Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)

[muslim720]

Is it really a lose-lose situation for me just like I cornered you with my Fadak arguments? Alhamdulillah.

Cornered me?  With what?  You have not, and will not, dare comment on the verses from Surah Al-Hashr because you know it will expose you as someone who believes in "infallibility" of Fatima [ra] more than you obey the Qur'an.

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.”

Source?

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.

It may have been?  If we were to take everything on "may have been", then it also may have been to protect Uthman [ra].  After all, your "may have been" is no more justified than mine except I come with authentic proof and you come with fabricated reports.

Imam Ali (as) many a times tried to save unnecessary shedding of blood.

Is that why he stood by and watched his wife get assaulted? 

[NaveenHussain]

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.

I have no shame? You're the one giving half-stories. SubhanAllah @ these people. Who do they think they're fooling?

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.[/quote]

If only you'd keep your mind open when it came to Bukhari and Muslim, but no, it seems you become irrational when it comes to your main books. Many fabrications are found in your main books, even according to Sunni scholars, I'll copy and paste it here:

a sunni Scholar argues that

653 of the hadiths as written in al-Bukhari and Muslim are incorrect and should not be accepted.
His Arabic book is titled "The Cleansing of Bukhari and Muslim from useless Hadiths" (2008).

Firstly I want to know considering Sahih Bukhari a 100% authentic Book by sunni scholars is true or not? and if yes is it an Islamic fitwa or it is mostly for policies of Sunni Kings during history and accepted as a rule today? or has other reason?

Here is an article but in Persian containing names of many sunni scholars with evidence critiquing Sahih Bukhari and not considering in 100% authentic:

http://hawzah.org/FA/articleview.html?ArticleID=79418

translating all of it takes much time. and maybe you can read it using google translator.

for example this article says Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Tahzib al-Tahzib volume 10 page 461 (تهذیب التهذیب، ج 10، ص 461) says there are some narrators in Sahih Bukhari that Muslim never consider them reliable and even critiqued them and did not narrate any hadith from them. for example one narrator Muslim never considered him reliable is نعیم بن حماد مروزی. some sunni scholars considered him reliable but still many not. I think evidences from sunni books mentioned in this article prove there is no Ijma among sunni scholars that Sahih Bukhari is 100% authentic.

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?

Imaam Ali (as) was an infallible, so he may be privy to certain knowledges that other laymen didn't know, of course, dependent upon Allah (swt). Perhaps it was willed that he show it as such, so that the enemies cannot blame him, yet they still did. Ironic, eh?

[NaveenHussain]

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].

It's an honor that you call me Rafidhi, for I reject the main criminal Sunni leaders. Thank you, sir. I'm glad your scholars don't encourage Misyaar. ISIS is said to promote Jihaad al-Nikaah, and the women who do so allegedly attain paradise, yet they also force them into these "rape" relations? This is part of what happens, as a byproduct, when you betray Ahlul Bayt (as). I wish they'd promote Mut`ah, and not follow its banning from their accursed leader, Umar ibn al-Khattab. Keep in mind, our ahadeeth are not all Saheeh, and we also have contexts with which we're to keep consistent, unlike Bakri "Saheeh" fabricated texts.

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.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd be willing to convert just for Dunyaa's pleasures. I wonder if you're currently getting Jihaadi Nikaahs from kidnapped women, for your following and promoting such Nasibi beliefs. Anything's possible with a Bakri, I think. By the way, we have ahadeeth that pretty much tell us that we cannot give our women to Bakris, just so you don't use these weak arguments again, in shaa'llah.

[NaveenHussain]

Of course you like Ahmed Deedat [rah].

Be careful, sir, and please pay attention. I mentioned I like his DEBATES; it doesn't necessarily mean I like him. I don't hate him, either; I'm indifferent towards him. I do know that he does use some weak arguments, but overall, he is a good debater versus CHRISTIANS.

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.

We have narrations that show our A'immah (as) debating Christians. Nice try, but you fail, yet again.

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.

I have never heard of this alleged debate. Is it available in English, so that I can refute it? Mind you, my Arabic isn't that strong, but I know the Bakri arguments are very weak. Alhamdulillah. You do realize Fadak TV was willing to even pay Bakri scholars to debate them, because it seems all Bakris are scared. Call them. They know Arabic, and they'll embarrass you and your leaders, in my opinion. If you want to lose more Bakri followers, I dare you to call them.

[NaveenHussain]

Cornered me?  With what?  You have not, and will not, dare comment on the verses from Surah Al-Hashr because you know it will expose you as someone who believes in "infallibility" of Fatima [ra] more than you obey the Qur'an.

I can comment on that as I have to all your other allegations made thus far, unless I mistakingly miss something. I don't run from any topics. Alhamdulillah. Please bring forward the verses, so that I can explain to you what I get from it, according to the teachings of Quran and Ahlul Bayt (as).

Source?

Ras al-Hussain page 205:

كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

It may have been?  If we were to take everything on "may have been", then it also may have been to protect Uthman [ra].  After all, your "may have been" is no more justified than mine except I come with authentic proof and you come with fabricated reports.

Yes, I say "may've been" because I don't claim to know-it-all like you. I have some humility, alhamdulillah. Please know that just because you claim to be sure, you can surely be wrong. Be humble, sir.

Is that why he stood by and watched his wife get assaulted?

War involved the shedding of multiple lives, as `A'ishah (la) is said to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 17,000 people at Jamal. Fatimah (as) endured what she did, for the sake of Rasool's (saww) advice of remaining patient, etc., to Imam Ali (as). It's like the parable of Prophet Sulaymaan (as), the 2 mothers, and the baby. The open-enemies of Islam would've taken advantage of the situation, had Imam Ali (as) killed the accursed Abu Bakr, Umar, etc.

[NaveenHussain]

They must know they're losing, hence his buddies TRYING to help. Maashaa'llah. You won't win, Masood. There are so many inconsistencies in your faith. I think you know it, too, but are afraid to admit it. Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it, in psychology. Anyhow, my semester is about to start in University, so to the onlookers, please pardon me as I won't be able to participate as much as I'd like. My time is short, and I have better things to do than to debate people who are, in my opinion, very insincere, and big deceivers. Alhamdulillah, I'm pretty confident I can refute all the false information they spread about Shiism as I have been doing thus far. I pray we all find the truth. I cannot hate this Muslim720 [Masood] guy, because I think he's just a victim of brainwashing and conditioning. May Allah (swt) be with us.

Let the people be the jury, and please don't erase this thread, lest you accept your defeat.

[muslim720]

a sunni Scholar argues that

This is not the scope of our discussion.  Like I stray dog, you like to lick every thing that catches your eye so you brought up Tareekh at-Tabari.  I entertained your point but you have to do one of the following two things.

1.  Prove what you shared was authentic.

2.  Apologize for your failed attempt at lying.

Imaam Ali (as) was an infallible, so he may be privy to certain knowledges that other laymen didn't know

Your corrupted beliefs are best kept to yourself.

[muslim720]

It's an honor that you call me Rafidhi, for I reject the main criminal Sunni leaders.

Good!  Now I wish you had elected another name for you guys.  You would have gladly adopted it.  The endless possibilities.....makes me chuckle.

Thank you, sir. I'm glad your scholars don't encourage Misyaar. ISIS is said to promote Jihaad al-Nikaah, and the women who do so allegedly attain paradise, yet they also force them into these "rape" relations?

Why do you keep bringing up ISIS?  Let me take you to my teachers who hate ISIS more than you and can refute them better than your entire madhhab can.

Keep in mind, our ahadeeth are not all Saheeh

Your Akhbari scholars believed in their authenticity, 100%.

It doesn't surprise me that you'd be willing to convert just for Dunyaa's pleasures.

No, imbecile, I am saying all that to appeal to your gheerah, to wake you up.  Why is it that your scholars encourage mutah but won't offer their own daughters and sisters?  This is like a person who urges people to give in charity while pocketing as much money as possible without giving a penny in charity himself.

[muslim720]

I have never heard of this alleged debate. Is it available in English, so that I can refute it?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you have not brought an ounce of anything useful to counter, let alone refute, me and you want to "refute" those who made your scholars run for cover.  Top notch comedy!

If you want to lose more Bakri followers, I dare you to call them.

Do you watch Fadak TV?  Do you know their arguments?  Line them up!  So far you have been made look silly.

[muslim720]

Ras al-Hussain page 205:

كان طائفة من شيعة عثمان يتهمون عليا بأنه أمر بقتل عثمان
“A group of Uthman’s Shias (followers) accused Ali of giving orders to kill Uthman.”

What was the conduct of Uthman’s Shias? Ibn Taimiyya informs us:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse ‘Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

Uthman [ra] had no issues with Imam Ali [ra].  Two refutations on logic and evidence.

1.  In fact, the association of the word "Shia" with Uthman [ra] makes me doubt the nature of these narrations.  The reason being the first time the term "Shia" came into play was when Imam Ali [ra] and Muawiyah [ra] clashed.  The two parties were "Shia of Ali" and "Shia of Muawiyah".  Even Imam Khomeini was of the opinion that Shia-Sunni divide took place when Imam Ali [ra] was nominated the Caliph, not at the time of the passing away of the Prophet [saw] (as is common belief). 

2.  As far as Minhaj ul-Sunnah is concerned, it was written by Ibn Taymiyyah [rah] to refute the Shias.  And he had a pattern in that book.  He would quote Shia allegations and then refute them.  It is quite possible that what you have shared from his book were not Ibn Taymiyyah's [rah] words....rather he was quoting the Shia charges in order to follow it up with a refutation.

Yes, I say "may've been" because I don't claim to know-it-all like you. I have some humility, alhamdulillah. Please know that just because you claim to be sure, you can surely be wrong. Be humble, sir.

I have nothing against you.  I consider Shias to be Muslims and a lot of them are better Muslims than me.  But a Rawaafidh....hard to be humble around one!

War involved the shedding of multiple lives, as `A'ishah (la) is said to have been responsible for the deaths of at least 17,000 people at Jamal.

You like to quote fabrications from the books of history.  Why don't you pay attention to the same books of history when they clearly, by way of sound proof, establish the fact that Aisha [ra] did not leave to wage war but to broker peace (because she was the Mother of Believers and all Muslims respected her).

[muslim720]

They must know they're losing, hence his buddies TRYING to help. Maashaa'llah. You won't win, Masood. There are so many inconsistencies in your faith. I think you know it, too, but are afraid to admit it. Cognitive dissonance, I think they call it, in psychology. Anyhow, my semester is about to start in University, so to the onlookers, please pardon me as I won't be able to participate as much as I'd like. My time is short, and I have better things to do than to debate people who are, in my opinion, very insincere, and big deceivers. Alhamdulillah, I'm pretty confident I can refute all the false information they spread about Shiism as I have been doing thus far. I pray we all find the truth. I cannot hate this Muslim720 [Masood] guy, because I think he's just a victim of brainwashing and conditioning. May Allah (swt) be with us.

Let the people be the jury, and please don't erase this thread, lest you accept your defeat.

Few points:

1.  You are not the only one to be busy.  I work full time and pursuing my masters degree.  I do not have all the time in the world but your lies are recycled.  Their refutations are all over the internet.  It takes me one minute to refute you but thirty to type it out.

2.  So far, you have exposed yourself as the deceiver.  You have quoted weak narrations and fabricated reports.  When refuted, you have not presented a counter argument nor have you issued an apology.

3.  Sure you can refute all the "lies" against Shiaism like you have done thus far (sarcasm).

4.  You were not busy last weekend but now you are, all of a sudden.  It is called "looking for an escape route".

5.  Well, you say I am brainwashed and that you (yourself) are on the true path.  You even said you would convert me.  Do it!

6.  You won't be missed.  And while you do not hate me, I have no liking towards a Rawaafidh.

[muslim720]

A few clips from those debates (the ones with subtitles).

[muslim720]

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.

When I wrote the whole thing about Khawaarij and their involvement in killing of Uthman [ra], it was by logical deduction.  In other words, I knew bits of history and the pieces that were missing, I used logical deduction to plug those holes.  I did not do that out of desperation but because logical deduction - as it has been proven to me time and again - works just as well against liars.  But Alhamdulilah, I found proof to further substantiate what I had said.

Let us see if the killers of Uthman [ra] were Khawaarij or not.

"Al-Zubair [ra] described them (those who came to kill Uthman [ra]) as a mob from Egypt.  Aisha [ra] said it was tribal dispute [at-Tabari (4/461-462)].  Ibn Saad described them as scum of the society [Tabaqat (3/71)].  They were corrupt rebels (Khawarij mufsidoon), misguided transgressors as described by Ibn Taimiyya [Minhaj al-Sunnah 96/297)].  Imam Al-Nawawi [rah], in Sharh Muslim, stated that none of the Sahaba [ra] took part in the killing of Uthman (ra) and that he was unjustly killed by a mob that came from Egypt."

So congratulations on declaring the ancestor of Imam Jafar as-Sadiq [ra] a Khawaarij murderer who took part in the killing of a leader whose nomination Imam Ali [ra] did not oppose.   Also, by making Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr [ra] to be a Khawaarij, you have also placed the burden of Imam Ali's [ra] murder on his shoulders as well.

[NaveenHussain]

I am not concerned about who spoke to who.  I just want to know how are we to verify what a donkey said when his story goes as far back as to Nuh [as]?  Of course you are rendered helpless.  So next time before you point a finger at our hadiths, remember that there are four pointing right back at you.

It's not my fault you don't understand that the Prophet (saww) may've related it to Imam Ali (as). Oh, I forgot, you Bakris doubt the Prophet (saww), just as Umar (la) at Hudaybiyyah, right?

Yep, as per the narration.  You bragged Imam Ali [ra] was taught by so and so; well, in this narration, we know who the source of information was.  It was Ufayr (a donkey).[/quote]

Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

BS!  Big load of BS!  Your Akhbari scholars considered the Qur'an to have been tampered with.  The same Akhbari scholars considered Al-Kafi to be 100% authentic.  The title itself, "Al-Kafi" (sufficient), gives it away.  While your later scholars distanced themselves from their predecessors and labeled them as "Akhbaris", your madhhab owes nearly everything to these "Akhbari" scholars to the point that their beliefs still linger among your present-day (Usooli) scholars.  Precisely the reason why your present-day scholars cannot, and will not, give a fatwa declaring those believing in tahreef to be outside the fold of Islam.  So your present-day scholars have given them (Akhbaris) a new label in order to distinguish themselves from them but at the end of the day, not a single Shia scholar worth the name has passed a fatwa which considers those who believe in tahreef to be kaaffir.  Why?  Because issuing such a fatwa (on these Akhbari scholars) will be tantamount to passing the same judgment on your entire madhhab (since the foundations of your madhhab stand on these Akhbari scholars).

Your Sunni scholars mention `A'ishah and the missing Quranic verses that were eaten by a goat, yet you have "Saheeh" books other than the Quran. It looks like the Nasibi-Bakri shot himself in the foot this time. Watch Nabeel Qureshi's debate on YouTube, and you'll learn about Sunni scholars' view on the Quran being changed. Your fabricated sect is weak; admit it.

[Farid]

Alsalam alaykum,

It seems like this thread has reached its peak. If you brothers don't mind, I would appreciate it if we could have a final post from each of you guys with some sort of closing statement. After that, I will be locking the thread and making it read-only inshallah.

Once again, posts by anyone else will be deleted.

[muslim720]

Read it again. You're confusing yourself.

I am not confusing myself.  The story by Ufayr was shared by Imam Ali [ra] on the authority of the Prophet [saw] to whom a donkey spoke.  If you want to play semantics, then you must admit that Al-Kafi narrated something which could be used against you in the sense that we read the both the Prophet [saw] and Imam Ali [ra] were informed of an event by a donkey.  That was my second contention with that narration.  The first one was that the chain of the narration is sahih.  You wanted us to accept a Sunni hadith solely based on the fact that its chain was hassan.  So I asked you if you believe in the narration by Ufayr and thus far, you have danced around that point.

Your Sunni scholars mention `A'ishah and the missing Quranic verses that were eaten by a goat, yet you have "Saheeh" books other than the Quran.

For the Nth time - and I hope you have the decency to comprehend and respond to this point - the Qur'an was primarily preserved by memory.  Allah [swt] promises to protect its integrity and no goat, human and jinn (with every single one of them put together) can alter the Qur'an.  I also showed you that that particular narration is weak (obviously you did not read it).  Furthermore, even if the goat ate the parchment, there were many hufadh (those who have memorized the Qur'an) alive to fill in the missing pieces (the portions eaten by the goat).

Trouble with you Rawaafidh is that you do not have people who can properly recite the Qur'an, let alone those who have memorized it.  If you ever come to Adams Center, I will show you kids who are not even four feet tall but have memorized the Qur'an.  If you ever attend Taraweeh - and I always ask my Shia friends to do so (one does it religiously) - you will see that in the first row alone (other than the imam who is a hafidh), there are about two to three other hufadh making sure the imam does not even miss a letter.

As for having sahih books, your Akhbari scholars believed in the authenticity of Al-Kafi 100%.  Lastly, Imam Khomeini, on the authority of scholars before him, ruled Nahjul Balagha to be the "Brother of the Qur'an".

PS - speaking of tahreef and authentic hadiths, in one of those debates, the Sunni scholar quoted a narration from Al-Kafi which is considered "sahih" by Shias (regarding the Qur'an having 17,000 ayah).  The Shia scholar ruled the narration as "weak" so the Sunni debater challenged him to bring one narration from any Shia book - even if weak or rejected - which states that the Qur'an has not been altered.  The debate went on for multiple nights and the Shia could not bring one narration (not even a weak hadith) which said that the Qur'an is 100% tamper-free.

[muslim720]

Alsalam alaykum,

It seems like this thread has reached its peak. If you brothers don't mind, I would appreciate it if we could have a final post from each of you guys with some sort of closing statement. After that, I will be locking the thread and making it read-only inshallah.

Once again, posts by anyone else will be deleted.

Walaykum as-salaam wa rahmatullah,
You can close the thread whenever you want.  Our Rafidhi friend here has a long list with missing check-marks next to each item.  He did himself a grave injustice by bringing up many issues and now their refutations are staring right back at him and he does not know what to do but to bring more lies and recycle the old ones (although they have been thoroughly refuted but if only he had eyes to read and the decency to admit it).

[muslim720]

Given that our Rafidhi friend has continuously accused Abu Hurayrah [ra] to be a liar - though he would not dare move his lips in regards to Fadak - I thought I should bury his argument (although I gave him a history lesson which he has not acknowledged, let alone refute).

Shias use the following two narrations:

Abu huraria said: Umar said to me: o ENEMY OF ALLAH and enemy of Islam! you betrayed the money of Allah . He said: I said: I am not an enemy of Allah and not an enemy of Islam but an enemy to whoever is an enemy of them and I did not betray the money of Allah but they were the costs for a camel and spears added together. He said: return it and I said to him the same thing again. He said: he fined me 12 000 . He said: then I stood up for midday prayer and said: O Allah, forgive the commander of the faithful. And what was after that is that he wanted me to work and I didn’t do it. Then he said: not and Yusuf did ask to work and he was better than you. Then I said: verily Yusuf is a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet son of a prophet and I am son of Umaymah and I fear three and two. He said: don’t you say five? I said: no. He said: what are they? I said: I fear that I speak without knowledge, and issue ruling without knowledge, and that my back gets beaten , and that my representation/arguments gets insulted .

Imam Hakim says: sahih on the conditions of Sheikhain but not written
Dhabi says: sahih on the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim



Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0118:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Dharr that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace and blessings be upon him) saying: No person who claimed knowingly anyone else as his father besides (his own) committed nothing but infidelity, and he who made a claim of anything, which (in fact) did not belong to him, is not amongst us; he should make his abode in Fire, and he who labeled anyone with unbelief or called him the enemy of Allah, and he was in fact not so, it rebounded on him.

The key things to note are the following:

1.  The belief of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah is that the Companions [ra] were not infallible.  What made the Sahaba [ra] Sahaba were their belief in Islam, associating with the Prophet [saw] and dying upon Islam.  At the time when Umar [ra] made that charge, Abu Hurayrah [ra] was alive and his status as a Companion had not been finalized (since he was still alive and could leave Islam).

2.  In one narration (quoted above), it reads that Abu Hurayrah [ra] was fined.  In another narration, by way of Abdul Razzaq (sahih narration in Musanaf Abdulrazaq #20659), it is said that he was absolved.  The two narrations have been reconciled by believing that Abu Hurayrah [ra] was fined and later absolved (when allegations against him were proven to be false).

3.  Umar [ra], the strict leader that he was, would have certainly had the hands of Abu Hurayrah [ra] chopped off as is the punishment for stealing.  Never did such a thing happen.

4.  The same Umar [ra] appointed Abu Hurayrah [ra] the governor of present-day Bahrain.  Is it possible that Umar [ra] would appoint a thief as governor?  In fact, after Abu Hurayrah's [ra] name was cleared, Umar [ra] offered him his position again but he refused.

5.  Abu Hurayrah [ra] asked Allah [swt] to forgive Umar [ra].  This is the amount of love Companions [ra] had for each other.  It baffles me; how is it that the Shias quote the hadith but miss out on the part which reads, "O Allah, forgive the commander of the faithful"?

[muslim720]

The accusation against Abu Hurayrah [ra] also backfires in the face of the Shias when we see how strict Umar [ra] was when it came to money.  In other words, Umar's [ra] justice knew no bounds.  Often Shias claim that the Sahabas [ra] collaborated to steal Imam Ali's [ra] Caliphate and Fatima's [ra] Fadak.  Well if that was the case, why did Umar [ra] punish Abu Hurayrah [ra] at the slightest suspicion of the latter having embezzled money?  If anything, Umar [ra] - if he was what the Shias portray him to be - should have made a deal with Abu Hurayrah [ra].  He should have asked for some money (bribe) from Abu Hurayrah [ra] to look the other way in order for Abu Hurayrah [ra] to continue stealing.  But we see that Umar [ra] punished Abu Hurayrah [ra].  When Abu Hurayrah's [ra] innocence was proven, Umar [ra] returned the confiscated money and offered Abu Hurayrah [ra] his position of governorship (which the Abu Hurayrah [ra] turned down).

The report establishes the innocence of Abu Hurayrah [ra] and the uprightness of Umar [ra].

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
Our Rafidhi friend has gone M.I.A. and I do not blame him.  Plus it is the month of Ramadan.  But I wanted to take a look at his Facebook page to see if he has declared a victory for himself.  While he had not done such a thing, I noticed a lot of filth in regards to Aisha [ra], Umar [ra], et cetera.  In the midst of all that, our distinguished, genius friend had shared a parable with his dimwit followers.  Tell me if any of this makes any sense to anyone.

"Modern Medicine Parable:

To better paint a picture for those who don’t yet understand the medical system today, I’ll give an Islamic example:

Imagine if Ahlul Bayt (as) promoted natural medicine, and Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan, etc. promoted mainstream [allopathic] medicines. Of course, the Caliphs will put out their own news/articles stating that they’re correct, even bashing Ahlul Bayt (as) and their followers [Shia]. Many groups will come out of this Shiism, with many being misguided. It may be similar with natural medicine; some will try to make a quick dollar at the expense of his customers. Sure, it happens even among Shias. Many groups claim to be Shia today. This doesn’t mean that ALL Shias are misguided.

Many will follow the government because it’s the path of lesser resistance. The same you often see happening with many choosing Sunnism over Shiism. I understand life gets tough. Many Shias cannot delve that DEEP. They cannot handle being Shia and going against the grain in almost EVERY aspect. I honestly understand why they choose to do as they do, although I don’t agree. May Allah (swt) give you, and us, more strength. It’s said that faith is like a weight scale, the more faith you have, the heavier it’ll be."