of Tashayyu' in it's Bid'i form is a reality of Zaydism hence no wonder you find them propagate lies like this:



Of course just like the Imamites who too have a habit of usually not mentioning chains of narrations and the verdict of the authenticity of the narration (based on unbiased research not just picking the next available scholar) the Zaydis too quote everything to support their flimsy Fiqh based on weak and broken chains and to attack the Rashidah Khalifs. Just look at this nonsense, how can a sane person believe in this narration? What the Shias accuse Omar of is basically that he was concerned that people would be more concerned about praying and not going to wars (Jihad). I mean, what the heck? On one side the Shias accuse the vast majority of the Sahaba of being traitors who were literally bloodthirsy, chasing the Dunya for Ghanima (spoils of war). Example: Their beloved Majoosi Persian empire. On the other side they claim that the Sahaba were actually becoming lazy because of ONE line in the Adhan that is no discouraging from Jihad anyway, it just states that Salah is the BEST of the deeds, that's what every Muslim baby knows, including the Sahaba)?! Look how this dhalimeen judge!
 
Anyway, it's as the scholars say, Tashayyu' is a Bid'ah, it can have very mild forms (like the narrators in many Hadith books like Bukhari etc.) but it is a Bid'ah nevertheless which turns into Mu'tazili Zaydism and then completely destroys one when it reaches the Imamite Twelver religion of Kufr, Shirk and Zandaqah (all in the name of 'Tashayyu'' i.e. loving and supporting the Ahlul-Bayt!).

[Ebn Hussein]

As for the Shubha of 'Hayyaa 'alaa Khayril-'Amal' and everything else that is related to the Adhan (and where 'Omar is often being accused by the Rawafid) then please refer to these unique articles that answer all their doubts:

Did Omar altered the Athaan? (“Prayer is better than sleep” - http://gift2shias.com/2009/10/18/altering-athan-by-omar-ibn-al-khattab-allegation-refuted/

Hayyaa 'alaa Khayr Al-'Amal - An abondened Sunnah, removed by Omar? - http://gift2shias.com/2013/06/09/hayyaa-alaa-khayr-al-amal-an-abondened-sunnah/

‘Praying is better than sleep’ (al-salaatu khayrun min al-nawm) – SAHIH narrations in Sunni books - http://gift2shias.com/2010/09/14/saying-al-salaatu-khayrun-min-al-nawm/

‘Praying is better than sleep’ (al-salaatu khayrun min al-nawm) – in Shia books - http://gift2shias.com/2013/06/10/praying-is-better-than-sleep-al-salaatu-khayrun-min-al-nawm-in-shia-books/

When should the words al-salaatu khayrun min al-nawm (prayer is better than sleep) be said - http://gift2shias.com/2009/11/30/saying-al-salaatu-khayrun-min-al-nawm-in-azan/

May Allah curse the Shias for adding ‘Aliyun Waliyullah’ to the Athaan (Says Al-Toosi, not a Wahhabi!) - http://gift2shias.com/2013/06/08/sheikh-saduq-opinion-on-azan/

Third testimony of the Shia Athaan is an accursed Bid'ah according to classical Shia scholars - http://gift2shias.com/2013/06/09/3rd-testimony-in-adhaan-and-iqaamah-bidah-innovation/

[Ebn Hussein]

Here a Twelver narration that is even more stupid in its matn/text than what the Zaydis cite as a proof:

- حدثنا عبد الواحد بن محمد بن عبدوس النيسابوري رضى الله عنه قال حدثنا علي بن قتيبة عن الفضل بن شاذان قال: حدثني محمد بن أبي عمير انه سأل أبا الحسن عليه السلام عن حي على خير العمل لم تركت من الاذان؟ فقال تريد العلة الظاهرة أو الباطنة قلت اريدهما جميعا فقال: أما العلة الظاهرة فلئلا يدع الناس الجهاد إتكالا على الصلاة، واما الباطنة فان خير العمل الولاية فاراد من أمر بترك حي على خير العمل من الاذان ألا يقع حثا عليها ودعا إليها.

Abd al-Waahid ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdus al-Neesaaburee said, 'Alee ibn Qutaybah narrated to us, from al-Fadl ibn Shaadhaan who said, Muhammad ibn Abee Umair narrated to me and said,

I asked Abaa al-Hassan al-Ridhaa عليه السلام about hayya 'ala khayr al-'amal, was it not abandoned from the adhaan? He said, "Do you want the apparent explanation, or the inner explanation?" I said, "I want both of them." So he said, "As to the outward explanation (it was done) lest the people abandon/snub jihaad and rely/be dependent upon salaah. And as to the inward explanation, verily the khayr al-'amal is al-wilayah. He wanted to order the abandoning of hayya 'ala khayr al-'amal from the adhaan truly to abandon the mention/attention concerning it and the calling to it.


5 - حدثنا علي بن عبد الله الوراق وعلي بن محمد بن الحسن المعروف بابن مقبرة القزويني قالا: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال حدثنا العباس بن سعيد الازرق قال: حدثنا أبو بصير عيسى بن مهران عن الحسن بن عبد الوهاب، عن محمد بن مروان عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: أتدرى ما تفسير حي على خير العمل؟ قال: قلت لا قال: دعاك إلى البر أتدرى بر من؟ قلت لا قال دعاك إلى بر فاطمة وولدها

'Alee ibn 'AbdAllah al-Waraaq and 'Alee ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hussein al-Ma'ruf who said, Sa'ad ibn 'AbdAllah ibn 'Abee Khalaf narrated to us and said, al-'Abaas ibn Sa'eed al-Azraq said, Abu Baseer 'Eesa ibn Mihraan narrated to us from al-Hassan ibn 'Abd al-Wahaab, from Muhammad ibn Marwaan, from Abee Ja'far عليه السلام who said:

"Do you know the tafseer of hayya 'ala khayr al-'amal?" I said: "No." He said: "It's a beckoning/call to the loyalty/devotion/love (al-birr). Do you know who this al-birr is for?" I said: "No." He said: "It is a beckoning/call to the al-birr of Faatimah عليها السلام and her children."

LOL! The Batini Imam (real Imam Ridha 'alayhis-salam has nothing got to do with this Batinism) tells his Baha2em (cattle) that a line that apparently every Muslim kid knew by heart actually stand for the Wilayah that is no where in the Qur'an and the Sunnah (but apparently clearly mentioned in the Adhan). Rafidism at its best, no further comment.

[Iqra07]

We are not "lying" on Umar. According to our books he did a number of innovations.  But we do not curse him or call him kafir.  So comparing us to 12vers in this regard is.neither fair nor sensible.
Also the Houthis are NOT Jarudiyyah.  That group has been defunct.for quite some time. Please show where any prominent Zaydi or group of regular Zaydiyyah claims to be from Jarudiyyah branch in modern times.

[Ebn Hussein]

Of course you are lying. Provide an UBROKEN solid chain of narrations from your own books for the accusation against Omar Al-Farooq (in regards to 'hayyaa 'alaa khairil 'amal'. There is not a SINGLE authentic narrations that ANY of the major members of the Ahlul-Bayt ever accused him of innovations, heck Ibn Abbas STUDIED under him Ali praised Omar in MUTAWATIR narrations (and we Muslims follow the MUHKAM unlike heretics like Zaydis and Imamites). Now yalla, provide what I asked for and no games, just do it and don't waste anyones time.

And Jarudiyyah are one branch of the Zaydis and Houthis are originally Jaroudis.

[Hani]

I think they have a chain for the accusation against `Umar from their own books, I've seen it. It's either Musnad Zayd al-Sunnah li-Zayd or al-Rawd al-Nadeer whatever ...

[Ebn Hussein]

I am not saying they don't I wanna see it, an unbroken sahih/hassan chain according to their standards. Of course it is worth nothing compared to MUTAWATIR narrations that will dismiss such accusations (but Zaydis like Imamites follow the Mutashabih instead of the Muhkam, like all heretics), still it's good to know how strong that narration is according to their own principles.

[Ebn Hussein]

As for the MAIN hadith book of the Zaydis, the so called Musnad of Zayd then just like Al-Kafi it's one of the biggest lies of history, it's main narrator is a liar who lied upon Ali like as if it's a Sunnah to do so! Anyone who knows Arabic and sincerily does a research will come to that conclusion:

http://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/69916/

Tashayyu' in all it's forms is a joke, sometimes more (Imamism) sometimes a bit less (Zaydism).

[Iqra07]

Oh so now we are heretics?
LOL! 
Well call.us whatever.you want. There are NOT any Jarudiyyah around now and I challenge you to find one. Answer my challenge before issuing your own. As I said in ZAYDI books Umar is said to have introduced innovation such as tarawih in masjid which should be done at home etc. But we DO NOT curse Umar.
In any case I have a hard.time believing that ANYONE who worships Allah and Allah alone is a heretic. Clearly you have a different definition than I do. Surah Al Baqarah Ayat 177 is sufficient to tell ME who is a believer.

It is strange to me.that Muslims are busy calling each other.kafirs and heretics whilst those who don't even believe in Allah sit back and watch us.kill each other and curse each other. Disagreement about aqidah and fiqh or which hadith are Sahih or.mutawatir should not.descend into this nonsense.  You will NEVER convince me that there.is anything Islamic about calling those who embrace the pillars.of.Islam.heretics. It is.fitnah plain.and simple.

When you are ready.to.cease.the.fitnah we can have good discussion.  But if you want to simply hurl accusations and call names then hey may the Blessings of Allah be upon you but I will save my discussions for those who are wiping to.treat me as a brother with whom they disagree rather than accuse me.of.heresy.  And Allah knows best

[Hadrami]

It is strange to me.that Muslims are busy calling each other.kafirs and heretics whilst those who don't even believe in Allah sit back and watch us.kill each other and curse each other. Disagreement about aqidah and fiqh or which hadith are Sahih or.mutawatir should not.descend into this nonsense.  You will NEVER convince me that there.is anything Islamic about calling those who embrace the pillars.of.Islam.heretics. It is.fitnah plain.and simple.

Are you saying a zaydi dont believe or never called muawiya & those muslim who fought ali as kuffar/heretic? Im curious what type of zaydi you are because from what ive known zaydi are takfiri when it comes to muawiya and his supporters.

[Iqra07]

Zaydis do curse.muawiyah.  That is not relevant because that man.is not here. WE are here and.as Muslims we are.brethren. It makes.no.sense.to.have fitnah amongst each other based on fitnah from. 13 centuries ago. Fighting against a rightly guided Khalifah is a.crime. f
Furthermore Muhammad (saws) himself made.dual against muawiyah.  If RasulAllah (saws)  did.so, even acccording to Sunni sources, then us doing so is no crime.

In any case civil discussion not.attack is.in order. Muslims disagree based.o. their.understanding of.past events. Different.madhabs.see.each.other.as.misguided and that is fine. But there.is a.difference between seeing each other.as.misguided and doing takfir.  I do not curse the Sunnis for not.accepting the Imamate.  I simply want the same.respect. No respect no.discussion.  Mutual respect allows for.intelligent dialogue.
And Allah knows best

[Hadrami]

Zaydis do curse.muawiyah.  That is not relevant because that man.is not here. WE are here and.as Muslims we are.brethren. It makes.no.sense.to.have fitnah amongst each other based on fitnah from. 13 centuries ago. Fighting against a rightly guided Khalifah is a.crime. f
Furthermore Muhammad (saws) himself made.dual against muawiyah.  If RasulAllah (saws)  did.so, even acccording to Sunni sources, then us doing so is no crime.

In any case civil discussion not.attack is.in order. Muslims disagree based.o. their.understanding of.past events. Different.madhabs.see.each.other.as.misguided and that is fine. But there.is a.difference between seeing each other.as.misguided and doing takfir.  I do not curse the Sunnis for not.accepting the Imamate.  I simply want the same.respect. No respect no.discussion.  Mutual respect allows for.intelligent dialogue.
And Allah knows best

OK this is the impression I get from your comment
- don't curse us, but we can curse your dead people
- don't make takfir on us, but we can make takfir on your people
- don't make a big deal of something which happened 1400 yr ago, but we can make a big deal out of something which happened 1400+ yr

It's really selfish to demand respect when you give others none. Don't be oversensitive and consider this as an attack, im just pointing out the contradictions in what you're saying.

PS: Which one do you think is a bigger crime? Fighting a khalifa or giving up a khilafa and leadership of the ummah to a kafir?

[Iqra07]

WRONG.
RASULALLAH HIMSELF (SAWS) made duah against muawiyah. Therefore cursing him is not.outside of Sunnah.
But I didn't call him a.kafir so I.am not.saying do takfir.

In any case.if.you think I am heretic there.is.no point.in discussion I AM NOT calling YOU a heretic so do not.call ME one. That is EQUALITY.  You call.it.selfishness.  I disagree and Allah knows best

[Ebn Hussein]

Ok my Zaydi friend, but I asked first.

[Hadrami]

WRONG.
RASULALLAH HIMSELF (SAWS) made duah against muawiyah. Therefore cursing him is not.outside of Sunnah.
But I didn't call him a.kafir so I.am not.saying do takfir.

In any case.if.you think I am heretic there.is.no point.in discussion I AM NOT calling YOU a heretic so do not.call ME one. That is EQUALITY.  You call.it.selfishness.  I disagree and Allah knows best

Oh come on, please dont do taqiyah. Youre not 12er remember. Muawiya is kafir for you guys. Are you saying you believe hes a muslim? Besides i never called you heretic. Youre too defensive. Read what I wrote before replying

[HughSlaman]

WRONG.
RASULALLAH HIMSELF (SAWS) made duah against muawiyah. Therefore cursing him is not.outside of Sunnah.

This is confused. Perhaps your mind has been mixed up by the Twelver Shia who brainwashed you.

There is no evidence that the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and grant him peace, sincerely made any supplication against Sayyiduna Mu'awiya, may Allah be pleased with him. How could he, when he even refused to supplicate against the pagans who injured his blessed face at the battle of Uhud, Allah bless him and grant him peace? Can we expect that someone who refuses to curse those who are trying their best to kill him will then utter a curse on someone who is merely not responding to his call? This interpretation our Zaydi friend has given is is ridiculous.

As for the statement "May Allah not fill his belly", this is just an Arab expression, which is not meant literally, and can't be understood in the way our Zaydi friend wants us to do. It is similar to expressions like "May your mother be bereaved of you".

As for the claim that the supplication was answered, this has to be rigorously checked so as to steer clear of Mu'awaiya-hating fantasies spread by the Rafidis. Even if it was answered, though, the fact is that expressions that are not seriously intended by the speaker can, sometimes, be answered! This is why scholars warn Arab mothers against saying things like "May I be killed for your sake!' to their children who are ill; even if not meant literally and are merely expressions of compassion, such expressions can be answered, (if uttered at the time when prayers are answered). Such an answering of an expression not meant literally is even more likely in the case of a prophet, peace be upon them all.

It may be that it was precisely in order to deal with the possibility of such expressions being answered and harming the believers that the Messenger, Allah bless him and grant him peace famously prayed that his "curses" be made a source of blessing for the believers.

And it is easy to see how this "belly curse" could be a blessing, even if answered! It is an indirect confirmation of Prophethood after all!

This is a big topic, and this thread is probably not the right place to go into it. I just wanted to make a few points, so that nobody can be misled by the RIDICULOUS idea that "cursing Mu'awiya is a Sunna".

[Ebn Hussein]

WRONG.
RASULALLAH HIMSELF (SAWS) made duah against muawiyah. Therefore cursing him is not.outside of Sunnah.
But I didn't call him a.kafir so I.am not.saying do takfir.

In any case.if.you think I am heretic there.is.no point.in discussion I AM NOT calling YOU a heretic so do not.call ME one. That is EQUALITY.  You call.it.selfishness.  I disagree and Allah knows best

It's Du'a دعاء not Du'ah (there is no ه or ة at the end of the word). Also don't be a Munafiq I still have the post of you from one of your filthy heretical Zaydis scholars that you posted on the other forum, remember the one that I shred into pieces. That Zaydi scholar that YOU promoted called Mu'awiyah WORSE than a Kafir, he called hima  MUNAFIQ (and every Muslim knows that a Munafiq is MUCH worse than a Kafir). Also Zaydis are Ahlul-Bid'ah according to Ahlus-Sunnah, heretics if you like in English, stop whinning this is what you are according to us. As for cursing.