42 replies to this topic

[Al-Hadi]

Salaam alaikum

Can anyone help me understand what Imam Ali did in relation to uthmans killers? Did he punish them, or did he take no action? If he took no action, why did he take no action?

Thanks in advance

[Ali Hayder]

Imam Ali asked all those who claimed they were fighting to avenge the blood of Uthman (Aishah, Talhah, Zubayr and Muawiyah) to identify the killers so that he could bring them to justice. But all of them refused to do so.

[Ameen]

Al-Hadi, on 19 August 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Salaam alaikum

Can anyone help me understand what Imam Ali did in relation to uthmans killers? Did he punish them, or did he take no action? If he took no action, why did he take no action?

Thanks in advance

Assalaamo-Alaikum. The first thing Hazrath Ali [as] did when he came into power is, he launched a murder enquiry, so that Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] killers could be brought to justice. The case collapsed right from the begining because the main witness, [Naila] Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] wife, who was present during the incident and who tried to save her husband and got injured in the process, refuse to testify and name the killers. She wanted the case closed and remained absolutely silent and didn't speak about it till the day she died. There is no statement from her, regarding her husbands murder, in any of the history books. WHY??? Perhaps she knew the killers and wanted to protect them by remaining silent. Certain people hijacked Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] murder, by using it as an excuse against the fourth Khalif of the Muslims and rebelled against him, so they could settle their personal scores with him!

[Kazmi_202]

The above post by Ameen is very informative and useful.

We need to investigate the issue based on the Islamic Sharia, as it provides guidelines on what to do in such a case and how to go about it, and anyone who rejects it, is rejecting the Prophet (saaw).

For a murder case in Islam, the heirs of the deceased must bring the case to the Islamic Court. There must be a witness to the crime who saw the event with their own eyes. I dont have access to Sunni Fiqh on this issue, but its worth someone with the relevant material going through it and finding out the details for a successful conviction.

History does not point out to anyone testifying against any individual (though we have the event in the battle of Jamal where Marwan kills Talha accusing him of the crime lol)

Anyhow, witnesses or not, does any Islamic country today sanction the widespread fitna that was caused afterwards, and that by EVERYONE except the immediate family. Even after the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain , Mukhtar Thaqafi conducted trials for the accused and then punished them. What right did these guys have to go out and revolt against the Caliph/Imam of their time??? You know, if this revolt happened to any other of the previous Caliphs, the Sunnis would have given a fatwa of Kufr on the perpetrators, but alas, Imam Ali is so oppressed that even those who fight against him are perfect role model Muslims!!

[Sonador]

I was typing a lengthy post in response yesterday but my internet stopped working and I thought Allah had saved me from a sin. Talking about this issue of the murder of the 3rd khalifah of Islam and the upcoming events is not encouraged among Ahl-as-Sunnah for some reasons. Because then shaytan whispers and you may suspect the intentions of great companions of the Prophet s.a.w like Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu. He's from those who embraced Islam right after its advent, he's a muhajir, a great soldier of Islam, cousin and son in law of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. People like us should think a 100 times before opening our mouths to criticise him and challenge his intentions especially after the murder of the 3rd khalifah.

When internet stopped working, I thought Allah didn't want me to post that, it would probably be used against me on the day of judgment that I suspected the faith and intentions of those who were not alive to answer to my questions or suspicions.

Anyway, I would only say that the wife of Uthman radiyallahu anhu was not the only heir of him. He had a family, siblings, children, relatives or not.

If his wife was not available for the testimony, does it mean the case was closed?

Was it just a murder in which some gangsters trespass a house and murder the inhabitant(s)?

Or it was a rebellion against the Islamic Khilafah?

Suppose the wife of the khalifah hadn't recognized the murderers because they were either strangers or had covered their faces, does it mean those who had put the house under siege were also unaware of the identification of them?

It's the duty of the state to provide justice to the people. No one is going to accept the excuse that the wife of the 3rd khalifah went into hiding and never disclosed who actually killed the khalifah.

[Righteous]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I was typing a lengthy post in response yesterday but my internet stopped working and I thought Allah had saved me from a sin. Talking about this issue of the murder of the 3rd khalifah of Islam and the upcoming events is not encouraged among Ahl-as-Sunnah for some reasons. Because then shaytan whispers and you may suspect the intentions of great companions of the Prophet s.a.w like Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu. He's from those who embraced Islam right after its advent, he's a muhajir, a great soldier of Islam, cousin and son in law of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. People like us should think a 100 times before opening our mouths to criticise him and challenge his intentions especially after the murder of the 3rd khalifah.

When internet stopped working, I thought Allah didn't want me to post that, it would probably be used against me on the day of judgment that I suspected the faith and intentions of those who were not alive to answer to my questions or suspicions.

Anyway, I would only say that the wife of Uthman radiyallahu anhu was not the only heir of him. He had a family, siblings, children, relatives or not.

If his wife was not available for the testimony, does it mean the case was closed?

Was it just a murder in which some gangsters trespass a house and murder the inhabitant(s)?

Or it was a rebellion against the Islamic Khilafah?

Suppose the wife of the khalifah hadn't recognized the murderers because they were either strangers or had covered their faces, does it mean those who had put the house under siege were also unaware of the identification of them?

It's the duty of the state to provide justice to the people. No one is going to accept the excuse that the wife of the 3rd khalifah went into hiding and never disclosed who actually killed the khalifah.

see you can be suspect of Ali and blame it on poor shaitan...even question the Prophet but never your real prophet umar

[Kazmi_202]

His wife was available for testimony, but she didnt provide any names.

It was a rebellion started by Aisha, so you should read your own books:

Quote

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah . So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
"Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever."

References:
History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
Sharh al-Nahj, by Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, "Dhikr Jamal"
Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
Qamus page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 "Dhikr Jamal"
Shaykh Mudheera page 163

Lets see some more:

Quote

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

Abu al-Qasim al-Baghawi narrated with Sahih chain from the Jarud bin Abi Sabra that he said: ‘When it was the battle of Jamal, Marwan looked at Talha and said: ‘I will not seek for my revenge after this day’ then he shot him an arrow and killed him.’

Moreover he records:

Narrated Yaqub bin Sufyan with Sahih chain from Qais bin Abi Hazem that Marwan bin al-Hakam saw Talha on the horse, he (Marwan) said: ‘He assisted against Uthman’ then he shot him an arrow in his knee, he was bleeding till he died.

Ibn Hajar Asqalani, one the greatest commentators of Bukhari didnt think it a sin to mention these facts. So Sonador, since you reject history, ahadeeth, and Tafsir, what are you doing here? Why dont you go clean up the Sunni sect, and then come back to us with a book you believe in, and we can take it from there.

Edited by Kazmi_202, 02 September 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

@Sonador

Quote

I was typing a lengthy post in response yesterday but my internet stopped working and I thought Allah had saved me from a sin. Talking about this issue of the murder of the 3rd khalifah of Islam and the upcoming events is not encouraged among Ahl-as-Sunnah for some reasons.

You made me laugh! shall I tell you the real reason why it's not encouraged amongst the Ahle sunnah is because they don't want to unveil the names of the companions that were involved in the murder of Uthman.  If they do unveil the names then they have to show reasons why Uthman was killed in the first place, so another words Uthman was looting islamic treasury funds, appointing his own relatives as governors etc etc

[Kazmi_202]

The whole Sunni sect will fall apart if they were allowed to discuss the murder of Uthman

They want us to believe in principles that even their Sahaba didnt believe in, (contradiction), all based on misunderstanding certain Quranic Ayah regarding the Sahaba that are completely 'CONDITIONAL' on them being good.

Quote

Al-Dhahabi writes in his book Marifat al-Ruwah, page 4:
"Some of the Sahaba called others kafirs!"

Ibn taimiyyah said:
“insulting other than prophets does not make for the allegation of kufr, for some of them insulted each other in the era of holy prophet asws, and that did not constitute kufr”

[ al sarim ul masloom ala shatim ur rasool, ibn taimiyya, vol 2, page 1086]

Leave us alone dude, go sort out your own sect

[md. ammar ali]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I was typing a lengthy post in response yesterday but my internet stopped working and I thought Allah had saved me from a sin. Talking about this issue of the murder of the 3rd khalifah of Islam and the upcoming events is not encouraged among Ahl-as-Sunnah for some reasons. Because then shaytan whispers and you may suspect the intentions of great companions of the Prophet s.a.w like Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu. He's from those who embraced Islam right after its advent, he's a muhajir, a great soldier of Islam, cousin and son in law of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. People like us should think a 100 times before opening our mouths to criticise him and challenge his intentions especially after the murder of the 3rd khalifah.

When internet stopped working, I thought Allah didn't want me to post that, it would probably be used against me on the day of judgment that I suspected the faith and intentions of those who were not alive to answer to my questions or suspicions.

Anyway, I would only say that the wife of Uthman radiyallahu anhu was not the only heir of him. He had a family, siblings, children, relatives or not.

If his wife was not available for the testimony, does it mean the case was closed?

Was it just a murder in which some gangsters trespass a house and murder the inhabitant(s)?

Or it was a rebellion against the Islamic Khilafah?

Suppose the wife of the khalifah hadn't recognized the murderers because they were either strangers or had covered their faces, does it mean those who had put the house under siege were also unaware of the identification of them?

It's the duty of the state to provide justice to the people. No one is going to accept the excuse that the wife of the 3rd khalifah went into hiding and never disclosed who actually killed the khalifah.

whom would you support in the battles of badr,ohud,khandaq,khaibar? - prophet muhammad (saww) or the quraysh ?????????

whom would you support in the battle of siffin ? - ali or muawiya ?????????????

whom would you support in the battle of jamal? - ali or ayesha ????????????????????

whom would you support in the battle of nahrawan - ali or the khawjirites???

if you could answer the 1st one then answer all the others as well ....

substantiate your answers

[Sonador]

Kazmi_202, on 02 September 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

The whole Sunni sect will fall apart if they were allowed to discuss the murder of Uthman

Ahl-as-Sunnah prefer not to discuss the differences of sahabah regarding the after math of Saiyidina Uthman's murder for many reasons namely:

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

2. Unbiased interrogation and analysis of the events will make Ali ra responsible for the civil war more than anyone else.

3. Ahl-as-Sunnah respect Ali more than they respect Muawiyah, so they prefer not to blame Ali ra for anything.

4. Ahl-as-Sunnah find excuses to justify the actions of Ali ra because of his relation with Rasoolullah s.a.w.

5. If Ali ra was not a companion and not related to the Prophet s.a.w, he would be blamed for the civil war and loss of human lives.

muslimunity1, on 02 September 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

You made me laugh! shall I tell you the real reason why it's not encouraged amongst the Ahle sunnah is because they don't want to unveil the names of the companions that were involved in the murder of Uthman.  If they do unveil the names then they have to show reasons why Uthman was killed in the first place, so another words Uthman was looting islamic treasury funds, appointing his own relatives as governors etc etc

Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).

Kazmi_202, on 02 September 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Many Sunni historian reported that Once Aisha went to Uthman and asked for her share of inheritance of Prophet (after so many years passed from the death of Prophet). Uthman refrained to give Aisha any money by reminding her that she was one those who testified and encouraged Abu-Bakr to refrain to pay the share of inheritance of Fatimah . So if Fatimah does not have any share of inheritance, then why should she? Aisha became extremely angry at Uthman, and came out saying:
"Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever."

The content of this report itself is a proof that it comes from the mind of a Persian who hates Islam and companions and wives of the Prophets s.a.w.

[Haydar Husayn]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ahl-as-Sunnah prefer not to discuss the differences of sahabah regarding the after math of Saiyidina Uthman's murder for many reasons namely:

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

2. Unbiased interrogation and analysis of the events will make Ali ra responsible for the civil war more than anyone else.

3. Ahl-as-Sunnah respect Ali more than they respect Muawiyah, so they prefer not to blame Ali ra for anything.

4. Ahl-as-Sunnah find excuses to justify the actions of Ali ra because of his relation with Rasoolullah s.a.w.

5. If Ali ra was not a companion and not related to the Prophet s.a.w, he would be blamed for the civil war and loss of human lives.



Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).

SubhanAllah! At least you are honest, I suppose.

Edited by Haydar Husayn, 02 September 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Sonador]

According to Ahl-as-Sunnah, the jama'at of companions is forgiven by Allah in sha Allah. And if we speak ill of them, we will harm our own aakhirah.

[Al-Hadi]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ahl-as-Sunnah prefer not to discuss the differences of sahabah regarding the after math of Saiyidina Uthman's murder for many reasons namely:

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

2. Unbiased interrogation and analysis of the events will make Ali ra responsible for the civil war more than anyone else.

3. Ahl-as-Sunnah respect Ali more than they respect Muawiyah, so they prefer not to blame Ali ra for anything.

4. Ahl-as-Sunnah find excuses to justify the actions of Ali ra because of his relation with Rasoolullah s.a.w.

5. If Ali ra was not a companion and not related to the Prophet s.a.w, he would be blamed for the civil war and loss of human lives.



Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).



The content of this report itself is a proof that it comes from the mind of a Persian who hates Islam and companions and wives of the Prophets s.a.w.

I think you mean Muhammad Ibn Abu bakr?

Sigh...what lies you've been told. Imam Ali responsible for the civil war? Yeah perhaps he shouldn't have told muawiya to get off the throne of Damascus. After all, who's the kalifah to appoint governors?! It's not like its his job or anything.

[Haydar Husayn]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ahl-as-Sunnah prefer not to discuss the differences of sahabah regarding the after math of Saiyidina Uthman's murder for many reasons namely:

You could just have summed it up as intellectual cowardice.

Quote

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

By that standard, we can't judge anyone from history, since they aren't here to defend themselves.

Quote

2. Unbiased interrogation and analysis of the events will make Ali ra responsible for the civil war more than anyone else.

Ok, well then let's hear this unbiased analysis. You don't have to make any judgements, or even spell out the conclusions. Just state the facts that prove what you've said.

Quote

3. Ahl-as-Sunnah respect Ali more than they respect Muawiyah, so they prefer not to blame Ali ra for anything.

Basically, it seems you respect Imam Ali is because of who he is, but not so much because of his actions. However, Islam is about haqq. If someone has done something wrong, then nobody should be afraid to say it. Allah (swt) even rebukes Prophets in the Qur'an, doesn't He? That doesn't make them bad people. So just because you point out some mistakes Imam Ali supposedly made, it wouldn't necessarily mean you think he is a bad person.

Quote

4. Ahl-as-Sunnah find excuses to justify the actions of Ali ra because of his relation with Rasoolullah s.a.w.

Justifying mistakes with implausible excuses is not what someone who cares about truth should be doing. I know you guys are fond of doing that, but it's just makes you look dumb, and is probably the main reason nobody believes your version of history.

Quote

5. If Ali ra was not a companion and not related to the Prophet s.a.w, he would be blamed for the civil war and loss of human lives.

Don't you have a hadith from the Prophet where he says that if even Fatima (sa) stole, then he would cut off her hand? This should tell you that a person's relationship with the Prophet doesn't make them immune to criticism or punishment.

So, I'm really interested. Please show me the evidence that Imam Ali was responsible for the civil war and the loss of life.

Quote

Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).

Did you mean Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr?

So him and Malik al-Ashtar, where involved in the murder of Uthman? According to you, was Imam Ali aware of what they did?

Edited by Haydar Husayn, 02 September 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[al-`Ajal Ya Imaam]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

Ahl-as-Sunnah prefer not to discuss the differences of sahabah regarding the after math of Saiyidina Uthman's murder for many reasons namely:

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

Oh but we know from History what they did, and exactly what the Prophet thought of Mu'awiya:

• "At the time of his death, Mu'awiya shall not be counted as member of my Muslim Ummah"
  Tarikh Tabari Volume 8 page 186 (Meaning he's a Kafir)
  
• "Verily Mu'awiya shall be in the deepest part of Hell from where he shall shout 'Ya Hanan, Ya Manan' verily I have sinned and spread fitnah throughout the earth".
  Tarikh Tabari, Volume 5 page 622 (Meaning he's in Hell)
  
• Ibrahim Ibn Al-Alaaf from Salaam Ibn Sulayman from Isam Ibn Bahdalah from Zirr from Abdullah Ibn Masood from Rasoolullah who said: 'If you see Muwiyah bin Abi Sufiyan on my pulpit then kill him.'
  al-Thuqat, volume 8 page 78 (I assume the Prophet didn't really love Mu'awiya)

I'm going to take this, and other Ahadith, to the fact that Mu'awiya was not much loved by the Prophet .

Quote

2. Unbiased interrogation and analysis of the events will make Ali ra responsible for the civil war more than anyone else.

3. Ahl-as-Sunnah respect Ali more than they respect Muawiyah, so they prefer not to blame Ali ra for anything.

4. Ahl-as-Sunnah find excuses to justify the actions of Ali ra because of his relation with Rasoolullah s.a.w.

5. If Ali ra was not a companion and not related to the Prophet s.a.w, he would be blamed for the civil war and loss of human lives.

Even if He wasn't, it would have been completely justified, Mu'awiya was a waste, a Fasiq, a Zindeeq. Imam Ali took it upon himself to undo the damage done by Uthman, he was going to remove the unjust rulers from Banu Umayya, and put in good, pious, fair, and believing governors. Mu'awiya refused to leave power, so Imam Ali had to take it from the Fasiq by force, if he wasn't going to comply. The whole story is located here, I do not have the time to explain it all well, so if you want to understand it better, then read it, if not, well your choice really I can't make you do anything-take in mind the author has used the reputable Sunni sources in his book as well.

Quote

Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).

Mohammad Ibn Abu Bakr**

And if you read the books Tarikh Madinat Al Munawwara Volume 3 page 1159-1161, Shahr Nahjul Balagha Volume 1 page 228, and Al Ghadir Volume 9 page 180, you will read that firstly, Mohammad Ibn Abu Bakr was put in place of Abdullah Ibn Sa'd, by Amirul Momineen Imam Ali and the original position of Abdullah Ibn Sa'd was an intermediary. And in Al Ghaarat page 104, Mohammad says that he, and others wanted Uthman to be dethroned because he was not honouring the rights of a Khalif. Uthman refused to leave because he wanted the power, Mohammad didn't take part in the killing. Malik Ibn Al Harith Al Ashtar was in Egypt at the time, also, Uthman sent him a letter as recorded in Rarikh Khalifat Ibn Khayyaat page 170, Tarikh Al Islam, Ahd Al Khulafa Al Rashideen page 445, asking what the people want from him, to which Malik said that they want him to step down.

History tells us the people responsible for the killing were Egyptians themselves, not Mohammad Ibn Abu Bakr or Malik Ibn Al Harith Al Ashtar the main killer being Aswadaan Ibn Hamraan from Tudjeeb, which is recorded in Tarikh Madinat Al Munawara Volume 3 page 1231.

Classic accusation against these two figures of taking part in a killing they had nothing to do with. Also an interesting fact, Aisha was on her way to Hadjdj, when Marwan was sent by Uthman to help him in people dispersion, but she refused to help him, as recorded in Tarikh Madinat Al Munawwara Volume 3 Page 1172. Interesting stuff this history is.

Quote

The content of this report itself is a proof that it comes from the mind of a Persian who hates Islam and companions and wives of the Prophets s.a.w.

Only a matter of time before you bring up "The Persians"

Edited by AlAjalYaImam, 02 September 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[Sonador]

Al-Hadi, on 02 September 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

I think you mean Muhammad Ibn Abu bakr?

Yes it was typos. He was Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.

Quote

Sigh...what lies you've been told. Imam Ali responsible for the civil war? Yeah perhaps he shouldn't have told muawiya to get off the throne of Damascus. After all, who's the kalifah to appoint governors?! It's not like its his job or anything.

Obviously the khilafah of Saiyidina Ali ra hadn't yet established, the way it was under the first 3 khulafa. There was no bloodshed under the first 3 khulafa.

[Merdan]

Haydar Husayn, on 02 September 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Did you mean Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr?

So him and Malik al-Ashtar, where involved in the murder of Uthman? According to you, was Imam Ali aware of what they did?

Pardon the intrusion, but within the Ahlus Sunnah, it is not accepted that Muhammad ibne abi bakr nor malik al ashtar were among the actual killers of osman.

one of the reasons (pertaining to this thread) is that neither of them could be on the 'opposite side' (if you will) of hezrat ali. him being the one who had ordered the protection.

[Al-Hadi]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Yes it was typos. He was Muhammad bin Abi Bakr.



Obviously the khilafah of Saiyidina Ali ra hadn't yet established, the way it was under the first 3 khulafa. There was no bloodshed under the first 3 khulafa.

I really want to read this history book. It sounds like such a nice story, everyone getting along and whatnot.

[Sonador]

Haydar Husayn, on 02 September 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

You could just have summed it up as intellectual cowardice.

That's the difference between shias and Ahl-as-Sunnah.

We do not criticise the companions because of their differences, because mere historical evidence whose reliability is not established, doesn't show the exact picture of the incidents except the established facts all parties ugree upon.

For example shias and sunnis both agree that

1. Khalifah Uthman bin Affan radiyallahu anhu was murdered by the rebels.

2. The rebels gave their pledge of allegiance to Ali ra.

3. The murderers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended.

4. Ali ra couldn't punish the rebels or the murderers of the 3rd khalifah.

5. Ali ra chased the army of Ummul Mumineen and around 20,000 people were killed in the war of Jamal. (First time in the history of Islam that Muslims killed Muslims, because of the hypocrites in the ranks of Ali ra.)

6. Ali ra attacked Syria and Siffeen was fought which was undecided.

7. Ali ra agreed for truce and reached a peace agreement with Ameer Muawiyah.

8. Supporters of Ali divided upon this agreement, and a group of Ali ra became Khawarij.

9. Supporters of Ali kept defecting to Muawiyah.

10. Ali ra kept losing hold of provinces under his regime.

11. Ali ra was martyred by a group that was former shia (supporter of Ali).

Now these are the established facts. You may draw a conclusion from them so easily.

Quote

By that standard, we can't judge anyone from history, since they aren't here to defend themselves.

Let a khariji judge this matter, he will judge against your first imam and then you guys will start crying.

Let a shia judge this matter, he will judge in favour of their first imam and sunnis won'g agree.

Let a sunni judge this matter, they prefer to be silent and remain neutral in this case. Why? Because this great tragedy doesn't affect our Iman. Believing who was right and who was wrong, doesn't earn any reward for us. Instead if we make a mistake and judge a sahabi wrongly and suspect his faith, we may ruin our deeds.

History is not holy and infallible to us. But this history is like gospel to you guys. You believe in it as if it's written by infallible imams. You believe in history because it suits your beliefs, because it's written by people like Tabari, Masudi, Ibn Ishaq, Abi Mikhnaf who were shias and persians.

Quote

Basically, it seems you respect Imam Ali is because of who he is, but not so much because of his actions. However, Islam is about haqq. If someone has done something wrong, then nobody should be afraid to say it. Allah (swt) even rebukes Prophets in the Qur'an, doesn't He? That doesn't make them bad people. So just because you point out some mistakes Imam Ali supposedly made, it wouldn't necessarily mean you think he is a bad person.

I have tried above to give a short analysis of the events on which all parties agree upon.

According to me, the foremost issue was created when criminals (rebels) gave their pledge of allegiance to Ali ra.

It's like a group of Jundullah attacks the Wilayat-al-Faqih, kills him and gives their pledge of allegiance to some ayatulla from Qom. The rebels (covert sunnis) then force the rest of Iranians to accept the ayatulla as their Wilayat-al-Faqih. The New Wilayat-al-Faqih issues orders to remove Ahmedi Najad..Ahmedi Najad refuses to step down and so the civil war starts in Iran.

How about that?

Quote

Justifying mistakes with implausible excuses is not what someone who cares about truth should be doing. I know you guys are fond of doing that, but it's just makes you look dumb, and is probably the main reason nobody believes your version of history.

If by nobody you means shias, then yes they can't believe my version of history because they have been brainwashed by their scholars since they were born. All the year round they don't bother to open Quran al Majeed, but they attend gatherings and hear stories of Karbala and how the infallible imams were attacked and oppressed by the evil Banu Umaiyah. During intervals they are told sunni hadiths that support the shia version of Islam. Am I right?

Quote

Don't you have a hadith from the Prophet where he says that if even Fatima (sa) stole, then he would cut off her hand? This should tell you that a person's relationship with the Prophet doesn't make them immune to criticism or punishment.

People knew this hadith that's why they fought wars with Ali radiyallahu anhu. Didn't they?

After 1400 years, there's no use to talk about the differences of sahabah. They are not relevant to us.

Quote

So him and Malik al-Ashtar, where involved in the murder of Uthman? According to you, was Imam Ali aware of what they did?

Malik Ashtar was from the rebels, he was a mischief maker. He reached his fate at the hands of Ameer Muawiyah. Ibn Abi Bakr was reported to have trespassed the house of Uthman ra, he recognized him and reminded him of his father, so he went away. He was involved.

Edited by Sonador, 02 September 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Kazmi_202]

Quote

1. Neither Ali is alive nor Muawiyah and the rest to defend their positions.

Quote

Ameer Muawiyah hunted down all people who were involved in the martyrdom of Saiyidina Uthman ra, for example Malik Ashtar, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr (adopted son of Ali ra).

I can see from all the above posts that you have a number of replies to give, which i dont want to miss. Its going to take some time for you to distort all of the historical facts and reject as fabricated every narration ever recorded about this, so ill let you get on with it. But i got a feeling i have heard the joke you will type before....i think it might be the one about the Persians? lol

Anyway, its not just about the Sahaba... because as per fabricated Persian traditions, Sunnis must respect the first 3 generations, the Pious Predecessors, so please don't accuse Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr and Malik Ashtar of such a crime, especially considering they are not here to defend themselves!!

Please acknowledge you have repented for this before we can proceed

[Sonador]

al-Zuhri, from Ibn al-Musayyab, mursal, in al-Dhahabi's Tarikh al-Islam that

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr led the group that burst in, then `Uthman mentioned his father to him and he drew back in shame.

He later said: "I repented at that moment." But the others pounced on `Uthman and killed him - Allah be well-pleased with him.

Na'ila the wife of `Uthman confirmed this to `Ali , adding: "Nevertheless, he brought in those who killed him!" Rayta or Khansa' the Mawlat of Usama ibn Zayd was in the house and confirms this also.

This can be found in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat, al-Tabari's Tarikh, al-Maliqi's Maqtal al-Shahid `Uthman, Ibn Kathir's al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, and others.

Imam al-Nawawi in Tahdhib al-Asma' wal-Lughat said that

Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was 3.5 months old when the Prophet passed from this world. I.e. he was under 3 when Abu Bakr passed away. He was raised by `Ali since the latter married his mother - Asma' bint `Umays - after she was widowed of Abu Bakr. `Uthman said he was prone to anger. After the murder in 35, `Ali used him in various official functions, the last of them in the governorate of Egypt in 37, which shows he was satisfied he was responsible for the murder, together with fear of ordering the killing of a Sahabi [see below]. He fought with `Ali at the Camel and Siffin. After the Camel, `Ali deputized him to escort `A'isha back to Madina.

Had Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr been responsible for the murder of `Uthman, `A'isha would never have forgiven him nor wept heavily over him when he was killed in Egypt in 38 - rahimahullah. Those who revile his memory today obviously side with his killers against `A'isha and `Ali!

Comments: Allah knows the best if he was responsible for this act or not. If he was involved, and Aishah ra weeps over his death, it's natural. He was anyway related to the Ummul Mumineen.

[Kazmi_202]

Dude, that is a Persian fabrication, cant you see??

Look what ibn Musayyab says here:

Quote

Ibn al-Musayyib related that a group of seven hundred Egyptians came to complain to `Uthman about their governor Ibn Abi Sarh’s tyranny, so `Uthman said: "Chose someone to govern you." They chose Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, so `Uthman wrote credentials for him and they returned. On their way back, at three days’ distace from Madina, a black slave caught up with them with the news that he carried orders from `Uthman to the governor of Egypt. They searched him and found a message from `Uthman to Ibn Abi Sarh ordering the death of Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr and some of his friends. They returned to Madina and besieged `Uthman. The latter acknowledged that the camel, the slave, and the seal on the letter belonged to him, but he swore that he had never written nor ordered the letter to be written. It was discovered that the letter had been hand-written by Marwan ibn al-Hakam

Sonador, Uthman did taqiyyah with these poor eqyptians, then tried to kill them, and you are upset they came back to kill him?? Looks like they were the victims in all of this!!

[SaidHaydar]

Sonador, on 02 September 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

That's the difference between shias and Ahl-as-Sunnah.

We do not criticise the companions because of their differences, because mere historical evidence whose reliability is not established, doesn't show the exact picture of the incidents except the established facts all parties ugree upon.

For example shias and sunnis both agree that

1. Khalifah Uthman bin Affan radiyallahu anhu was murdered by the rebels.

2. The rebels gave their pledge of allegiance to Ali ra.

3. The murderers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended.

4. Ali ra couldn't punish the rebels or the murderers of the 3rd khalifah.

5. Ali ra chased the army of Ummul Mumineen and around 20,000 people were killed in the war of Jamal. (First time in the history of Islam that Muslims killed Muslims, because of the hypocrites in the ranks of Ali ra.)

6. Ali ra attacked Syria and Siffeen was fought which was undecided.

7. Ali ra agreed for truce and reached a peace agreement with Ameer Muawiyah.

8. Supporters of Ali divided upon this agreement, and a group of Ali ra became Khawarij.

9. Supporters of Ali kept defecting to Muawiyah.

10. Ali ra kept losing hold of provinces under his regime.

11. Ali ra was martyred by a group that was former shia (supporter of Ali).

Now these are the established facts. You may draw a conclusion from them so easily.



Let a khariji judge this matter, he will judge against your first imam and then you guys will start crying.

Let a shia judge this matter, he will judge in favour of their first imam and sunnis won'g agree.

Let a sunni judge this matter, they prefer to be silent and remain neutral in this case. Why? Because this great tragedy doesn't affect our Iman. Believing who was right and who was wrong, doesn't earn any reward for us. Instead if we make a mistake and judge a sahabi wrongly and suspect his faith, we may ruin our deeds.

History is not holy and infallible to us. But this history is like gospel to you guys. You believe in it as if it's written by infallible imams. You believe in history because it suits your beliefs, because it's written by people like Tabari, Masudi, Ibn Ishaq, Abi Mikhnaf who were shias and persians.



I have tried above to give a short analysis of the events on which all parties agree upon.

According to me, the foremost issue was created when criminals (rebels) gave their pledge of allegiance to Ali ra.

It's like a group of Jundullah attacks the Wilayat-al-Faqih, kills him and gives their pledge of allegiance to some ayatulla from Qom. The rebels (covert sunnis) then force the rest of Iranians to accept the ayatulla as their Wilayat-al-Faqih. The New Wilayat-al-Faqih issues orders to remove Ahmedi Najad..Ahmedi Najad refuses to step down and so the civil war starts in Iran.

How about that?



If by nobody you means shias, then yes they can't believe my version of history because they have been brainwashed by their scholars since they were born. All the year round they don't bother to open Quran al Majeed, but they attend gatherings and hear stories of Karbala and how the infallible imams were attacked and oppressed by the evil Banu Umaiyah. During intervals they are told sunni hadiths that support the shia version of Islam. Am I right?



People knew this hadith that's why they fought wars with Ali radiyallahu anhu. Didn't they?

After 1400 years, there's no use to talk about the differences of sahabah. They are not relevant to us.



Malik Ashtar was from the rebels, he was a mischief maker. He reached his fate at the hands of Ameer Muawiyah. Ibn Abi Bakr was reported to have trespassed the house of Uthman ra, he recognized him and reminded him of his father, so he went away. He was involved.

In Tarikh al-Tabari is quoted that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr grabbed the beard of Uthman and said: "Now there is no Umar who can help you", and stabbed him.

[Sonador]

SaidHaydar, on 02 September 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

In Tarikh al-Tabari is quoted that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr grabbed the beard of Uthman and said: "Now there is no Umar who can help you", and stabbed him.

Tabari was a Persian Shia. And above I have already given my views about him.

Kazmi_202, on 02 September 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Dude, that is a Persian fabrication, cant you see??

Look what ibn Musayyab says here:

Sonador, Uthman did taqiyyah with these poor eqyptians, then tried to kill them, and you are upset they came back to kill him?? Looks like they were the victims in all of this!!

You may beat about the bush for the rest of your life. I have already said there are some established facts which means both shias and sunnis agree on them. And on this report that you mentioned above of Ibn Musayyib, there's no consensus.

Muhammad bin Abi Bakr (the adopted son of Ali r.a) had trespassed the house of Uthman r.a. (confirmed)

Muhammad bin Abi Bakr stabbed the khalifah Uthman. (not confirmed)