TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: Optimus Prime on March 16, 2015, 09:02:50 PM
-
for not protecting Uthman (RA).
I know something was said about this on the HCY site, but can no longer find the narration.
-
I thought that Hassan and Hussein did protect `Uthman, even when he told them to leave.
-
I thought that Hassan and Hussein did protect `Uthman, even when he told them to leave.
They tried, but obviously their attempts weren't enough as he was martyred in the end.
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Yes, Ali (RA) knew Uthman (RA) was superior to him.
The only person to have married 2 daughters of a Prophet.
-
for not protecting Uthman (RA).
I know something was said about this on the HCY site, but can no longer find the narration.
You gentlemen enjoy creating something out of nothing. Firstly was it their duty to protect the Khalif??? If yes then why??? Who killed Hazrath Usman (ra) and what was the reason???
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Yes, Ali (RA) knew Uthman (RA) was superior to him.
The only person to have married 2 daughters of a Prophet.
Marrying does't make you superior. Qualities and merits along with character, performance and achievement is what makes you superior.
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Yes, Ali (RA) knew Uthman (RA) was superior to him.
The only person to have married 2 daughters of a Prophet.
Marrying does't make you superior. Qualities and merits along with character, performance and achievement is what makes you superior.
And, Uthman (RA) fits that bill just right. It was because of his qualities and merits the Prophet (SAW) married him not to one, but two of his daughters.
-
for not protecting Uthman (RA).
I know something was said about this on the HCY site, but can no longer find the narration.
You gentlemen enjoy creating something out of nothing. Firstly was it their duty to protect the Khalif??? If yes then why??? Who killed Hazrath Usman (ra) and what was the reason???
Who cares.
This thread about finding a narration where the pair of then (RA) were smacked for not being able to achieve their objecitve.
You didn't answer my questions. Who cares??? Just say, "I don't know" or " I do know but I don't want to get in to that".
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Yes, Ali (RA) knew Uthman (RA) was superior to him.
The only person to have married 2 daughters of a Prophet.
Marrying does't make you superior. Qualities and merits along with character, performance and achievement is what makes you superior.
And, Uthman (RA) fits that bill just right. It was because of his qualities and merits the Prophet (SAW) married him not to one, but two of his daughters.
So what was his qualities and merits then???
-
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Yes, Ali (RA) knew Uthman (RA) was superior to him.
The only person to have married 2 daughters of a Prophet.
Marrying does't make you superior. Qualities and merits along with character, performance and achievement is what makes you superior.
And, Uthman (RA) fits that bill just right. It was because of his qualities and merits the Prophet (SAW) married him not to one, but two of his daughters.
So what was his qualities and merits then???
Open up another, and I'm sure someone will be more than obliged to educate you on the brother in law of Ali (RA).
Not this thread.
-
Uthman(r.a) was killed by treachurus rebels, invoked by the theory of ibn Saba(L.A.)
-
Uthman(r.a) was killed by treachurus rebels, invoked by the theory of ibn Saba(L.A.)
Can you back this claim up??? Who were those rebels??? What was the reason of the killing??? Ibne Saba, fact or fiction??? Did he really exist or was he just created to divert attention??? You can open up another thread or tell me and I will, since this is what is repeatedly asked.
-
Guys, i'm not picking a side, but we are going offtopic (again).
-
Guys, i'm not picking a side, but we are going offtopic (again).
We are indeed.
-
15 questions marks in 1 comment. Still below his personal record :D
-
Anything off topic below this will be removed.
-
I found it.
http://gift2shias.com/2013/06/01/alis-appeal-to-his-sons-on-the-murder-of-usman/
(http://gift2shias.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/muruj-az-zahab_maqtal-osman1.jpg?w=600&h=986)
Translation for second red-part:
(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”.
-
The role of Ahlebayt in defending Uthman(ra) from the rebellions(a sign of love and care):
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)]
2. Shia book states:
( أيها الناس! إن الذي تفعلون لا يشبه أمر المؤمنين ولا أمر الكافرين، إن فارس والروم لتؤسر فتطعم فتسقي، فوالله لا تقطعوا الماء عن الرجل، وبعث إليه بثلاث قرب مملوءة ماء مع فتية من بني هاشم ) .
[“ناسخ التواريخ” ج2 ص531، ومثله في “أنساب الأشراف”، للبلاذري ج5 ص69].
When the rebels seized Uthman(ra) from even drinking water, Ali(ra) addressed them saying: O people! The thing you are doing neither the muslims did nor the disbelievers, even the Iranis and Romans when arrest someone they allow them to eat and drink. For the sake of Allah don’t stop this man from drinking water. Then Ali(ra) sent water through a woman from bani hashim to Uthman(ra). (Nasikh al tawareekh, vol 2, page 531) similar report is even mentioned in Ansaab Al asraaf, vol 5, pg 69)
3. Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, “When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions’ sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house.” [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]
Taken from: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/part-7-nature-of-relationship-between-ahlebaytra-and-usmanra/
-
I will comment on your posts after I finsih work. Very interesting though.
-
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???
-
So what if they flipped Hasan and Husayn? that's a very minor detail.
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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. :D
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.
-
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. :D
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. 8)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? 8)
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. :P
-
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 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. :P
-
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???
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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". 8)
-
What absolute rubbish and utter nonsense. Will respond to this when I'm free.
-
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. :D
-
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???
-
FAIL ameen, just fail.
-
Fail??? Oh come on. It's just started to get interesting. Abdullah Ibne Saba??? Very strong and influential character we have here, who certainly got the third Khalif running for his Khilafath and then running for his life???
Come on, you think Usman was this weak??? Or this character was responsible for the unrest and Usman's murder???
-
Simple:
a) Abu Bakr (RA) declared on those people who had become murtads, who apostated. They outright refused to pay zakat which is furdh, and thus went out of the fold of Islam. In the end he had the backing of the other companions (RA). Guess who lead the war against these people under the banner of Khalifah ta Rasoolullah? Two guesses, Ali (RA). THESE people are the so-called companions whom you should be questionning and bashing with your lanat-barkings.
b) He detected an ounce of pride, and Allah has made it clear anyone with a musk of pride in thie hearts will not not step foot in Jannah (to the nearest meaning), Umar (RA) was someone who always wanted to set the right Islamic precedent and that is to fear Allah at all times, which is why he demoted Khalid ibn Walid (RA) of military command when too many of the peopple and companions (RA) started overpraising his accommplishments rather praising Allah for granting them victory.
c) The fact your ancestor Abdullah ibn Saba was referring to Ali (RA) as God, he was lucky to be exited with his head still on his neck, what would you have done if someone referring to you as the God/Allah? Imagine, Islam taking a U-turn, and people start to worship a human being instead of the oneness of Allah? You certainly don't want to leave that legacy and undermine the efforts of the Prophet (SAW) who's fundamental objective was to preach tawheed. Having said some of your Shia comrades worship Ali (RA) directly, Astagfirullah.
d) Uthman (RA) refused to do anything about the Khwarij because it would've meant for the first time in Islam's young history at that point killing Muslims, Abdullah ibn Saba was a consipicious bastard who had manipulated millions about how Khalifat should exclusively come from Ahlul Bhait which, is a load of crock of course. So, Uthman (RA) chose not to do anything because he valued the Ummah way too much, he even tried to reason with these people, but they had already made up their minds. This was such a sacrificial and heroic decision that Ali (RA) sent his own sons to protect him at the cost of their own lives. So, go figure.
I think logically and accept the authentic sources. Allah has blessed me with akal, Alhamdulillah.
You on the other hand are bringing up one Rafidhi topic one after the other for mere sake of it. Basically causing a form of fitna for no apparent reason, but the fact is you're confused and filled with negative feelings for these great personalities JUST like your ancestor. ;)
-
Uthman (ra) could have wiped of those rebels from planet Earth, it's just that he didn't want bloodshed.
He kept his position as a caliph until the end WITHOUT any bloodshed, that's a MILESTONE unlike your twelvth imam who is hiding in a cave, playing with bears and waiting for a travestite to kill him.
Ali dealth with your grandfather abdullah ibn sabah.
-
Uthman (ra) could have wiped of those rebels from planet Earth, it's just that he didn't want bloodshed.
He kept his position as a caliph until the end WITHOUT any bloodshed, that's a MILESTONE unlike your twelvth imam who is hiding in a cave, playing with bears and waiting for a travestite to kill him.
Ali dealth with your grandfather abdullah ibn sabah.
You mean OUR 'Ali (RA) dealt with him. :P
-
Yup, is there another Ali? :p
YA Aliiiiiiiiii
-
You've just put you side of the story forward, what you believe in and that is it. Just words.
Ok, I will say this again, prove to me through Quran and Sunnah that if someone refuses to pay Zaka'ath then you are allowed to spill there blood???
Prove to me through Quran and Sunnah that they are Wajib ul Qatal and also tell me what the definition of murtad is.
If someone refuses to pray do they become murtad??? Are you allowed to kill them???
According to the Quran you are forbiden to take the life of a human, never mind a Muslim.
Ali exiled Ibne Saba but Usman couldn't do that??? If Ibne Saba did exist Usman would have whacked him left right and centre.
But you have a habbit of creating excuses if you kind find any. You are short term thinkers.
You try to justify anything and everything. If Abu Bakar used forced and declared war on those who refused to pay Zaka'ath then creating the ideology of Imamath and claiming Ali is God is a far more serious crime on behalf of Ibne Saba.
-
This thread has come off topic as it has. So, any extra points you want to touch upon to start a seperate thread. I addressed the points you made in your last point, and as usual it means nothing to you. You're arguing enough for the sake of it.
I'm not going to spoon feed you with references one after the other.
You want to discuss Battle of Ridda', Umar disciplining Muawiyah (RA), Uthman's (RA) inabilty to deal with the fitna, and comparing with the action Ali (RA) took.
Start the seperate thread, and I'll happy to refute you further.
I'll comment on one point, though. Abu Bakr (RA) used force because we're talking TRIBES of people, and his anticipation of them rebelling by launching an onslaugth against Madina was vindicated. He charged Ali (RA) with the leadership of fighting against them. So, his force was to protect the citizens of Madinah not to go spilling the blood of random people because they refused to pay zakat. Seriously, you know nothing of Islamic history. So, if you're going to accusse Abu Bakr (RA) of murder for defending their lands then you also by extension accusse your so-called Imam.
Abdullah ibn Saba was ONE man who needed dealing with, and his people were not outcasted with the hope they can be reasoned with. This was Uthman's (RA) ijitihad, he did not want the first person to cause bloodshed among Muslims in this Ummah. Ali (RA) enterained different ideas and went for the throat and booted him out, but never made takfir on Uthman's (RA) decision.
As for the rest. Start seperate threads.
We don't justify everything. You're just whinging like a lil' girl because no one will see or accept your warped interpreation of Islamic history. Grow up, and accept the faith of Sunni Islam. :D
-
keep on talking. That is all you seem to be doing. Just words and nothing else. First it was Khalid ibne Waleed who launched the offensive and now Ali is brought in to it who never took part in any battle or force against anyone throughout the the reign of Khilafath, until he came in to power himself.
Oh, I have learned a lot about history through the likes of yourkind. Just one excuse after the other. This is right and also that. Lets try and struggle to justify everything the Khalifs did and got up to.
Well where did they go wrong??? Where did they mess up??? Ooops, must have touched a nerve there.
Come down to earth my freind.
-
keep on talking. That is all you seem to be doing. Just words and nothing else. First it was Khalid ibne Waleed who launched the offensive and now Ali is brought in to it who never took part in any battle or force against anyone throughout the the reign of Khilafath, until he came in to power himself.
Oh, I have learned a lot about history through the likes of yourkind. Just one excuse after the other. This is right and also that. Lets try and struggle to justify everything the Khalifs did and got up to.
Well where did they go wrong??? Where did they mess up??? Ooops, must have touched a nerve there.
Come down to earth my freind.
You've lost the plot, dude. Seriously. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlCyrYYCvkU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlCyrYYCvkU)
-
This is the thread where you said and claimed,
"Ali knew Uthman was superior than him",
And the reason you gave was,
"Because he married two of the Prophet's (pbuh) daughters".
Now here we go again, how is this virtue a merit towards superiority??? Lets see if you have the courage to reply in a positive manner this time. You claimed you didn't say this. You claimed that nobody had said this and you don't believe in this on the "qualities and virtues of Usman" thread.
What's happening bro???
-
Ok brothers and sisters and a special note to my dear brother Imam Ali. this is the 4th reply on the first page of this thread. take a look at what brother Hadrami said,
"Re: Hassan (RA) & Hussain (RA) got slapped by their father
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2015, 09:59:21 PM »
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Note the words at the beginning,
"The ONLY MAN that Rasulullah considered GOOD ENOUGH",
Yes, the only one who was considered good enough and not by my brothers but by the Prophet (pbuh) himself. This very clearly puts Usman above everyone, forget about the Shaikhain. So this man (Usman) should be number one and not number three, brother Imam Ali.
Later on you (bro Imam Ali) claimed that Ali knew Usman was superior than him and the reason you gave, you very well know. So why did you deny what you clearly said??? Or was it a slip of the memory???
Now the answer to your question again,
The Prophet (pbuh) married not one but two of his daughters to this man (Usman). Why??? Not because he was a good man but because he was better and more worthy than the Shaikhain. Do you agree to what you said and believe in??? Or are we going to come up with some other lame excuse???
And this is why the Shaikhain got turned down every time they put a request forward. Forget about Fatimah because brothers use an excuse that the Prophet (pbuh) refused to give Fatimah's hand to either of the Shaikhain because they were already connected to the Prophet (pbuh), through marrying their own daughters.
But what about the Shaikhain requesting to marry other daughters of the Prophet (pbuh)??? Why were they turned down then??? Did they have a connection with the Prophet (pbuh) then??? They were turned down because they were not good enough men, but Usman was more better and worthy. More superior. Would you agree my dear brothers???
Note for the audience, when Sakeefa took place and those people who opposed Sakeefa and refused to accept Abu Bakar as the first Khalif and give him Baya, Usman was one of them. He also was at the residence of Ali and amongst the opposite group when threats were made to curb this group in.
This is something off topic and my apologies for this but just a side note. Something that I have been informed about but will look in to it ASAP. There was quite a bit of resentment between the companions themselves, for a number of reasons.
-
This is the thread where you said and claimed,
"Ali knew Uthman was superior than him",
And the reason you gave was,
"Because he married two of the Prophet's (pbuh) daughters".
Now here we go again, how is this virtue a merit towards superiority??? Lets see if you have the courage to reply in a positive manner this time. You claimed you didn't say this. You claimed that nobody had said this and you don't believe in this on the "qualities and virtues of Usman" thread.
What's happening bro???
lol, you're hell-bent. Read my reply in the other thread. You're trying to shove words down my throat, but it ain't going to happen. Your question has been answered on more than one occasion, Ameen.
-
Ok brothers and sisters and a special note to my dear brother Imam Ali. this is the 4th reply on the first page of this thread. take a look at what brother Hadrami said,
"Re: Hassan (RA) & Hussain (RA) got slapped by their father
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2015, 09:59:21 PM »
this is one of the reason why i admire him so much. The only man whom Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam considered good enough to marry 2, not just 1 of his noble daughters. The only leader of a superpower nation in history who would rather die than having someone else fight for him. It is insane not to at least recognise that instead of cursing him RA.
Note the words at the beginning,
"The ONLY MAN that Rasulullah considered GOOD ENOUGH",
Yes, the only one who was considered good enough and not by my brothers but by the Prophet (pbuh) himself. This very clearly puts Usman above everyone, forget about the Shaikhain. So this man (Usman) should be number one and not number three, brother Imam Ali.
Later on you (bro Imam Ali) claimed that Ali knew Usman was superior than him and the reason you gave, you very well know. So why did you deny what you clearly said??? Or was it a slip of the memory???
Now the answer to your question again,
The Prophet (pbuh) married not one but two of his daughters to this man (Usman). Why??? Not because he was a good man but because he was better and more worthy than the Shaikhain. Do you agree to what you said and believe in??? Or are we going to come up with some other lame excuse???
And this is why the Shaikhain got turned down every time they put a request forward. Forget about Fatimah because brothers use an excuse that the Prophet (pbuh) refused to give Fatimah's hand to either of the Shaikhain because they were already connected to the Prophet (pbuh), through marrying their own daughters.
But what about the Shaikhain requesting to marry other daughters of the Prophet (pbuh)??? Why were they turned down then??? Did they have a connection with the Prophet (pbuh) then??? They were turned down because they were not good enough men, but Usman was more better and worthy. More superior. Would you agree my dear brothers???
Note for the audience, when Sakeefa took place and those people who opposed Sakeefa and refused to accept Abu Bakar as the first Khalif and give him Baya, Usman was one of them. He also was at the residence of Ali and amongst the opposite group when threats were made to curb this group in.
This is something off topic and my apologies for this but just a side note. Something that I have been informed about but will look in to it ASAP. There was quite a bit of resentment between the companions themselves, for a number of reasons.
You're thinking way too hard now, and taking this too heart. Let me wrap it up for you:
- You've mis-understood what we've said
- You refuse to accept this mis-understanding, and keep persisting with this notion that we believe Uthman's (RA) marriage to two daughters of the Prophet (SAW) is the ultimate indictor which, dictates supremacy, this is NOT the case
But what about the Shaikhain requesting to marry other daughters of the Prophet (pbuh) Why were they turned down then???
What on EARTH are you talking about? Now you're just making things up [edit] just to add weight to your argument. You made it clear forget Fatima (RA), so what other daughters are you referring to? Who did they else propose too, ansd were turned down? By the time Fatima (RA) was about to wedded the other 2 were already married with Raqqiyah (RA) having passed away at this point. Either you're [edit] or are confused. Which, is it?
Uthman (RA) was not in the house of Ali (RA), and he did gave bay'yah to Abu Bakr (RA). Again, another knowledge gap dude. You mean Zubair ibn Awam (RA) was there, and the incident of Saqeefah has no connection to the point you're trying to make which, is out of nothing.
It is the creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah that Uthman (RA) is number 3 based on authentic narrations that highlight his endless virtues, based on Ali's (RA) testimoney himself, and the classical scholars. Uthman (RA) is the only man in HISTORY who has married two daughters of a Prophet,which, screams AWESOMENESS about the man (RA) whether that holds him higher than the other companions is a personal optinion and suject to debate. Anyone can at least admit this is a unique quality of the man, but since you lack [edit] a real man to admit this, I won't goad you any further. :P
I hope that's clear.
-
Why did the Prophet (pbuh) decide to marry his daughter to Usman and then the second to him??? Why not one of the Shaikhain??? Were the Shaikhain any less?? According to my dear brother Hadrami, this would be a yes. Because he said and believes that Usman was the only good man available, or the only best man.
Now stop beating around the bush and bring this to me. You know what brother Hadrami said and you certainly know what you said. I'm not doing anything or adding anything. You are short term thinkers and you certainly don't think things through before posting. You've got yourself stuck in to this. Now be a gentlemen that you most definitely are and stop trying to jump out of it.
-
Usman is number three when it comes to Khilafath. This has got absolutely nothing to do with virtues, merits or qualities. That's a different ball game. The next comment is off topic, so my apologies in advance. Just to point out and I will discuss this with you later if you wish.
The companions were human beings who were capable of making errors and mistakes. They were capable of being jealous or holding grudge or disappointment with each other. The first two were a little bit disappoint with the next two because they didn't get the privilege of marrying any of the Prophet's (pbuh) daughters. And the Prophet (pbuh) overlooked and disregarded the first two. This didn't settle two well with the Shaikhain.
Like I said that this is off topic and my apologies for it. But if you want to discuss this further like gentlemen then I will start a thread and give you reasoning for this.
-
Why did the Prophet (pbuh) decide to marry his daughter to Usman and then the second to him??? Why not one of the Shaikhain??? Were the Shaikhain any less?? According to my dear brother Hadrami, this would be a yes. Because he said and believes that Usman was the only good man available, or the only best man.
Now stop beating around the bush and bring this to me. You know what brother Hadrami said and you certainly know what you said. I'm not doing anything or adding anything. You are short term thinkers and you certainly don't think things through before posting. You've got yourself stuck in to this. Now be a gentlemen that you most definitely are and stop trying to jump out of it.
Ameen, you got yourself stuck in a circle of confusion because you want me to say something I've clarified countless times. If Hadrami states that then that's his prerogative, and take it up with him.
I've clarified the mis-understanding yet you're still persisting relentlessly. This clearly confirms you're bitter and consumed with hatred that we refuse to see things from your Rafidhi point of view.
- Your question why the Prophet (SAW) did not marry any of his daughters to Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA) or anyone else besides Uthman (RA) has been addressed
- Your question does Uthman's (RA) marriage to two daughters alone surpass Ali (RA) in status has been addressed
- Your other loop-holes have also been corrected where you got certain facts about Islamic history
Just re-read the entire thread.
We've answered and addressed you countless times, but you've not once answered any of our questions head-on which, shows you're a yellow-belly (metaphorically speaking). A common trait of a Rafidhi, but that's alright.
Uthman (RA) zindabaad!! :D
-
Usman is number three when it comes to Khilafath. This has got absolutely nothing to do with virtues, merits or qualities. That's a different ball game. The next comment is off topic, so my apologies in advance. Just to point out and I will discuss this with you later if you wish.
The companions were human beings who were capable of making errors and mistakes. They were capable of being jealous or holding grudge or disappointment with each other. The first two were a little bit disappoint with the next two because they didn't get the privilege of marrying any of the Prophet's (pbuh) daughters. And the Prophet (pbuh) overlooked and disregarded the first two. This didn't settle two well with the Shaikhain.
Like I said that this is off topic and my apologies for it. But if you want to discuss this further like gentlemen then I will start a thread and give you reasoning for this.
Correction loser, Uthman (RA) is the third GREATEAT person in this Ummah. The fact he's apart of the Khulafah Rashideen is another virtue of his as the Prophet (SAW) for the first 30 years, all the Caliphs will be rightful guided.
I'll be more than willing to lock horns with you anytime. You've already (in my view) lost this one mate. ;)
I started another discussion printed with your name on it. Go find it.
-
Okay so you guys better start another thread, this one is un-necessarily big.
Locked