Verse 33:33 - Gender change from feminine to masculine

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?

Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ? Why is that you ignore that part of the hadith yet take everything else ? Imam Ali (as) was told to not contest them for Khilafa if they usurp his rights (as per rafidhi narrations ). Also, he was told that if he could gather enough people then he should fight them, if not, he should save his blood and not make the ummah turn against him by revolting against Abu Bakr since that would throw everything into chaos and Imam Ali (as) would have the same amount of respect that Abu Bakr has in the eyes of us rafidhis.

And why did he insult Abu Bakr (ra) infront of 'Umar (ra), the guy that killed his wife and burned his house?

Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.

Why didn't the cold-blooded murderer 'Umar (ra) just execute him then and there? Why did he even leave him alive?

Umar used to say that had it not been for Ali (as) Umar would be dead and we are all aware that Umar wasn't bright enough to rule the people, hence the appointment of Imam Ali (as) as his and Abu Bakr's advisor.

And he's insulting Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the bloody thirsty tyrant Caliph 'Umar (ra)?

As per nasibi narrations, yes.

Wasn't he told to be patient and keep his mouth shut (as per your rafidi fabrications)?

Refer to the answer above and reply to the questions posed, not in this post but the one above, that's if you even read it.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Everything has been answered and clarified with solid evidences, but you have started running in circle, since you are too arrogant to accept that you are wrong in your argument.

Are you kidding me ? It's you that's going in circles and trying to avoid the question. Your " Response " starts in the middle of the hadith where Abbas is calling Ali (as) a liar. You have made no mention of why Abbas and Ali (as) thought abu bakr to be a liar and it's evident from reading the hadith that they did that.

As you were taught before, the part where Abbas(RA) calls Ali(RA) a liar and dishonest person COMES BEFORE the part where Umar(RA) said you both thought Abu Bakr(RA) to be liar and dishonest person. SO you see its you who have jumped to the later part cutting off the part BEFORE IT, thus this is your dishonesty or arrogance since you are too afraid of facts.

Let me quote you again regarding the understanding of these statements:

Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.

Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.

As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ?

There were others too, but ofcourse, you will say, how come these people. So we have no cure for a disease called stupidity.

From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ

From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

Don't tell me that Abbas and Ali (as) weren't familiar with this hadith.

Why? Were they Prophets on whom shariah was revealed? There are a number of incidents regarding which Ali(RA) didn't know the rulings. But when he was informed he accepted it, same as in the case here, the both accepted the hadeeth.

[Husayn]

Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?

Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ? Why is that you ignore that part of the hadith yet take everything else ? Imam Ali (as) was told to not contest them for Khilafa if they usurp his rights (as per rafidhi narrations ). Also, he was told that if he could gather enough people then he should fight them, if not, he should save his blood and not make the ummah turn against him by revolting against Abu Bakr since that would throw everything into chaos and Imam Ali (as) would have the same amount of respect that Abu Bakr has in the eyes of us rafidhis.

And why did he insult Abu Bakr (ra) infront of 'Umar (ra), the guy that killed his wife and burned his house?

Ali (as) broke his nose the first time this guy showed up to his door.

Why didn't the cold-blooded murderer 'Umar (ra) just execute him then and there? Why did he even leave him alive?

Umar used to say that had it not been for Ali (as) Umar would be dead and we are all aware that Umar wasn't bright enough to rule the people, hence the appointment of Imam Ali (as) as his and Abu Bakr's advisor.

And he's insulting Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the bloody thirsty tyrant Caliph 'Umar (ra)?

As per nasibi narrations, yes.

Wasn't he told to be patient and keep his mouth shut (as per your rafidi fabrications)?

Refer to the answer above and reply to the questions posed, not in this post but the one above, that's if you even read it.

Subhan Allah!

Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.

Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.

The mark of deviancy.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

As you were taught before, the part where Abbas(RA) calls Ali(RA) a liar and dishonest person COMES BEFORE the part where Umar(RA) said you both thought Abu Bakr(RA) to be liar and dishonest person. SO you see its you who have jumped to the later part cutting off the part BEFORE IT, thus this is your dishonesty or arrogance since you are too afraid of facts.

Finally you say something about that accusation! Brother, was this the first time the went to ask for their shares (i.e Abbas and Ali (as) ) ? How can it be that in one narration you showed me, where Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with the word of tyrant 1 ( i.e Abu Bakr ) yet she didn't believe her own husband if he had already made her aware of this ? We have narrations about Bibi Fatima (sa) that state she died angry or upset with Abu Bakr yet we have no narrations stating the same regarding Ali (as) ? If she believed Abu Bakr then why does it say in Bukhari and Muslim that she died angry with ABU BAKR ALONE even though she supposedly believed him and accepted his response to her asking for her share ?

Let me quote you again regarding the understanding of these statements:

Umar did not approve of Abbas’s words against Ali; Umar took the correct view that people can get in arguments and make honest mistakes and nobody should simply jump to strong personal attacks like Abbas did against Ali, calling him a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” Therefore, Umar repeated the words of Abbas verbatim in order to prove a point, Umar was just making use of rhetoric. This is an example of, (reductio ad absurdum; Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) also known as an apagogical argument, which is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

No where does it say that the first time they didn't say that Abu Bakr was a liar when he claimed such a statement has been made by Prophet Muhammad (sawa). It is clear by your own admition that such an exchange of words did take place between Abbas and Ali (as).

We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.

One word; Irrelevant. In this hilarious analogy, the mother and father have told both of their sons the same thing, yet, the still considered eachother to be wrong. In the case of Abbas and Ali (as) this does not apply since they weren't told of such a hadith. Had they been informed, they wouldn't come to ask for their share. It's possible to say that one might've forgotten and is claiming the wrong thing but not that the one who said the wrong thing is also agreeing with the one that supposedly remembered the correct thing. Try again.

Hence, Umar was simply repeating the words of Abbas verbatim. How can the Shias ignore this “coincidence” especially in light of Arabic Balagha? It is obvious from this that Umar was proving a point, and his words should thus be analyzed in this context. Another important observation is that the Shia propagandists will say that it was Ali who called Abu Bakr and Umar to be a “liar, sinful, treacherous, and dishonest.” But the reality is that, it was merely Umar who said that Abbas was implying this. There is a significant point.

Look above.

As for the land being " Waqf " how come the only people that knew of this were Umar and Abu Bakr ?

There were others too, but ofcourse, you will say, how come these people. So we have no cure for a disease called stupidity.

From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ

From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ.

English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as

Why? Were they Prophets on whom shariah was revealed? There are a number of incidents regarding which Ali(RA) didn't know the rulings. But when he was informed he accepted it, same as in the case here, the both accepted the hadeeth.

I would've believed you if I had not heard the narrations where Ali (as) has been called the best of judges and the walking and talking Qur'an.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Subhan Allah!

Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.

Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.

The mark of deviancy.

This is not a friday khutba. I don't take anything you tell me without questioning it. As for my questions I asked you, you still haven't answered them. Your explaination is weak and holds no value. There's nothing worthy in your explaination. The brother above you has replied with the same reply at least three times without any explainations for my questions. QIYAS TO THE MAX.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

We would like to give an example just to enrich the mind: A mother and father who had told their two sons that the capitol of France was Paris. A few days later, the two sons get in an argument over the capitol of France. One brother says the capitol is Berlin, whereas the other says the capitol is London. When they go to their father to arbitrate over this matter, one brother says about the other: “Father, can you settle this dispute of mine with my idiot brother who thinks the capitol of France is Berlin?” The father is not appalled at the fact that his two little sons forgot the capitol of France; this is a mistake that anybody can make. But what he is appalled at is the language used by this son, calling his brother an “idiot.” The father then says: “So you thought of Mom as an idiot when she said that Paris was the capitol of France, and you thought I was an idiot when I said that too?” By saying this, the father is trying to dissuade the son from jumping to conclusions about his brother’s character, because in such a process, he would also believe his mother and father to be idiots as well.

You're still explaining the exchange of words between Ali (as) and Abbas. Not the one where BOTH OF THEM called Abu Bakr a liar after hearing his claim regarding the hadith of inheritance.

[Husayn]

Subhan Allah!

Look, now the rafidi wants to probe deeper into the "meaning" and "context" of a hadith - when it suites him.

Meanwhile - he ignores any explanation that contradicts his established religious view.

The mark of deviancy.

This is not a friday khutba. I don't take anything you tell me without questioning it. As for my questions I asked you, you still haven't answered them. Your explaination is weak and holds no value. There's nothing worthy in your explaination. The brother above you has replied with the same reply at least three times without any explainations for my questions. QIYAS TO THE MAX.

As an ex-rafidi, I know your mentality very well.

There is absolutely no point in explaining anything to you - I commend the other brothers for their patience. It is, however, futile, especially with someone who is openly proud of being a rafidi.

A better approach, I believe, is to simply point out the glaring contradictions in your religion built of legos. I say legos, because you deviants simply re-arrange the pieces whenever it suites you.

You claim:

'Ali (ra) openly insulted Abu Bakr (ra) in the court of the Caliph. He insulted him infront of 'Umar (ra), a tyrannical murderer according to your sect. He did this over Fadak. Over money and property.

You further claim:

Please advise me why 'Ali (ra) insulted Abu Bakr (ra) when he was supposedly doing taqiyyah out of fear for his life?

Is killing and insulting the same thing ? Could Abu Bakr be dethroned if he was insulted ?

So the simple question is:

Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Finally you say something about that accusation! Brother, was this the first time the went to ask for their shares (i.e Abbas and Ali (as) ) ? How can it be that in one narration you showed me, where Bibi Fatima (sa) supposedly agreed with the word of tyrant 1 ( i.e Abu Bakr ) yet she didn't believe her own husband if he had already made her aware of this ?

I explained you in Post#52 , that this They both went WITH A DIFFERENT REQUEST to Umar(RA). They went to ask him that their shares which they would have got as inheritance, should be ENTRUSTED to them. It means just went to ask Umar(RA) that they should be made trustees over their respective share. So its with a different request, its not asking to be granted the shares as owners, rather as trustees. See this Post#52
 http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11139/#msg11139

We have narrations about Bibi Fatima (sa) that state she died angry or upset with Abu Bakr yet we have no narrations stating the same regarding Ali (as) ? If she believed Abu Bakr then why does it say in Bukhari and Muslim that she died angry with ABU BAKR ALONE even though she supposedly believed him and accepted his response to her asking for her share ?

That is the idraaj of narrator Zuhri. And his Mursal reports are unacceptable.  See one example:

حدثنا أبو صالح الضراري، قال: حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام، عن معمر، عن الزهري، عن عروة، عن عائشة، أن فاطمة والعباس أتيا أبا بكر يطلبان ميراثهما من رسول الله ص، وهما حينئذ يطلبان أرضه من فدك، وسهمه من خيبر، فقال لهما أبو بكر: أما انى سمعت رسول الله يقول: [لا نورث، ما تركنا فهو صدقة، إنما يأكل آل محمد في هذا المال] وإني والله لا أدع أمرا رأيت رسول الله يصنعه إلا صنعته قال: فهجرته فاطمة فلم تكلمه في ذلك حتى ماتت، فدفنها علي ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر وكان لعلي وجه من الناس حياة فاطمة، فلما توفيت فاطمة انصرفت وجوه الناس عن علي، فمكثت فاطمة ستة أشهر بعد رسول الله ص، ثم توفيت. قال معمر: فقال رجل للزهري: أفلم يبايعه علي ستة أشهر! قال: لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم، حتى بايعه علي قال لا، ولا أحد من بني هاشم

‘Aishah (said): Fatimah and al-Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their share of inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God’s land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar’s tribute. Abu Bakr replied, “I have heard the Messenger of God say, “Our, i.e. the prophets’ property cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behind is alms to be given in charity. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of god practicing, but will continue it accordingly. He said: Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend her burial. While Fatimah was alive, Ali held respect among the people. After she died their attention turned away form him. Ma’mar: A man asked al-Zuhri, “Did Ali not give his oath of allegiance for six months?” He said: “No, nor anyone of the Banu Hashim until Ali rendered his,”.(Tarikh al-tabari, Dar al-Turath, Beirut, 1387 A.H. vol.3 pp.207-208))

For details on this issue refer this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/10-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-ten/

No where does it say that the first time they didn't say that Abu Bakr was a liar when he claimed such a statement has been made by Prophet Muhammad (sawa). It is clear by your own admition that such an exchange of words did take place between Abbas and Ali (as).

Where does it say that they said that to Abubakr(RA)? I believe you are bringing false claims out of nowhere, just to discredit the explanation given, regarding Umar(RA) using the rhetoric. Because if they SAID to Abubakr that he was liar, as you claim, then the explanation about Umar(RA) using it as rhetoric is wrong. But if you have no proof that they said so, then the explanation that Umar(RA) was using it as rhetoric is accurate, because Umar(RA) uses the word, YOU THOUGHT, he didn't say, you said. See the difference.

One word; Irrelevant. In this hilarious analogy, the mother and father have told both of their sons the same thing, yet, the still considered eachother to be wrong. In the case of Abbas and Ali (as) this does not apply since they weren't told of such a hadith. Had they been informed, they wouldn't come to ask for their share.

They didn't come to ask it as the owners, but they wanted to entrusted over their shares. See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.

From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim:

وَحَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي خَلَفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَكَرِيَّاءُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ يُونُسَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنِ الأَعْرَجِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

From Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو كَامِلٍ، وَالنَّضْرُ بْنُ طَاهِرٍ، قَالا: أَخْبَرَنَا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ،قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مَالِكٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ: ” لا نُوَرَّثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ “، هَذَا الْكَلامُ لا نَعْلَمُ يُرْوَى عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ إِلا مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ، وَلا رَوَاهُ عَنْ أَبِي مَالِكٍ إِلا الْفُضَيْلُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ

From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ.

English please. It is known that Aisha and Hafsa both went to ask for their share as

From Abu Hurairah(ra) in Sahih Muslim: Prophet(SAWS) said: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave behind is charity.”

from Hudhayfah(ra) in AL-BAZZAR: Rasool Allah(SAWS) said: “We offer no inheritance, all we leave is charity.”

From Aishah(ra) in Sahih Bukhari.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ، عَنْ مَالِكٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها أَنَّ أَزْوَاجَ، النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم حِينَ تُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَرَدْنَ أَنْ يَبْعَثْنَ عُثْمَانَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَسْأَلْنَهُ مِيرَاثَهُنَّ‏.‏ فَقَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ أَلَيْسَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ “‏ لاَ نُورَثُ مَا تَرَكْنَا صَدَقَةٌ

`Aisha said, “When Allah’s Messenger(saw) died, his wives intended to send `Uthman to Abu Bakr asking him for their share of the inheritance.” Then `Aisha said to them, “Didn’t Allah’s Messenger(saw) say, ‘Our (Apostles’) property is not to be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity?'(Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 80, Hadith 722)


 

I would've believed you if I had not heard the narrations where Ali (as) has been called the best of judges and the walking and talking Qur'an.

Best Judge doesn't mean a Prophet nor does it mean infallible. A judge basically listens to the case of two parties and makes a Judgement. So it has nothing to do with not knowing a hadeeth.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

So the simple question is:

Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

Ex shia ? MashaAllah brother. If all Shia were like you then we would say that even the people of kufa were Shia lol. Did you forget the insult of Imam Ali (as) upon the khilafa of Abu Bakr when he denied going to him to give bayah ? Don't turn around and say that " Why did he not do it to Umar " ? Same applies when he had his nose broken. That was enough for Umar lol.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

So the simple question is:

Why, ya rafidi, did he not insult him over his Khilafa, if 'Ali (ra) supposedly had no fear, and insults aren't going to threaten the "usurpers"? Why all the effort for Fadak?

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

Ex shia ? MashaAllah brother. If all Shia were like you then we would say that even the people of kufa were Shia lol. Did you forget the insult of Imam Ali (as) upon the khilafa of Abu Bakr when he denied going to him to give bayah ? Don't turn around and say that " Why did he not do it to Umar " ? Same applies when he had his nose broken. That was enough for Umar lol.

Lol, as one brother rightly said, Actually It was Umar(AS) who broke the nose of persian empire. And Ali(AS) honored Umar(AS) in his life time and even after his death.

(i). Ali(AS) married his daughter to Umar(AS).

(ii). Named his son after Umar bin Khattab(AS).

(iii). He said this on the death bed of Umar(AS).

`Ali says:

لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.

[May Allah reward such and such man, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief, and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.] {Nahjul Balagha Sermon 227}

Ibn abi al-Hadid says in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah 12/3: “The one meant here is `Umar bin al-Khattab, I have found the original copy of Nahjul Balagha in abi al-Hasan al-Radi’s own handwriting and he wrote “`Umar” under the word “such and such”.”

He also writes: “I asked the head of the order of Ahlul-Bayt, abu Ja`far Yahya bin abi Zayd al-`Alawi (about this matter) and he said: “`Umar bin al-Khattab”, I told him: “Would the chief of believers praise him this much!?” He replied: “Yes.””

Furthermore, he said in 2/4: “If the chief of believers admitted that he departed with untarnished clothes and that he obeyed Allah and feared him, then this is the utmost praise.”

We also found it in an even earlier source, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.
[/quote]l

Lol, as one brother rightly said, Actually It was Umar(AS) who broke the nose of persian empire. And Ali(AS) honored Umar(AS) in his life time and even after his death.

(i). Ali(AS) married his daughter to Umar(AS).

(ii). Named his son after Umar bin Khattab(AS).

(iii). He said this on the death bed of Umar(AS).

`Ali says:

لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.

[May Allah reward such and such man, he straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief, and established the Sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah’s obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.] {Nahjul Balagha Sermon 227}

Ibn abi al-Hadid says in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah 12/3: “The one meant here is `Umar bin al-Khattab, I have found the original copy of Nahjul Balagha in abi al-Hasan al-Radi’s own handwriting and he wrote “`Umar” under the word “such and such”.”

He also writes: “I asked the head of the order of Ahlul-Bayt, abu Ja`far Yahya bin abi Zayd al-`Alawi (about this matter) and he said: “`Umar bin al-Khattab”, I told him: “Would the chief of believers praise him this much!?” He replied: “Yes.””

Furthermore, he said in 2/4: “If the chief of believers admitted that he departed with untarnished clothes and that he obeyed Allah and feared him, then this is the utmost praise.”

We also found it in an even earlier source, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140)



Sermon 227: May Allah reward such and such man….

About a companion who passed away from this world before the occurrence of troubles.
ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)
يريد به بعض أصحابه
May Allah reward such and such man 1 who straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief and established the sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah's obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.

لله بلادُ فُلاَن، فَلَقَدْ قَوَّمَ الاْوَدَ، وَدَاوَى الْعَمَدَ، وَأَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ، وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ! ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، أَصَابَ خَيْرَهَا، وَسَبَقَ شَرَّهَا، أَدَّى إِلَى اللهِ طَاعَتَهُ، وَاتَّقَاهُ بِحَقِّهِ، رَحَلَ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُق مَتَشَعِّبَة، لاَ يَهْتَدِي بِهَا الضَّالُّ، وَلاَ يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي.
Alternative Sources for Sermon 227

(1) Al-Rawandi, al-Da`awat;

(2) al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, V, 47;

(3) see also the commentaries of Ibn Abi al-Hadid, III, 92 and Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani, IV, 97.

1. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 3-4) that the reference here is to the second Caliph `Umar, and that these sentences have been uttered in his praise as indicated by the word '`Umar' written under the word 'such and such' in as-Sayyid ar-Radi's own hand in the manuscript of Nahjul Balaghah written by him. This is Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's statement, but it is to be seen that if as-Sayyid ar-Radi had written the word '`Umar' by way of explanation it should have existed, as other explanations by him have remained, in those versions which have been copied from his manuscript. Even now there exists in al-Musil (Iraq) university the oldest copy of Nahjul Balaghah written by the famous calligraphist Yaqut al-Musta`simi; but no one has afforded any clue to this explanation of as-Sayyid ar-Radi. Even if the view of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid is accepted it would be deemed to represent the personal opinion of as-Sayyid ar-Radi which may serve as a supplementary argument in support of an original argument but this personal view cannot be assigned any regular importance.
It is strange that two and a half centuries after as-Sayyid ar-Radi namely in the seventh century A.H., Ibn Abi'l Hadid makes the statement that the reference here is to Caliph `Umar and that as-Sayyid ar-Radi himself had so indicated, as a result of which some other annotators also followed the same line, but the contemporaries of as-Sayyid ar-Radi who wrote about Nahjul Balaghah have given no such indication in their writings although as contemporaries they should have had better information about as-Sayyid Ar-Radi's writing. Thus, al-`Allamah `Ali ibn Nasir who was a contemporary of as-Sayyid ar-Radi and wrote an annotation of Nahjul Balaghah under the name of A`lam Nahjul Balaghah writes in connection with this sermon:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised one of his own companions for his good conduct. He had died before the troubles that arose after the death of the Prophet of Allah.
This is supported by the annotations of Nahjul Balaghah written by al-`Allamah Qutbu'd-Din ar-Rawandi (d. 573 A.H.). Ibn Abi'l-Hadid (vol. 14, p. 4) and Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 4, p. 97) have quoted his following view.
By this Amir al-mu'minin refers to one of his own companions who died before the mischief and disruption that occurred following the death of the Prophet of Allah.
Al-`Allamah al-Hajj al-Mirza Habibu'llah al-Khu'i is of the opinion that the person is Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar on the ground that after the assassination of Malik the situation of the Muslim community was such as Amir al-mu'minin explains in this sermon.
al-Khu'i adds that:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised Malik repeatedly such as in his letter to the people of Egypt sent through Malik when he was made the governor of that place, and like his utterances when the news of Malik's assassination reached him, he said: "Malik! who is Malik? If Malik was a stone, he was hard and solid; if he was a rock, he was a great rock which had no parallel. Women have become barren to give birth to such as Malik." Amir al-mu'minin had even expressed in some of his utterances that, "Malik was to me as I was to the Holy Prophet." Therefore, one who possesses such a position certainly deserves such attributes and even beyond that. (Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 374-375)
If these words had been about Caliph `Umar and there was some trustworthiness about it Ibn Abi'l-Hadid would have recorded the authority or tradition and it would have existed in history and been known among the people. But here nothing is found to prove the statement except a few self-concocted events. Thus about the pronouns in the words "khayraha" and "sharraha" he takes them to refer to the caliphate and writes that these words can apply only to one who enjoys power and authority because without authority it is impossible to establish the sunnah or prevent innovation.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.

Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

See the explanation I gave above, along with the link of Post #52, which clearly shows that you are running in circles. Everything has been answered, as i told before.

Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?

The readers can see, how this guy is running in circles. See post# 53 , He asked the same question even though he was answered before. Then when he insisted , I answered him again in post #61 see this link http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11203/#msg11203

Further clarified his counter argument in post #67 see here: http://forum.twelvershia.net/quran-tafseer/verse-3333-gender-change-from-feminine-to-masculine/msg11210/#msg11210

Now what he does again is that, ask the same question which he asked in post #53. So, its apparent the guy has completely lost it and just running circles.

Readers are wise enough to judge.

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?

Brother just answer those two questions please.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.

The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.

But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS). 

And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias. 

Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Who here is " both of you " ? Who is the true, virtuous and well guided ?

Brother just answer those two questions please.

If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.

The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.

But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS). 

And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias. 

Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Lol it was your mate who wrote that..secondly, your claim of this being Umar has been answered to. Look up. Or, did you ignore that ?

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.

The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.

But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS). 

And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias. 

Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Look at reply 70.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Your religion is a religion of contradictions.

l
No at all! Rather its your cult which is bases everything on assumptions and guesswork, contrary to established facts.

The claim that the sermon of Nahjul Balagha is referring to Malik al Ashtar is nothing but a guesswork of biased Shia scholars, who didn't have the guts to accept that it was regarding Umar(RA). If you don't accept the testimony of a Mutazili Shia Ibn Abil Hadeed, over the guesswork of your scholars, then its your choice.

But there is another clear evidence from another source which is earlier than Nahjul Balagha. Since the compiler of Nahjul Balagha , Sharif Razi was born in 359AH, where as the source we have which explicitly states, without leaving any room for you, and its author died in 262 AH. So more than 100 years before the compilation of Nahjul Balagha, we had reports which clearly stated that it was regarding Umar(AS). 

And the sermon in Nahjul Balagha having the "AMBIGUOUS WORDING OF SUCH AND SUCH MAN" is a clear proof of foul play by Shias. 

Look again the source complied more than 100 years before Nahjul balagha, Tarikh al-Madinah by Ibn Shubah al-Numayri [died. 262 AH], He writes on 2/91:

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادِ بْنِ عَبَّادٍ، قال: حَدَّثَنَا غَسَّانُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ، قَالَ: بَلَغَنَا أَنَّ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مَالِكِ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ الأَزْدِيَّ حَلِيفَ بَنِي الْمُطَّلِبِ، قَالَ: لَمَّا انْصَرَفْنَا مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ مِنْ جِنَازَةِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ دَخَلَ فَاغْتَسَلَ، ثُمَّ خَرَجَ إِلَيْنَا فَصَمَتَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” لِلَّهِ بَلاءُ نَادِبَةِ عُمَرَ لَقَدْ صَدَقَتِ ابْنَةُ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ حِينَ، قَالَتْ: وَاعُمَرَاهُ، أَقَامَ الأَوَدَ وَأَبْدَأَ الْعَهْدَ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ، ذَهَبَ نَقِيَّ الثَّوْبِ، قَلِيلَ الْعَيْبِ، وَاعُمَرَاهُ أَقَامَ السُّنَّةَ وَخَلَّفَ الْفِتْنَةَ “، ثُمَّ قَالَ: ” وَاللَّهِ مَا دَرَتْ هَذَا وَلَكِنَّهَا قُوِّلَتْهُ وَصَدَقَتْ، وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَصَابَ عُمَرُ خَيْرَهَا وَخَلَّفَ شَرَّهَا، وَلَقَدْ نَظَرَ لَهُ صَاحِبُهُ فَسَارَ عَلَى الطَّرِيقَةِ مَا اسْتَقَامَتْ، وَرَحَلَ الرَّكْبُ، وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي طُرُقٍ مُتَشَعِّبَةٍ لا يَدْرِي الضَّالُّ وَلا يَسْتَيْقِنُ الْمُهْتَدِي

[We were told by Muhammad bin `Abbad bin `Abbad, he said: Ghassan bin `Abdul-Hamid told us, he said: It has reached us that `Abdullah bin Malik bin `Uyaynah al-Azdi the ally of banu al-Muttalib said: When we left with `Ali may Allah be pleased with him from `Umar’s funeral, he entered his house and bathed and came out, he remained silent for a while then said: “May Allah reward the woman who grieved for `Umar’s passing, the daughter of Abu Hathmah spoke the truth when she said: O `Umar! He straightened the curve and fulfilled the oath. O `Umar! He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. O `Umar! He established the Sunnah and abandoned mischief.” He then said: “By Allah, she didn’t know these matters but she was taught to say them and she spoke the truth. By Allah, he achieved the goodness (of this world) and remained safe from its evils; he had looked at his companion and followed the path wherever it was straight, the rider left them in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.”]

Look at reply 70.

It is a reply to post#70 since it had no sound argument, what all it has are views of Shia scholars, which are just assumptions and hold no weight, when they are countered with established facts.

(i). More than a 100 year old source than Nahjul balagha clearly mentioning name of Umar.

(ii). Foul play in Nahjul balagha by making the sermon ambiguous. I.e SUCH AND SUCH person.

(iii). Ibn Hadid who was neither Sunni or a Twelver Shia, that is a neutral source, testifying that it was regarding Umar(RA).

[Qalander Rafidhi]

If you can't make out that, then you are totally dumb. And you need to take up some comprehension understanding classes of English. As for its explanation, then it has been answered. Refer post #72 .

I already have done that, brother. But, you're having trouble answering that question. You keep bringing up the part where Umar is telling them that he made them the trustee of the land and they both had their issue resolved by Umar. But, you keep dodging the question on why did Ali(as) and Abbas both thought Abu Bakr to a liar. Please, not the argument of resolving the disagreement between Ali (as) and Abbas, please. Lololol.