189 replies to this topic

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

@Ibrahim

Quote

why would muslims start a war with him ra for fadak?? too many ifs and buts and hypotheticals.

Because the majority of the muslims were looking for any excuse to start a war with Imam Ali a.s as they never wanted Him a.s to become a caliph.

Quote

just to be clear - no one fought ali ra for uthman ra - they wanted uthman ra killers to pay for their crimes. this was not personal with ali ra.

This is load of [Edited Out], Uthman's killers were the sahaba.  This was just an excuse they used to start a war with Imam Ali a.s and accused Him a.s unjustly, now just imagine if Imam took Fadak by force, this would have been the perfect agenda to attack the Imam.

[Vigilare]

^
It's good to see views from extreme ends of the spectrum. How many of the sahaba were involved in the fitna during Imam Ali's time?

[Ibrahim786]

Vigilare, on 22 June 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

^
It's good to see views from extreme ends of the spectrum. How many of the sahaba were involved in the fitna during Imam Ali's time?

excellent question -

[Rasul]

If I don't have wrong some of them must have been

Aisha
Hafsa
Talha ibn Ubayd-Allah
Zubayr ibn al-Awwam
Abd-Allah ibn Zubayr
Walid ibn Uqba
Abu Huraira
Muawiya
Amr bin As
Khalid bin Walid
Marwan

and more

[Vigilare]

That's 11 named individuals out of hundreds, if not thousands. Of the 11, Khalid bin Waleed had died some time before so that makes 10. I'm not 100% sure Abu Huraira participated actively in either battle though.

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

Quote

How many of the sahaba were involved in the fitna during Imam Ali's time?

How many of the sahaba were not involved in the fitna during Imam Ali's time?

[Goku]

Thousands of companions were in the wrong, more than just 11.

[Mehek]

Ibrahim786, on 19 June 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

with all due respect there is much more showing the opposite to be true - i.e. the quranic verses praising the sahabah as highlighted in the video above
there are many hadiths praising the sahabah and alhamdullah many more reverts in sunni islam.

Actually I can prove you with the verses that you are wrong.  That Quran has criticized the so called Sahaba more than loved them. You can ask for it.

Moreover, there is a whole chapter against these hypocrite Sahaba called Sura Munafiqoon.


And you guys are doing us a favor by doing tabligh and calling them to Sunnis.  If these sunnis do a little bit more research they will surely turn to Shias as it has been proven again and again.

[Darth Vader]

There have been countless debates in this forum and I have come to the conclusion that in order to defend their sahaba or aslaaf or the "jamaat" in their name Ahlus Sunnah wa al "Jamaat" (Translation: The selected group (of companions)), the Sunni will have to travel back to their origin, when the first political division in Islam occurred into the Followers or Shia of Ali AND the Shia of Uthman / Bani Umayya.

They must make corrections and accept only the first three as rightly guided and at the same time they'll have to turn their guns on Ali and become nawasib, to prove that his opponents or the idols of Sunnism whom they follow for no logical reason, were right and not wrong, and that Ali was wrong instead. There is no other way to keep their ship afloat in the face of reality. Otherwise Sunnism remains illogical, self contradictory, confusing and hence invalid.

Although its silly but this is the price to be paid for adhering to a silly and irrational belief about "sahaba were all innocent" which you came up with in order to turn your ignorant masses against the Shia. Ironically but naturally, the illogic and pointlessness of it is becoming your undoing.

[abbas110]

How can Abu Bakr's rulership be indisputable when Fatima Al Zahra, Imam Ali and the rest of the Banu Hashim along with selected group of prominent, early Sahaba never paid allegiance to him? Naturally Umar's rule too is disputed since he got his legitimacy given down to him by Abu Bakr. Whereas almost all the Muslims of the time during Uthman, save his own clan, considered the caliph corrupt, inept, nepotist, and arrogant and it was much later that the "jamaat" started to count him in the list of the "rightly guided caliphs". Perhaps it was the nature of his murder that gave them something to reconsider their opinion of the despised caliph.

[Vigilare]

muslimunity1, on 22 June 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare


How many of the sahaba were not involved in the fitna during Imam Ali's time?

I think to be fair the onus is on you rather than me as you made the claim that the majority of Muslims were looking for any excuse to start a war with Imam Ali .  So you need to show that the majority of Muslims, and from that you can infer sahaba, supported Aisha and then Muawiyah.

muslimunity1, on 22 June 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Because the majority of the muslims were looking for any excuse to start a war with Imam Ali a.s as they never wanted Him a.s to become a caliph.

Intellectually, some of the posts are simply funny. People assume by attacking sunni beliefs that they're somehow proving the Shia beliefs right. That's not how it works; both views are highly subjective and both can be wrong.

[Ali Musaaa :)]

Goku, on 22 June 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Thousands of companions were in the wrong, more than just 11.

I love how our Sunni brothers jump with rage when someone makes the slightest bit of criticism towards any of the Sahabah for making mistakes/errors or anything similar, when it seems they had forgotten what happened to the Sahabah of Prophet Musa

[Ibrahim786]

Rasul, on 22 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

If I don't have wrong some of them must have been

Aisha
Hafsa
Talha ibn Ubayd-Allah
Zubayr ibn al-Awwam
Abd-Allah ibn Zubayr
Walid ibn Uqba
Abu Huraira
Muawiya
Amr bin As
Khalid bin Walid
Marwan

and more

hafsa ra was not involved.

khalid bin walid ra died during umar ra khilafah so he was obviously not involved.

Abu hurrairah ra was not involved in the fighting.

walid bin uqba ra was not involved as he retired to a quiet life madinah after he was falsely accused of drinking alcohol and was punished by his own foster/step brother uthman ra. there is no mention of him in the fighting.

[Rasul]

Ibrahim786, on 25 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

khalid bin walid ra died during umar ra khilafah so he was obviously not involved.

Right...  but he is enemy of Ahl al-Bayt ... so he was involved in things...  in the time of Umar....

Quote

hafsa ra was not involved.

Abu hurrairah ra was not involved in the fighting.

walid bin uqba ra was not involved as he retired to a quiet life madinah after he was falsely accused of drinking alcohol and was punished by his own foster/step brother uthman ra. there is no mention of him in the fighting.

You are wrong they were involved!

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare

Quote

Intellectually, some of the posts are simply funny. People assume by attacking sunni beliefs that they're somehow proving the Shia beliefs right. That's not how it works; both views are highly subjective and both can be wrong.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that majority of the companions turned against Imam Ali a.s, when the Quran gives numerous examples how majority of followers went astray in previous narrations.  Also we have hadiths how the ummah is going to turn against Imam Ali a.s after the death of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w with various wordings but the gist of the narrations is majority will go against Imam Ali a.s.

You don't need names of all the companions who wanted a war with Imam Ali a.s anyway, the one's that wanted the war like Mu'awiaya and co and the sahaba who participated in His army were all in the same boat.

Now obviously the history doesn't give the names of all the sahaba who participated in Imam Ali a.s army or Mu'awiaya's, so how do we determine if the majority were against Imam Ali a.s or with? You've have to look at the size of the army of both parties and you will find majority of them were in Ayesha (in Jamal) an Mu'awaiya's side (in siffeen).

Quote

. I'm not 100% sure Abu Huraira participated actively in either battle though.

We all know who he supported though don't we bro?

Ibn Abu al-Hadid says: Sufyan al-Thawri reports on the authority of ᶜAbd al-Rahman ibn Qasim, on the authority of ᶜUmar ibn ᶜAbd al-Ghaffar that when Abu Hurayrah came to Kufah with Muᶜawiyya, he used to sit at the door called Kinda at nightfall and the people would sit with him. A young man of Kufah came to him and sat with him and said, “O Abu Hurayrah, may Allah adjure you! Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (SA) saying for ᶜAli ibn Abu Talib : O Allah support the one who supports ᶜAli and oppose the one who opposes ᶜAli.” Abu Hurayrah replied, “Off course, I did (hear that).” The young man responded, “Then I take Allah as my witness that you have most surely supported the one who opposes ᶜAli’s and opposed Allahs beloved.” The young man then left Abu Hurayrah

This just sums it all up that a young man from Kufa understood the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w hadith of those that oppose Imam Ali a.s and your telling me that these companions who witnessed ghadir khumm and all the hadith's from the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w mouth didn't know the consequences of opposing Imams of the time.

1. I don't agree with you that both views can be wrong, did the majority of the companions go against Imam Ali a.s

2. Did they support him, if you agree with this, than why did they keep Him a.s away from ruling?

2. If you say that his Imamate wasn't clear than your accusiong the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w of not doing his job properly?

Make your choice, don't be a politician.

[Ibrahim786]

Rasul, on 25 June 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Right...  but he is enemy of Ahl al-Bayt ... so he was involved in things...  in the time of Umar....




You are wrong they were involved!

we are talking about the events in ali ra khilafah and how many companions were involved which obviously the sword of Allah aka khalid bin walid ra had passed away before. Just out of curiosity what "crimes" did khalid bin walid ra commit against the ahlelbayt bearing in mind he spent most of his time in the path of Allah swt.

I may be wrong. But as far as I am aware they were not involved in the fitnah. So maybe you are wrong !!!!

[Rasul]

Ibrahim786, on 26 June 2012 - 05:41 AM, said:

we are talking about the events in ali ra khilafah and how many companions were involved which obviously the sword of Allah aka khalid bin walid ra had passed away before. Just out of curiosity what "crimes" did khalid bin walid ra commit against the ahlelbayt bearing in mind he spent most of his time in the path of Allah swt.

What I wrote 'If I don't have wrong some of them must have been'

1# Supported enemies of Ahl al-Bayt
2# Killing Sahaba
3# Nasibi

and more (etc)

Quote

I may be wrong. But as far as I am aware they were not involved in the fitnah. So maybe you are wrong !!!!

No they were -  so you are wrong

Edited by Rasul, 26 June 2012 - 07:20 AM.

[Vigilare]

muslimunity1, on 25 June 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Aslamalaykum,

@Vigilare


Why is it so hard for you to believe that majority of the companions turned against Imam Ali a.s, when the Quran gives numerous examples how majority of followers went astray in previous narrations.  Also we have hadiths how the ummah is going to turn against Imam Ali a.s after the death of the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w with various wordings but the gist of the narrations is majority will go against Imam Ali a.s.

You don't need names of all the companions who wanted a war with Imam Ali a.s anyway, the one's that wanted the war like Mu'awiaya and co and the sahaba who participated in His army were all in the same boat.

Now obviously the history doesn't give the names of all the sahaba who participated in Imam Ali a.s army or Mu'awiaya's, so how do we determine if the majority were against Imam Ali a.s or with? You've have to look at the size of the army of both parties and you will find majority of them were in Ayesha (in Jamal) an Mu'awaiya's side (in siffeen).

w/s brother.

Unfortunately you’re simplifying the matter, it’s not always black and white.  Firstly, it’s not that hard to believe, however I don’t take the extreme position others take. Ultimately this is going to end up back at whether they left Islam or not – given that the Sahabas understanding of the Quran was greater than ours, and as you had said that Imamat is clear in the Quran AND the sahabas heard directly from the Prophet about following the Imams then the only logical conclusion based on these facts is that they became kafir – which I disagree with.

Secondly, you’re right you don’t need the names of the sahabas but you do need to know whether the armies were consisting of sahabas or Muslims who had converted at a later time. That in itself should be a big indication of whether of not the sahabas were actively involved in the fitnas.  Simple fact is that the majority of the sahabas did not participate in the fighting, because they did not see the situation as how it is seen 1400 years later.

Quote

Ibn Abu al-Hadid says: Sufyan al-Thawri reports on the authority of ᶜAbd al-Rahman ibn Qasim, on the authority of ᶜUmar ibn ᶜAbd al-Ghaffar that when Abu Hurayrah came to Kufah with Muᶜawiyya, he used to sit at the door called Kinda at nightfall and the people would sit with him. A young man of Kufah came to him and sat with him and said, “O Abu Hurayrah, may Allah adjure you! Did you hear the Messenger of Allah (SA) saying for ᶜAli ibn Abu Talib file:///D:usershussair3AppDataLocalTempmsohtmlclip11clip_image001.gif: O Allah support the one who supports ᶜAli and oppose the one who opposes ᶜAli.” Abu Hurayrah replied, “Off course, I did (hear that).” The young man responded, “Then I take Allah as my witness that you have most surely supported the one who opposes ᶜAli’s and opposed Allahs beloved.” The young man then left Abu Hurayrah

This just sums it all up that a young man from Kufa understood the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w hadith of those that oppose Imam Ali a.s and your telling me that these companions who witnessed ghadir khumm and all the hadith's from the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w mouth didn't know the consequences of opposing Imams of the time.

1. I don't agree with you that both views can be wrong, did the majority of the companions go against Imam Ali a.s

2. Did they support him, if you agree with this, than why did they keep Him a.s away from ruling?

2. If you say that his Imamate wasn't clear than your accusiong the Holy Prophet s.a.w.w of not doing his job properly?

Make your choice, don't be a politician.

Hardly.  Are you saying that a) majority of companions became kafir and if so that Asma bint Umais remained married to a kafir (Abu Bakr) until his death?

[Ali Musaaa :)]

Vigilare, on 26 June 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

w/s brother.


Hardly.  Are you saying that a) majority of companions became kafir and if so that Asma bint Umais remained married to a kafir (Abu Bakr) until his death?

We could use the same line of argument with the case of Abu Talib . His wife was a Muslim but somehow, he wasn't?

[Vigilare]

By all means do so.

So you take the view that a muslimah can remain married to a kafir then?

[Ibrahim786]

muslimunity1, on 25 June 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

Aslamalaykum,

Why is it so hard for you to believe that majority of the companions turned against Imam Ali a.s, when the Quran gives numerous examples how majority of followers went astray in previous narrations.  

The majority of the companions did not go against ali ra and this is a lie. Ali ra was a key figure for the first 3 khalifahs and was loved and respected by them. If they hated ali ra and vice versa and went against the ahlelbayt then ali ra would not have been near them let alone be a part of the khilafah system nor would he had served them nor would he or his descendents name their children after them nor would he marry his daughter to umar ra nor would he adopt the son of abu bakr ra and marry the widow of abu bakr ra nor would he have been selected by umar ra to be in charge of madinah when umar ra went to liberate Jerusalem !!!

the followers of the previous prophets went astray due to people changing their books and having a higher regard for the words of their priests and rabbis than the word of Allah - this has not happened nor will it ever happen to this ummah because Allah swt has said the quran has been protected and will never change.

[Rasul]

Are you Sunnis not tired of lying ? 'Abu Bakrs' real name was:

'Abdullah' or 'Ateeq' according to Ahli Sunnah

when did Ali name his son after him?

Edited by Rasul, 27 June 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Ibrahim786]

Rasul, on 27 June 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Are you Sunnis not tired of lying ? 'Abu Bakrs' real name was:

'Abdullah' or 'Ateeq' according to Ahli Sunnah

when did Ali name his son after him?

maybe - but you will find that his "kunya" (if spelt correctly) was abu bakr ra and was used by the people when reffering to him. infact this is a stronger proof that ali ra loved abu bakr ra as he used the kunya name which is unique and famously associated to him amongst the companions when his actual birth name could be a more common name as the two above

[Rasul]

Now they are claiming that Ali named his son after 'Abu Bakrs' - 'kunya'

He ( Abu Bakr ) was referred to as Abi Quhafa also so what?


Challenge to Sunnis:

Now Sunnis bring us proof that Ali named his son after 'Abu Bakrs' -  'kunya'

Edited by Rasul, 27 June 2012 - 08:40 AM.

[Ibrahim786]

Rasul, on 27 June 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Now they are claiming that Ali named his son after 'Abu Bakrs' - 'kunya'

He ( Abu Bakr ) was referred to as Abi Quhafa also so what?


Challenge to Sunnis:

Now Sunnis bring us proof that Ali named his son after 'Abu Bakrs' -  'kunya'

so its just a coincidence that ali ra named his children abbu bakr umar and uthman even though they "usurped" his khalifah, "beat his wife and killed his unborn son and stole fadak"?