Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)

[NaveenHussain]

.

[Hani]

But Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's son is al-Qasim, who is a lover of Abu Bakr and was raised by `A'ishah, he's the direct grandfather of Ja`far.

: p

I recommend you guys stick to one topic lol.

[NaveenHussain]

.

[NaveenHussain]

But Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's son is al-Qasim, who is a lover of Abu Bakr and was raised by `A'ishah, he's the direct grandfather of Ja`far.

: p

I recommend you guys stick to one topic lol.

Abu Lahab (la) was related to Prophet Muhammad (saww), but the former is of the people of Hellfire. Lineage won't save you when you have no piety. Hence, back to my main point: out of your 4 Bakri schools of Fiqh, all of them came after our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). Your new sect innovated after our Islam was already established.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

This is from his book Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) And the Heart, Rending Episode of Fadak, in regards to Quran 17:26

Because this verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S), during his lifetime, gave Fadak to Fatimah (s.a.). **

**Al-Durr Al-Manthur [Sunni Tafsir] vol. 4 pg. 177 الدُرّ المنثور، مجلد 4، ص 177.
----
Your point, nullified.

I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].

This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la). Yes, thats our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

[NaveenHussain]

.

[NaveenHussain]

Your post has two lies.  First, your allegation that I do not know the Qur'an.  Two, that the Prophet [saw] treated everyone equally, even the Kuffaar.  While your second lie has truth in it, it is the twist that I will address which is a by-product of you projecting your own ignorance on to something that I thought you would at least understand, if not admit!

Please open your eyes and heart. I didn't mention "equally." I wrote "justly." Big difference...

Let us see what is one of the most basic guidelines for marriage in the Qur'an.

"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."  (Surah An-Nur, verse 3)

I am not an Arab and my Arabic is zero but the Arabic word used there is "Mushrikat".  Now you believe that Abu Bakr [ra] was not a Muslim and by extension - plus fact that you consider Aisha [ra] to be an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] - you consider his daughter to be a disbeliever.  Therefore, you must concede that the Prophet [saw] married a "mushrika" and violated the Qur'an so as to show fairness to everyone, including kuffaar.

Our Prophet [saw] never married a disbeliever.  Doing so would be a violation of the Qur'an.  Either you did not know that or tried to morph my post into something you could respond to.

Please don't be like ISIS, trying to interpret Quran yourself. This is why we follow the people of Thaqalayn (as).

This is one Tafseer of Quran 24:3

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 24:3]
Islam prescribes a healthy and orderly sex life, for men and for women, at all times-before marriage, during marriage and after the dissolution of marriage-in order to maintain a respectable society. Those guilty of adultery or fornication are shut out of the marriage circle of chaste men and women so that the gross immoral contamination should not spread among the healthy and normal members of the society.

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

This verse refers to the general trend and tendency of those men and women who can be described as habitual offenders. Hurrima implies that the believers dislike and detest such people. Nikah means wedlock as well as cohabitation. It is not a legislative ordinance, therefore there is no abrogation.
---
If `A'ishah did commit Zina, it would've happened after Rasool (saww) passed away, as we know of Talha's fondness for her. We can judge people on the apparent, and not what they hide in their hearts. Many people that have accepted Islam have become apostates; check the hadeeth of the Pond of Kawthar, in your "Saheeh" books, and you'll see how many Sahabah will be turned away and rejected.

As for bringing tribes together, Abu Bakr [ra] was from the Quraysh (no need to bring tribes together) and he was one of the first adults to accept Islam.  By marrying Aisha [ra], what severed ties did the Prophet [saw] mend with Abu Bakr [ra] except to strengthen his [saw] friendship with As-Siddeeq [ra]?
[/quote]

Really?  But they encouraged it, according to your books.  Far are the Imams [ra] from what you attribute to them.  In other words, they [ra] are innocent of your Shia-ism!

From Hasan ibn Ali: “This matter that you are waiting for, wouldn’t happen until some of you (shia) wouldn’t disown from others from you, and some of you would curse others from you, and some of you would spit in the faces of others from you, and some of you would testify to disbelief of others from you.”  (Kitab al-Ghaybah p 438)

Reread it until you understand it. It doesn't mean our A'immah (as) condoned such acts. You clearly have issues with contextual comprehension.

[NaveenHussain]

You accuse Umar [ra] of not being smart.  Also, as per your accusations, Umar [ra] usurped Fadak and stole the Caliphate from Imam Ali [ra].  So you believe that Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] were outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men"   I wonder where that puts Imam Ali [ra] and Fatima [ra] in terms of smartness, to be outsmarted by someone who "wasn't the smartest of men".

Rafidhi shot himself in the foot!

I already did. You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians. The Christians will keep talking nonsense, and think they won. It's similar to your weak tactics.

Did you even read the verses from Surah Al-Hashr?  Call your selfie-queen Facebook friend for help.  But knowing your lot, I am being reminded of Iblees.  He misguides people and then leaves them high-and-dry when they need help.  He did something similar to you when you reached out for help


Let us see whose feet are in Hellfire, as per Rasulullah [saw].

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222:
Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:
That he said to the Prophet (saw) "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf."  The Prophet (saw) said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: I heard Allah's Apostles when his uncle, Abu Talib had been mentioned in his presence, saying, "May be my intercession will help him (Abu Talib) on the Day of Resurrection so that he may be put in a shallow place in the Fire, with Fire reaching his ankles and causing his brain to boil." (Sahih Bukhari; Book #76, Hadith #569)

Your own Sunni scholars have recorded otherwise. This is what you run into when you follow the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as). From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, by Ibn al-Hadeed:

Abu Dharr al-Ghaffari thus says about Abu Talib:

والله الذي لا إله إلا هو ما مات أبوطالب رضى على عنه حتى أسلم.
“By Allah other than Whom there is no god! Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) did not depart this life without having accepted Islam.”

and

Imam al-Baqir (‘a) says:

لو وضع ايمان أبي طالب في كفّة وميزان إيمان هذا الخلق في الكفّة الأخرى لرجّح إيمانه."
“If the faith of Abu Talib is placed in one pan of a scale and the faith of this creation in the other pan, his faith will tip the scale in his favor.”

and

Imam as-Sadiq (‘a) narrates from the Messenger of Allah (S):

"إن أصحاب الكهف أسروا الإيمان وأظهروا الكفر فأتاهم الله أجرهم مرتين ، وإن أباطالب أسرّ الإيمان وأظهر الشرك فأتاه الله أجره مرّتين."
Verily, the Companions of the Cave {Ashab al-Kahf} hid their faith (on account of some expediency) and pretended to be infidels; so, Allah gave them double reward. Abu Talib also concealed his faith and (due to certain expediency) feigned polytheism; so, Allah granted him double reward.

[muslim720]

This is from his book Hazrat Zahra (s.a.) And the Heart, Rending Episode of Fadak, in regards to Quran 17:26

Because this verse was revealed to the Holy Prophet (S), during his lifetime, gave Fadak to Fatimah (s.a.). **

**Al-Durr Al-Manthur [Sunni Tafsir] vol. 4 pg. 177 الدُرّ المنثور، مجلد 4، ص 177.
----
Your point, nullified.

Someone is in loser-denial.  The verse is Meccan - revealed years before Fadak fell into Muslim hands - and has no bearing on Fadak.  Your reference (from Al-Durr Al-Manthur) has already been refuted.

It amazes me to see you accept a weak narration (from Durr Al-Manthur) over Shia commentaries of the Qur'an which clearly rule the verse and the surah to be Meccan. 

This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la).

Another Rawaafidh lie without proof.  There is not a single authentic report which identifies the killers of Uthman [ra].  Now, time for a history lesson and some logical deduction.

The origin of Khawaarij was when the "First Fitnah" took place between Muslims over the successorship of Prophet Muhammad [saw].  These Khawaarij considered Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] were rightly guided but believed Uthman [ra] had deviated from the path of justice and they considered Uthman [ra] liable to be killed or displaced.  Therefore, while we may not know the specific individuals, it is quite clear that Khawaarij played a major role in the killing of Uthman [ra].

Now let us discuss why Shias and Sunnis loathe the Khawaarij.  Among many things, the Khawaarij are loathed for their hatred for Imam Ali [ra].  Yes, initially the Khawaarij fought alongside Imam Ali [ra] but they soon turned against him.  By suggesting that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] was responsible for the killing of Uthman [ra], you are placing him among the Khawaarij.  And do I have to remind you that Imam Ali [ra] was also killed by the Khawaarij?  Therefore, you are attributing nasb to an ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra].

The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

It is clear that when Imam Ali [ra] made arbitration with Muawiyah [ra], the Khawaarij turned on him.  So you are contradicting yourself here.  If Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra], then - by logic - he was a Khawaarij or had Khawaarij leanings.  In that case, he (Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr) could not have fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra].  But if you insist that he fought alongside Imam Ali [ra], then he was not a Khawaarij and therefore innocent of Uthman's [ra] murder.

That is called bursting your delusional bubble.  Had you known basic Islamic history, you would not have made a fool out of yourself on a public forum like you just did.

[muslim720]

If `A'ishah did commit Zina, it would've happened after Rasool (saww) passed away, as we know of Talha's fondness for her.

Moderators, please do not admonish him for his comment.

Naveen, can you provide proof for this?  By the way, it is hurtful when I see children of mutah (like your scholars, et cetera) accuse one of the Mothers of Believers [ra] of zina!

On the contrary, read what Ammar [ra] said about her.

Sayyidah Ayesha (R.A) narrates: Jibril (A.S) came in my appearance on a piece of green silk cloth before the Prophet (PBUH) and said, “this is your wife in this world and the Hereafter”.
Source: Sunnan Tirimdhi, Hadith # 3880 & Grading: SAHIH.

2. Narrated Abu Maryam `Abdullah bin Ziyad Al−Aasadi: When Talha, AzZubair and `Aisha moved to Basra, `Ali sent `Ammar bin Yasir and Hasan bin `Ali who came to us at Kufa and ascended the pulpit. Al−Hasan bin `Ali was at the top of the pulpit and `Ammar was below Al−Hasan. We all gathered before him. I heard `Ammar saying, `Aisha has moved to Al−Busra. By Allah! She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. But Allah has put you to test whether you obey Him or her (`Aisha).
Source: Sahih bukhari 9.220 & Grading: SAHIH.

3. Narrated Abu Wail: ‘Ammar stood on the pulpit at Kufa and mentioned ‘Aisha and her coming (to Busra) and said, “She is the wife of your Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter, but you people are being put to test in this issue.”
Source: Sahih bukhari 9.221 & Grading: SAHIH

Care to explain how the Prophet [saw] would be with Aisha [ra] in the Hereafter after what you have accused her of?

Reread it until you understand it. It doesn't mean our A'immah (as) condoned such acts. You clearly have issues with contextual comprehension.

I understand that narration.  I am only holding a mirror to your face.  All of us can play the deception game that you are so bad at. 

[muslim720]

You just don't want to accept defeat, just like when your own Sunni scholars debate Christians.

There is not a single debater in your entire history like Ahmed Deedat [rah] who lived in apartheid South Africa and spoke against Christian missionaries.  It is funny that you should say such a thing when all the Rawaafidh I know watch his videos to refute Christians.  Our scholars taught your lot as to how to grow a spine and stand up to Christians and not even a thank you....you ungrateful brood of snakes!

Your own Sunni scholars have recorded otherwise. This is what you run into when you follow the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as). From Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, by Ibn al-Hadeed:

Since when did Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah become a Sunni book? 

Ibn Kathir [rah] wrote, "Ibn Abil Hadid al-'Iraqi: the poet 'Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, 'Izz ad-Din al-Mada'ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi'i.  He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes.  He was born at Mada'in in the year 586.  Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah.  He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-'Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi'ism in common.(al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82))."

Also, read this: "The author of 'Rawdat Al-Jannat' (5/19) referred to him as: 'He is loyal to people of the Household of infallibility and purity (Ahlul Bayt Al-Isma’ wal Tahara) even though he used to appear in the costume of Ahlul Sunnah'.  In 'Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab', Al-Qumi outlines the staunch and fanatic Shiite background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in Al-Madain and then when he moved to Baghdad his fanaticism reduced and was inclined to Mutazilla."

[Hani]

Don't worry bro, Shia have complete freedom here, he won't be admonished ... by us at least.

BTW, those narrations about abu Talib they contradict, one says he was a believer hiding his faith the other says he never died until he accepted Islam. So which was it? Was he hiding his faith the whole time OR did he accept Islam before he died?

PS. Ibn abi al-Hadid is a Mu`tazili with great Shia leanings.

[muslim720]

Don't worry bro, Shia have complete freedom here, he won't be admonished ... by us at least.

BTW, those narrations about abu Talib they contradict, one says he was a believer hiding his faith the other says he never died until he accepted Islam. So which was it? Was he hiding his faith the whole time OR did he accept Islam before he died?

I didn't read past the point when he tried to pass Sharh Nahjul Balagha off as a Sunni text!

[muslim720]

This, in no way, adds anything to the accursed Abu Bakr's status. 6th Imam (as) was maternally a descendant, through the line of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, who's said to have been partially responsible for the murder of Uthmaan (la). Yes, thats our Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as). The one coming from the lineage of Muhammad ibn abi Bakr, who fought on the same side of Imam Ali (as) during wartimes against your Bakri leaders. I'm sorry, I had to burst your delusional bubble.

Since your lies are always so grotesque, there are numerous ways to shatter them.  Many a times, I forget one or two rebuttals since I get caught up in mentioning the rest.  But as I was driving to work this morning, I remembered one fact that I forgot to mention (regarding the killing of Uthman [ra] ).

You want us to believe that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra] and since he also fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra], therefore, he is worthy of your praise.  The picture you have painted of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] certainly makes him out to be a "lover of Ahlul Bayt [ra]" (per Shia standards).  Therefore, by applying logic to your own set standard, anyone that defended Uthman [ra] must have been an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] and harboring nasb.

So who tried to defend Uthman [ra]?  Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra].  Upon whose orders?  Upon the orders of Imam Ali [ra].

Now you have to choose.  Was Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr praiseworthy for allegedly killing Uthman [ra]?  If yes, then you must renounce Imam Ali [ra] (for ordering his sons to protect the third Caliph) and Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra] (for trying to protect the third Caliph) OR you should admit that protecting Uthman [ra] was something that even Ahlul Bayt [ra] and your first three Imams [ra] saw as a necessity in which case you have to concede that you contradicted your first three Imams [ra] (by praising someone for allegedly murdering the third Caliph whom your own three Imams [ra] tried to protect).

Pick one Rafidhi; it is a lose-lose situation for you

[NaveenHussain]

Someone is in loser-denial.  The verse is Meccan - revealed years before Fadak fell into Muslim hands - and has no bearing on Fadak.  Your reference (from Al-Durr Al-Manthur) has already been refuted.

It amazes me to see you accept a weak narration (from Durr Al-Manthur) over Shia commentaries of the Qur'an which clearly rule the verse and the surah to be Meccan.

 
You like to pick and choose, but when I give you more from the Shia scholar you're trying to use as your proof, you deny it. I know these Bakri tactics. Whatever you don't agree with, even within your own so-called Sunni sect, you'd disagree with or call it weak. I already explained how Quraan has many layers. This is, again, why we stick to the interpretations of the people of Thaqalayn, and not the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Another Rawaafidh lie without proof.  There is not a single authentic report which identifies the killers of Uthman [ra].  Now, time for a history lesson and some logical deduction.

You want authentic from your fabricated Bukhari or Muslim?

The origin of Khawaarij was when the "First Fitnah" took place between Muslims over the successorship of Prophet Muhammad [saw]. These Khawaarij considered Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] were rightly guided but believed Uthman [ra] had deviated from the path of justice and they considered Uthman [ra] liable to be killed or displaced.  Therefore, while we may not know the specific individuals, it is quite clear that Khawaarij played a major role in the killing of Uthman [ra].

Now let us discuss why Shias and Sunnis loathe the Khawaarij.  Among many things, the Khawaarij are loathed for their hatred for Imam Ali [ra].  Yes, initially the Khawaarij fought alongside Imam Ali [ra] but they soon turned against him.  By suggesting that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] was responsible for the killing of Uthman [ra], you are placing him among the Khawaarij.  And do I have to remind you that Imam Ali [ra] was also killed by the Khawaarij?  Therefore, you are attributing nasb to an ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra].

The Khawaaij, I think, are very similar to your accursed Sunni leaders. They all betrayed our Ahlul Bayt (as). There were many Shias that were against Uthmaan's (la) unjust ways. People saw Uthmaan's (la) tyranny and his favoritism towards Bani Umayyah, the cursed tree, mentioned in Quran, according to many ahadeeth. Uthmaan (la) was killed because many Shias and Sunnis hated him.

When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad’s religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad’s religion.”Thus, they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman).

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184

It is clear that when Imam Ali [ra] made arbitration with Muawiyah [ra], the Khawaarij turned on him.  So you are contradicting yourself here.  If Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra], then - by logic - he was a Khawaarij or had Khawaarij leanings.  In that case, he (Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr) could not have fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra].  But if you insist that he fought alongside Imam Ali [ra], then he was not a Khawaarij and therefore innocent of Uthman's [ra] murder.

That is called bursting your delusional bubble.  Had you known basic Islamic history, you would not have made a fool out of yourself on a public forum like you just did.

You're conflating two separate issues. The killing of Uthmaan (la) doesn't make the suspects into Khawaarij. Making a fool out of myself? Please stop running your deceiving mouth. It's pretty evident you don't even know what Sunni historians have said about your accursed leader.

[NaveenHussain]

Naveen, can you provide proof for this?  By the way, it is hurtful when I see children of mutah (like your scholars, et cetera) accuse one of the Mothers of Believers [ra] of zina!

I can try to search later for any such proofs. We know how the children of Misyaar and Jihaad al-Nikaah "(like your scholars, etc.)" like to lie and be hypocrites.

Care to explain how the Prophet [saw] would be with Aisha [ra] in the Hereafter after what you have accused her of?

You don't even know how to debate. How can you use your own Sunni fabricated ahadeeth and try to use it as proof? I already shared a video, which alludes to your accursed `A'ishah hanging in Hellfire by her legs, etc.

I understand that narration.  I am only holding a mirror to your face.  All of us can play the deception game that you are so bad at.

Haha...this guy...

I may be bad at deceiving others, unlike you, who's seems to be a very good deceiver [Dajjal]. Oops. You slipped-up, didn't you?

[NaveenHussain]

There is not a single debater in your entire history like Ahmed Deedat [rah] who lived in apartheid South Africa and spoke against Christian missionaries.  It is funny that you should say such a thing when all the Rawaafidh I know watch his videos to refute Christians.  Our scholars taught your lot as to how to grow a spine and stand up to Christians and not even a thank you....you ungrateful brood of snakes!

I actually like Ahmed Deedat's debates against the Christians. I am a fan of his. This doesn't mean he died on the correct path [Shiism]. I respect his hard work. I don't like he'd do as well today, as he did back in the day, because nowadays, the weak Bukhari and Muslim are translated, and that's why you see Bakris [so-called Sunnis] being fiercely attacked for their inconsistencies, by Christian debaters. By the way, it's easy to debate Christians, in my opinion. He would surely lose if he debated a knowledgeable Shia scholar, but you insincere Bakri terrorist followers always seem unthankful to those who're most helpful to you. Look at the history of your accursed leaders. Astaghfirullah!

[NaveenHussain]

You want us to believe that Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] killed Uthman [ra] and since he also fought on the same side as Imam Ali [ra], therefore, he is worthy of your praise.  The picture you have painted of Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] certainly makes him out to be a "lover of Ahlul Bayt [ra]" (per Shia standards).  Therefore, by applying logic to your own set standard, anyone that defended Uthman [ra] must have been an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] and harboring nasb.

So who tried to defend Uthman [ra]?  Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra].  Upon whose orders?  Upon the orders of Imam Ali [ra].

Now you have to choose.  Was Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr praiseworthy for allegedly killing Uthman [ra]?  If yes, then you must renounce Imam Ali [ra] (for ordering his sons to protect the third Caliph) and Imam Hassan [ra] and Imam Hussain [ra] (for trying to protect the third Caliph) OR you should admit that protecting Uthman [ra] was something that even Ahlul Bayt [ra] and your first three Imams [ra] saw as a necessity in which case you have to concede that you contradicted your first three Imams [ra] (by praising someone for allegedly murdering the third Caliph whom your own three Imams [ra] tried to protect).

Pick one Rafidhi; it is a lose-lose situation for you

Is it really a lose-lose situation for me just like I cornered you with my Fadak arguments? Alhamdulillah. First of all, if Imam Hasan and Husayn (as) were really there guarding Uthmaan (la), what made `A'ishah and Co. (la) blame Imam Ali (as) for the killing of Uthmaan (la)? 

It looks like even the misguided Wahhabi Ibn Taymiyyah said the following in this regard:
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

If Imam Ali (as) sent his sons (as) to protect Uthmaan (la), it may've been to show the world that you cannot blame Imam Ali (as), as your accursed leaders did. Imam Ali (as) many a times tried to save unnecessary shedding of blood. Especially, if it would cause a lot of problems to the Ummah. That's even though Uthmaan (la) deserved it. You cannot oppress the Ummah and expect to be left untouched. The people were angry. It's like the story of the baby, the 2 mothers, and Prophet Sulaymaan (as); in this case the general Muslim Ummah was like the baby. Please read the parable, as you seem unaware of the wisdom behind such stances of our dear Imam Ali (as).

[muslim720]

You want authentic from your fabricated Bukhari or Muslim?

Please!  More than your verbal diarrhea, I want you to quote our sources.  So far it has only landed you in embarrassing situations which you fail to acknowledge because you have no shame.

Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v15, p184

Here is another embarrassment for you.

Before copy-pasting from volume 15 of Tareekh at-Tabari, maybe you should have read his introduction in which he wrote, "This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it.  In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me.  I have merely reported it as it was reported to me." (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Translation, at-Tabari (rah) only reported all the narrations that arrived to him (on any matter) without authenticating them.  He left that task for those who specialize in the field.  In other words, it is pretty common to find weak narrations and fabrications in Tareekh at-Tabari.

You're conflating two separate issues. The killing of Uthmaan (la) doesn't make the suspects into Khawaarij.

For the time being, I will agree with you.  But what does that make you when Imam Ali [ra] sent his sons to protect him while you are cursing him?

[muslim720]

I can try to search later for any such proofs. We know how the children of Misyaar and Jihaad al-Nikaah "(like your scholars, etc.)" like to lie and be hypocrites.

Well, the difference, Rafidhi, that you fail to grasp is this.  Our scholars do not encourage Misyar.  If not for Rawaafidh like you running their mouths, I would not have even known about Misyar.  But your scholars and madhhab encourage Mutah to the point that there is a narration which says that if you commit Mutah once, you attain the rank of Imam Hussain [ra].  Twice and you attain the rank of Imam Hassan [ra].  Thrice and you are at Imam Ali's [ra] level.  And if you do it four times, you are on par with the Prophet [saw].

So let us act on this.  I am willing to accept Shi'ism.  I will come to Imam Ali Center and let me see how many of your brethren there would offer me their sisters in Mutah.

[muslim720]

I actually like Ahmed Deedat's debates against the Christians. I am a fan of his. This doesn't mean he died on the correct path [Shiism]. I respect his hard work. I don't like he'd do as well today, as he did back in the day, because nowadays, the weak Bukhari and Muslim are translated, and that's why you see Bakris [so-called Sunnis] being fiercely attacked for their inconsistencies, by Christian debaters. By the way, it's easy to debate Christians, in my opinion. He would surely lose if he debated a knowledgeable Shia scholar, but you insincere Bakri terrorist followers always seem unthankful to those who're most helpful to you. Look at the history of your accursed leaders. Astaghfirullah!

Of course you like Ahmed Deedat [rah].  After all, it must be nice to see a Muslim standing up for Islam when all your life you have experienced cowards hiding behind taqiyyah.  Having said that, I am sure you have not watched the Al-Mustakillah debates between Shias and Sunnis.  Your Shia bigshots like Qazwini, Al-Tijani, et cetera, ran with their tails tucked between their legs.  Those videos are on YouTube.  Your helpless brethren were sending letters to their marja'as begging for someone to save them some face but as your scholars kept disappearing (from the debates), the marja'as stopped responding. 

I mean this happened in our lifetime so have an ounce of shame before lying in broad daylight.