Jump to content


- - -


Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

Is Imam Ali Infallible? Evidence From The Quran

Imam Ali infallible

62 replies to this topic

#26 al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

    al-Kanadee

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Location:Rafidistan
  • Religion:Shi`ah Ithna `Ashari Usooli Muslim
  • Interests:Listening to Maulana Rizvi's Surah Jumu`ah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJbWV-InKs

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:29 PM

But your man-made system to check which hadiths are sahih and which are daeef is not an infallible system. Why don't you ask your infallible imams to tell what is sahih and what is not? Why rely on fallible scholars?

Bro, actually the verse above says when you differ then consult Quran and the Messenger. It doesn't ask to refer to the Ulil Amr (Imam or whatever). So the shia imams according to this verse are not infallible. If they were infallible, Quran would include them to the list of those to be referred in case of disagreement.


Why are you asking stupid questions lol? Why don't I ask my Imams to tell us whether a Hadith is Sahih or not, two reasons:
  • We have a pretty reliable system to filter out Sahih Hadith from Dha'eef.
  • It isn't their jobs to tell us this..
Think for a second, if they were on this list, the Ulil Amr, was on this list, would we be able to refer to them, when you do not recognize them. Qur'an it's self is telling us that there is no point on trying to refer to the Imams because they are not accepted by the Sunnis. And are you trying to say the Qur'an contradicts it's self. Because in 33:33, it's established that they are Ma'soom. Or in the Qur'an when Shaitan tells us he will make them all go astray, except a select few whom he can't touch, is that clear "bro".

#27 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:17 AM

Why don't I ask my Imams to tell us whether a Hadith is Sahih or not, two reasons:

  • We have a pretty reliable system to filter out Sahih Hadith from Dha'eef.
  • It isn't their jobs to tell us this..


Pretty reliable system made by persians who are not your infallible imams?

Then what is the job of your imams exactly? Hiding from the masses for over 1200 years??

Think for a second, if they were on this list, the Ulil Amr, was on this list, would we be able to refer to them, when you do not recognize them. Qur'an it's self is telling us that there is no point on trying to refer to the Imams because they are not accepted by the Sunnis. And are you trying to say the Qur'an contradicts it's self. Because in 33:33, it's established that they are Ma'soom. Or in the Qur'an when Shaitan tells us he will make them all go astray, except a select few whom he can't touch, is that clear "bro".


First, 33:33 is not about your imams, the verse doesn't say 'Ulil Amr', it talks about 'Ahl-al-Bayt' and according to Quran Ahl-al-Bayt are wives of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. Saiyidina Ali's family is an extension of Ahl-al-Bayt through a hadith, and not Quran.

If Quran already told people that Ali is your imam and his children are your imams, then everything would be crystal clear. Or at least Imam Mahdi shouldn't have disappeared and kept his shias helpless and miserable for 1200 years. If even Imam Mahdi of shias were around, then sunnis wouldn't have any excuse to get away from it. Now you get it?

Anyway the verse in question says in case of disagreement you should consult Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah of Muhammad s.a.w)..and not any Ulil Amr.

#28 al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

    al-Kanadee

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Location:Rafidistan
  • Religion:Shi`ah Ithna `Ashari Usooli Muslim
  • Interests:Listening to Maulana Rizvi's Surah Jumu`ah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJbWV-InKs

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:12 AM

Pretty reliable system made by persians who are not your infallible imams?

Then what is the job of your imams exactly? Hiding from the masses for over 1200 years??


First, 33:33 is not about your imams, the verse doesn't say 'Ulil Amr', it talks about 'Ahl-al-Bayt' and according to Quran Ahl-al-Bayt are wives of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. Saiyidina Ali's family is an extension of Ahl-al-Bayt through a hadith, and not Quran.

If Quran already told people that Ali is your imam and his children are your imams, then everything would be crystal clear. Or at least Imam Mahdi shouldn't have disappeared and kept his shias helpless and miserable for 1200 years. If even Imam Mahdi of shias were around, then sunnis wouldn't have any excuse to get away from it. Now you get it?

Anyway the verse in question says in case of disagreement you should consult Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah of Muhammad s.a.w)..and not any Ulil Amr.


I'm assuming you have something against the Persians, I assume you developed this bias, and really bad argument, from the thread about killing Sayyida Fatima (sa) and the video with that incredible scholar. Nevertheless Ilm Rijaal, is a real reliable science, and has proven to work a lot.

And when you talk about the Imams (Alaihis Salaam) show some damn respect, these aren't normal humans, these are the family of the Prophet (pbuh) we are commanded to love them, so show some respect. And they (Alaihis Salaam) were the inheritors of the Prophet (pbuh) they were the Khalifs after him, whether you want to accept them (Alahis Salaam) or not is another thing. They (Alaihis Salaam) protected the religion, like I explained earlier. So I see your main problem is with Imam Mahdi (as) for his Ghaybat. He (as) is the final Imam, and he (as) has remained alive by the grace of Allah, the same way Isa (as) , Ilyaas (as) and Khidhr (as) have.


Scroll down to my post, the second one (Post #27), to see who is being addressed in 33:33.


The Qur'an clearly established the authority of Imam Ali (as) , again look no further than the Prophetic narrations, if you want still dispute:


>The Prophet's (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) "You are the khalifah of every believer after me" through an authentic chain.
It was narrated in the book of the sunnah of Abu Isam on pages 519-520 through a relaible chain reaching to Ibn al-Abbas that he heard the Prophet (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) " Your (Ali) position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that you are not a prophet, it is not beneficail for me to leave with exception of you being the khalifah of every believer after" al-Albani declares the above isnaad of the above hadith as Hasan (relaible) and says all the narrators in the chain are relaible, he also quote al-Thahabi and al-Hakem declaring the isnaad of the hadith as Sahih.


>The Prophet said to Imam Ali "You are to me like how harun was to musa except that you are not a prophet, it is not proper that i shall depart except by you being the khalifa of every beliver after me"

al-Albani, alhakim and althahabi all said :this hadith is sahih (authentic)

Refrence: Kitab alsunnah ibn abi issam, commentary by Allamah al-Albani, pages 519-250, hadith # 1188

ËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáãËäì ¡ ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚæÇäÉ ¡ Úä íÍíì Èä Óáíã ÃÈí ÈáÌ ¡ Úä ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ¡ Úä ÅÈä ÚÈÇÓ ¡ ÞÇá : ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) áÚáí : ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ¡ ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ äÈíÇ ¡ Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí .

>Narrated by Imran Ibn Hasyn:

"The Prophet (pbuh) said: Ali is from me and i am from ali and he is the master of every believer after me"

Al Tirmithi said :this hadith is Hasan (relaible)

Refrence: Sunan altirmithi, Hadith #3645

- ÍÏËäÇ ÞÊíÈÉ ÍÏËäÇ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÓáíãÇä ÇáÖÈÚí Úä íÒíÏ ÇáÑÔß Úä ãØÑÝ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Úä ÚãÑÇä Èä ÍÕíä ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) Åä ÚáíÇ ãäí æÃäÇ ãäå æåæ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Okay I've clearly addressed this last point, I'm not repeating myself.

#29 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 17 August 2012 - 03:36 PM

I'm assuming you have something against the Persians, I assume you developed this bias, and really bad argument, from the thread about killing Sayyida Fatima (sa) and the video with that incredible scholar. Nevertheless Ilm Rijaal, is a real reliable science, and has proven to work a lot.


I have something against those persians who accuse the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w of doing the wrong deeds. And I believe this is because of the enmity of those racist persians towards Arab Muslims who conquered and defeated Persia under the command of Saiyidina Umar Farooq radiyallahu anhu.

Your ilm or rijaal is not reliable. Your hadith work is also not reliable.

And when you talk about the Imams (Alaihis Salaam) show some damn respect, these aren't normal humans, these are the family of the Prophet (pbuh) we are commanded to love them, so show some respect.


You guys have double standards. When it comes to the wives of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, you are like see the Nuh's wife, see the Lut's wife..but if a sunni refutes your claims and ideas you are like show some respect to our imams, they are the family of Prophet. Well, wives of the Prophet s.a.w are also his family.

And if Nuh alayhis salam had a kafir wife then he had a kafir son too. Don't forget.

And they (Alaihis Salaam) were the inheritors of the Prophet (pbuh) they were the Khalifs after him, whether you want to accept them (Alahis Salaam) or not is another thing.


They were Prophet's inheritors in books only. Not in the real physical world that exists.

They (Alaihis Salaam) protected the religion, like I explained earlier.


How could they protect the religion when they themselves were killed? Your last imam disappeared 1200 years ago because he couldn't protect his life, and you say they protected the religion? For 1200 years who has been protecting your religion???

So I see your main problem is with Imam Mahdi (as) for his Ghaybat. He (as) is the final Imam, and he (as) has remained alive by the grace of Allah, the same way Isa (as) , Ilyaas (as) and Khidhr (as) have.

The so called ghaybat is a mystery which is known to only persian shias. Why should I believe them? Why trust your persian scholars about an imam who disappeared 1200 years ago?

The Qur'an clearly established the authority of Imam Ali (as) , again look no further than the Prophetic narrations, if you want still dispute:

>The Prophet's (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) "You are the khalifah of every believer after me" through an authentic chain.

It was narrated in the book of the sunnah of Abu Isam on pages 519-520 through a relaible chain reaching to Ibn al-Abbas that he heard the Prophet (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) " Your (Ali) position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that you are not a prophet, it is not beneficail for me to leave with exception of you being the khalifah of every believer after" al-Albani declares the above isnaad of the above hadith as Hasan (relaible) and says all the narrators in the chain are relaible, he also quote al-Thahabi and al-Hakem declaring the isnaad of the hadith as Sahih.


As I said before, the imamah of your imams is established by 'claims' (hadiths) that can be fabricated and made up. Shias know and sunnis know that many many hadiths have been concocted. Then why to believe a confusing narration to prove your imamat while we have sahih (authentic) narrations and above all Quran, the book of Allah that proves there are no infallible imams after Muhammad s.a.w?

>The Prophet said to Imam Ali "You are to me like how harun was to musa except that you are not a prophet, it is not proper that i shall depart except by you being the khalifa of every beliver after me"


Since Harun a.s couldn't rule people, Ali r.a also couldn't rule people after Muhammad s.a.w.

>Narrated by Imran Ibn Hasyn:

"The Prophet (pbuh) said: Ali is from me and i am from ali and he is the master of every believer after me"


Now decide again, what Ali r.a is? Is he imam or khalifah of maula?
The above hadith doesn't say Ali is imam or khalifah. Let's accept this one and make Ali r.a our maula and that's it. Khallas!

Edited by Sonador, 17 August 2012 - 03:38 PM.


#30 Ameen

Ameen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Religion:muslim

Posted 17 August 2012 - 05:44 PM

If you want my opinion then I do not at all believe that Shia imams ever have had any authority over people, except Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu when he was the fourth khalifah, but unfortunately his authority couldn't be established fully because of the turmoil and civil war.

But since shias use this verse a lot to 'prove' their 12 imams have authority over Muslims; the scholar in this video (Shaykh Adnan I think) has used his argument really beautifull to refute any such ideas. And I agree with him by 100% on it. Because according to the verse if people differ on anything. For example Mutah is halal or not, for example there are any infallible imams or not, you must refer to Quran and the Messenger of Allah. Only (1) Allah and (2) the Messenger of Allah have the solution to the problems of humanity. No imams or ulil amr can guide people in case of disagreement. And since Allah doesn't consider ulil amr (or the supposed shia imams) to be referred to in case of disagreement of people, the ulil amr (imams) of shias are not infallible.

And lastly and very importantly, if for a second I say the shia imams are the ulil amr as pointed out in this verse, then people are already differing from each other; shias, sunnis, and loads of other sects, all of which call themselves Muslims..and if we want to settle our disputes and decide the differences, we can't find the so called Imam Mahdi, the Ulil Amr. All we see are marjas and ayatullas wearing big turbans and claiming to be communicating with the Imam Mahdi..



Where is Imam Ali? If I go to see him, all I find a multitude of people in Najaf where he's resting in his shrine. Though many people say they are not sure if it's really Imam Ali's shrine. They say Imam Ali's body disappeared after his death and no one knows where it is.

And I'm not going to trust a Persian wearing a high turban and claiming to be a marja or wilayat al faqih, because he's not infallible, and he's not trustworthy at all.


You didn't answer my question, instead you dicided to mention other things, which are irrelevant to what I had asked you. Let me say this again, Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", lets leave the Shias out of this, now tell me what is your version ??? Firstly who were and are the Ulul-Amre, that Allah has made obebience towards them compulsory??? Secondly why would Allah say " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " then go on saying " If you differ on anything with the Ulul-Amre, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger " ??? Is this what you make of the Ayaath??? Firstly obey the Ulul-Amre and then if you differ with them??? You have two opposite things here either you obey or you disobey, to obey is to side with the Ulul-Amre and to disobey is to differ with them. Now which is it.

You claim that Hazrath Ali's [as] authority couldn't be established, WHY??? He was and is named as the fourth RIGHTLY GUIDED Khalif of the Muslims and is amongst Khulafaa-e-Rashedeen and Haq Char Yaar, so why is his authority not established??? Just to avoid getting into a discussion you come up with silly and baseless statements. Was Hazrath Ali [as] in authority amongst the people or not??? We all very well know he was! Now Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", so those who didn't obey Hazrath Ali [as], infact they went further on and rebelled against him, which means they have obviously broken Allah's command.

This is a clear violation of Allah's commandment, which clearly would make you an absolute sinner if not a Kafir. If you don't want to accept a particular belief, for example; the Shia, then don't but do not hesitate to move on and explain your version. Your kind come out and criticise the Shia on their faith and belief with your reasons, well pal that's fine if that's the way you think, because of freedom of speech and the right to express your point of view about the other, but why go silent after that??? Why hesitate from there on??? Tell me what you think!

DON'T BE AFRAID TO DISCUSS YOUR FAITH!

#31 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:18 PM

You didn't answer my question, instead you dicided to mention other things, which are irrelevant to what I had asked you. Let me say this again, Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", lets leave the Shias out of this, now tell me what is your version ??? Firstly who were and are the Ulul-Amre, that Allah has made obebience towards them compulsory??? Secondly why would Allah say " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " then go on saying " If you differ on anything with the Ulul-Amre, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger " ??? Is this what you make of the Ayaath??? Firstly obey the Ulul-Amre and then if you differ with them??? You have two opposite things here either you obey or you disobey, to obey is to side with the Ulul-Amre and to disobey is to differ with them. Now which is it.


Ulil Amr is the khalifah of Muslims, as Abu Bakr r.a, Umar r.a were after Prophet s.a.w. We are supposed to obey the Ulil Amr when they command us according to Quran and Sunnah. We are not bound to obey them if it's against Quran and Sunnah. The same is said about parents; we must obey them except when they command us to go against Allah.

Now a days unfortunately we don't have any khilafah and so there are no Ulil Amr of Muslims in most of the countries. But if a Muslim ruler is pious and he doesn't go against Quran and Sunnah then it is obligatory upon people to obey him.

But since a khalifah or a ruler is a human being; they can make mistakes or go wrong, so in that case we have to refer to Quran and Sunnah.

You claim that Hazrath Ali's [as] authority couldn't be established, WHY??? He was and is named as the fourth RIGHTLY GUIDED Khalif of the Muslims and is amongst Khulafaa-e-Rashedeen and Haq Char Yaar, so why is his authority not established??? Just to avoid getting into a discussion you come up with silly and baseless statements. Was Hazrath Ali [as] in authority amongst the people or not??? We all very well know he was! Now Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", so those who didn't obey Hazrath Ali [as], infact they went further on and rebelled against him, which means they have obviously broken Allah's command.


Since the killers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended by Saiyidina Ali r.a, civil war erupted and so Ali r.a's khilafah couldn't be established fully.

This is a clear violation of Allah's commandment, which clearly would make you an absolute sinner if not a Kafir. If you don't want to accept a particular belief, for example; the Shia, then don't but do not hesitate to move on and explain your version. Your kind come out and criticise the Shia on their faith and belief with your reasons, well pal that's fine if that's the way you think, because of freedom of speech and the right to express your point of view about the other, but why go silent after that??? Why hesitate from there on??? Tell me what you think!

DON'T BE AFRAID TO DISCUSS YOUR FAITH!


If I don't reply to everyone's post, it doesn't mean I can't reply to them. I don't do things that I don't feel like. It depends upon my mood. But I'm sorry if I ignored your post before. I didn't do it intentionally. Just missed it.

#32 al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

    al-Kanadee

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Location:Rafidistan
  • Religion:Shi`ah Ithna `Ashari Usooli Muslim
  • Interests:Listening to Maulana Rizvi's Surah Jumu`ah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJbWV-InKs

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:12 PM

I have something against those persians who accuse the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w of doing the wrong deeds. And I believe this is because of the enmity of those racist persians towards Arab Muslims who conquered and defeated Persia under the command of Saiyidina Umar Farooq radiyallahu anhu.

Your ilm or rijaal is not reliable. Your hadith work is also not reliable.



You guys have double standards. When it comes to the wives of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, you are like see the Nuh's wife, see the Lut's wife..but if a sunni refutes your claims and ideas you are like show some respect to our imams, they are the family of Prophet. Well, wives of the Prophet s.a.w are also his family.

And if Nuh alayhis salam had a kafir wife then he had a kafir son too. Don't forget.



They were Prophet's inheritors in books only. Not in the real physical world that exists.



How could they protect the religion when they themselves were killed? Your last imam disappeared 1200 years ago because he couldn't protect his life, and you say they protected the religion? For 1200 years who has been protecting your religion???


The so called ghaybat is a mystery which is known to only persian shias. Why should I believe them? Why trust your persian scholars about an imam who disappeared 1200 years ago?



As I said before, the imamah of your imams is established by 'claims' (hadiths) that can be fabricated and made up. Shias know and sunnis know that many many hadiths have been concocted. Then why to believe a confusing narration to prove your imamat while we have sahih (authentic) narrations and above all Quran, the book of Allah that proves there are no infallible imams after Muhammad s.a.w?



Since Harun a.s couldn't rule people, Ali r.a also couldn't rule people after Muhammad s.a.w.



Now decide again, what Ali r.a is? Is he imam or khalifah of maula?
The above hadith doesn't say Ali is imam or khalifah. Let's accept this one and make Ali r.a our maula and that's it. Khallas!



In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful

Alright, to start with your beef with the Persians and their "accusations" against Umar. Hadith right, they come from recorded sources of history, you are under the belief that the "Racist Persians with enmity to their Arab Conquerors". I don't know how much evidence it takes to convince the person who shuts his eyes, plugs his ears, and starts speaking nonsense to drown you out. But this is a true narration, no doubt it happened, no matter how much Sunnis want to deny it, it still happened, here is one video, and part two, proving this event has happened.

And these respected Sunnis (The followers of your Umar) agree that this event happened, read the following testimonies, and I won't even go to Al Imamah Was Silasah, I will go to other sources:
  • Al Balathiri: Al-Balathiri mentioned that Abu Bakr sent for Imam Ali to pay homage to him but Imam Ali (a.s.) refused to pay homage. Therefore, Umar came with a wick. Fatima (a.s.) met him at the door and said to him, ‘Shall you set fire to my door?’

    He said, ‘Yes, and this is stronger than what your father had brought.

    ’Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1 p. 586

  • Al Tabari: He mentioned: “Umar came to Ali’s house wherein there were Talha, az-Zubayr, and some men from the Muhajireen, and said to them, ‘By Allah, I will burn (the house) over you or you come out to the homage.’ Az-Zubayr went out drawing his sword, but he stumbled and fell to the ground and the sword fell from his hand. They (Umar and his fellows) jumped on and took him.”

    Tareekh at-Tabari, vol. 3 p. 198

  • Ibn Abi Rabbih: He said: “Those who did not pay homage to Abu Bakr were Ali, al-Abbas, az-Zubayr, and Sa’d bin Ubada. As for Ali, al-Abbas, and az-Zabayr, they remained in Fatima’s house until Abu Bakr sent to them Umar bin al-Khattab to make them get out of Fatima’s house. He said to him, ‘If they refuse, you should fight them.’ Umar came with a torch intending to set fire to the house. Fatima (a.s.) met him and said, ‘O ibn al-Khattab, have you come to burn our house?’ He said, ‘Yes, or you enter into what the nation has entered into.

    ’Al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 5 p.12.

  • Ibn Abil Hadid: He said, ‘Umar came to Fatima’s house with some men from the Ansar and a few from the Muhajireen and said, ‘I swear by Whom in Whose hand Umar’s soul is, either you come out for the homage or I will burn the house over you.’

    Sharh Nahjal Balagha by Ibn Abil Hadeed, vol. 1 p. 124.

  • Ash Shahristani: Ash-Shahristani mentioned from an-Nidham that Umar was shouing: ‘Set fire to her (Fatima) house with all those in it.’ There were no but Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn inside the house.

    Al-Milal wen-Nihal, vol. 1 p. 56


  • Kahala: Umar Redha Kahhala said, “Abu Bakr found that some men had defaulted his homage like al-Abbas, az-Zubayr, and Sa’d bin Ubada. They were with Ali bin Abi Talib in Fatima’s house. Abu Bakr sent to them Umar bin al-Khattab who called out to them while they were inside Fatima’s house. They refused to come out. Umar ordered firewood to be brought. He said, ‘I swear by Whom in Whose hand Umar’s soul is, either you come out (for the homage) or I will set fire to it (the house) over all those in it.’

    It was said to him, ‘O Abu Hafs, Fatima is there.’

    He said, ‘Even though!’”

    A’lam an-Nisa’, vol. 4 p. 114
Right, now see the Sunni narrations of the acts of aggression against Sayyida Fatima (as)
  • Shahristani: Ash-Shahristani narrated from Ibrahim bin Sayyar that Umar beat Fatima until she aborted her fetus. He was shouting, ‘Set fire to her house with whomever in it!’

    Al-Milal wen-Nihal, vol. 1 p. 57

  • Ibn Hajar: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in the biography of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin as-Sariy bin Yahya bin Darim Abu Bakr al-Kufi, ‘Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Kufi was reliable most of his life…Once, I visited him while there was a man narrating to him: ‘Umar kicked Fatima until she aborted (her fetus) Muhsin.’

    Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 1 p. 268

  • Al Mas'oodi: He said, ‘They pressed the principal of women against the door until she miscarried Muhsin.’

    Ithbat al-Wasiyya, p. 143.

  • At Thalabi: He mentioned a tradition narrated from Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Hammad al-Kufi…that he said, ‘One day, I visited him while there was some man narrating to him that Umar kicked Fatima until she miscarried Muhsin.’

    Mizan al-I’tidal, vol. 1 p. 139.

  • Ibn Qutayba: Ibn Qutayba said, ‘Muhsin was aborted after the pressure of Qunfudh al-Adawi.’

    Manaqib Aal Abi Talib, vol. 3 p. 133.

  • As Safadi: He said that Umar beat Fatima’s abdomen on the day of the homage until she miscarried al-Muhsin.

    Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyaat, vol. 5 p. 347

  • He said, ‘The cause of her (Fatima) death was that Qunfudh, the mawla of the man (Abu Bakr), thrust her with the iron part of the sheath of his sword by his (Umar) order and she miscarried Muhsin, and because of that she became badly ill.’

    Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyaat, vol. 5 p. 347.
All Sunnis, followers of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, you want to say your own scholars too were "Racist Persians"?

Oh, and our Hadith are not reliable, and our works? This is your works...And another example. And before you accuse me of using false or weak Hadith, I'm not an idiot, I check their reliability before using them..

Okay, now you think that there is a double standard, I'm basing myself off of the Qur'an, not my own opinions. So you think "After winning something" I institute a double. Qur'an condemns two of the wives of the Prophet. I love some of the wives, Umm Salamah (ra) , Khadijat Al Kubra (as) , but there are wives who have messed up royally, and I do not love them for that. For the Ahlul Bayt, you're told to love them, they are taken to the Prophet to the important mission of Mubahila, They are purified through a thorough purification and rijs is kept away from them. The Prophet told us to hold fast to two weighty things, and two Khalifs (There are over 30 narrations of the weighty thing hadith, not just one), one being the Qur'an, and one being the Ahlul Bayt. The Prophet said they are from me in Hadith Al Kisa'a (Which is also narrated in Sunni books). These are not ordinary people, and then the 9 Imams come from them, as the Prophet says in Hadith Kisa'a, Fatima Wa Banuha it doesn't say Abnaha, it says Banuha, as in lineage. And there is the Hadith of the 12 successors, and no Hadith says it better than this one:


A Jew named al-A`tal came to the Prophet and said, "Muhammad! I wish to ask you about certain things which I have been keeping to myself; so, if you answer them, I shall declare my acceptance of Islam before you." The Prophet said, "Ask me, O father of Imarah!" So he asked him about many things till he was satisfied and admitted that the Prophet was right. Then he said, "Tell me about your wasi (successor): who is he? No prophet can ever be without a wasi; our prophet Moses had appointed Yusha` [Joshua] son of Noon as his successor." He said, "My wasi is Ali ibn Abu Talib followed by my grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn followed by nine men from the loins of al-Husayn." He said, "Then name them for me, O Muhammad!" The Prophet said, "Once al-Husayn departs, he will be succeeded by his son Ali; when Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ja`far will succeed him. When Ja`far departs, he will be succeeded by his son Musa. When Musa departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son al-Hasan will succeed him, and when al-Hasan departs, al-Hujjah Muhammad al-Mahdi will succeed him. These are the twelve ones." That Jew, therefore, embraced Islam and praised Allah for having guided him.

Shaykh Sulayman Qanduzi al-Hanafi, book Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, p. 523.

So these are no ordinary people, show some respect.

They were meant to be the Khalifs, it was their right, but the right was stolen, like I stated in the other thread where you just shut up and haven't responded. Your thieves stole their right.


The Prophet pbuh to the muslim hold on to the Quruan and Ahlul albayt a.s

It was narrated in a sunni book called jami' al-saghir by al-Albani on page 482 through an authentic chain to the prophet pbuh that he stated " I am leaving behind me two khalifas (leaders), as long as you hold on to them you will never go astray the Qur'an and the Ahlul al-bayt a.s, and they shall never separate till they meet me at the pond (at the day of judgement) "

al-Albani said this hadith is sahih (authentic)

And we have the Hadith of Thaqalayn, which has been narrated many many times, in many situations. And it is plentiful found in the books of the Sunni, the link will show you.

They were the Khalifs, but had their right robbed from them.

What kind of sick person taunts the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet (pbuh) and mocks them for dying for Islam? As I stated in the other thread where you suddenly became silent, the Imams (as) would dedicate their lives to saving it, and being guides for their people. Imam Ali (as) remained patient and silent, however still working for Islam, after his right was robbed from him (as) . Imam Hasan (as) had to sacrifice the Khilafat, and give it to Mu'awiya, at the treaty of Hasan, for the betterment, and for the continuation of the Shi'a school, and for the sake of Islam in whole. Or whether it was Imam Hussain (as) who had to be starved, and made thirsty for three days, witness his family and companions be mercilessly killed, from the 80 year old Muslim, to the 6 month old Abdullah, until it was time for him to be beheaded also, so that Islam does not fall into the illegitimate hands of Yazid. Or it was Imam Ali Zain Al Abideen being transported in chains at the beginning of his Imamate, having to be whipped and humiliated, so that the people wake up and realize what's happening. Or the reform of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq, and out Jaffariya fiqh being written down there in the midst of so many Madhabs appearing. And this continues. Imam Mahdi had to go to Ghaybat because the time called for it, if he were to be killed, then the Imamate would end. If your God will protect Isa, to save his life and bring him to Ghaybat, if your Lord will save Idris to save his life in Ghaybat, if your Lord will save the life of Ilyas by taking him to Ghaybat, if your Lord will save the life of Khidhr and take him to Ghaybat, and if your Lord took Mohammad (pbuh) temporarily in Ghaybat on the night of Mi'raj, as he left the house, and he covered the 40 assassins with a cloth so his Prophet could pass in peace. And for 1200 years, at the beginning we had our four representatives of the Imam (as) after they died, the Ghaybat As Sughra ended, and Ghaybat Al Kubra starts, he oversees this deen, but we have now the scholars to protect this deen, we have our high Ulema. And in his final letter he tells us that if we want him, he's there for us, he hasn't abandoned this deen.

Alright, don't believe our Imams on the birth of the Imams, listen to your own:


1. Muhammad b. Talha Shafi'i writes: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad b. Hasan was born in the year 258 AH/873 CE in Samarra. His father's name was Hasan Khalis. Among the titles [of this last Imam] are: Hujjat, Khalaf Salih (the righteous offspring) and Muntazar (the awaited one)." Following this statement he has related several traditions on the subject of the Mahdi, with the concluding statement: "These hadith-reports confirm the existence of Imam Hasan 'Askari's son, who is in concealment and will appear later."
Matalib al-su'al (1287 AH edition), p. 89.

2. Muhammad b. Yusuf, following his entry on the death of Imam Hasan 'Askari, writes: "He did not have any child beside Muhammad. It is said that he is the same as the Awaited Imam (imam muntazar).
Kifayat al-talib, p. 312.

3. Ibn Sabbagh Maliki writes: "Section Twelve on the Life of Abu al-Qasim Muhammad, Hujjat, Khalaf Salih, the son of Abu Muhammad Hasan Khalis: He is the twelfth Imam of the Shi'a." Then he has recorded the history of the Imam and has related the traditions about the Mahdi.
Fusul al-muhimma (Second edition), p. 273 and 286.

4. Yusuf b. Qazughli, after writing his account of the life of Imam Hasan 'Askari, writes: "His son's name is Muhammad, and his patronymic is Abu 'Abd Allah and Abu al-Qasim. He is the Proof of God's existence, the Master of the Age, the Qa'im, and the Muntazar. The Imamate has come to an end with him." Then he reports traditions about the Mahdi.
Tadhkirat khawass al-umma, p. 363.

5. Shablanji in the book entitled Nur al-absar, writes: "Muhammad is the son of Hasan 'Askari. His mother was a slave girl by the name of Narjis or Sayqal or Sawsan. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim. The Twelver Shi'ites know him as: Hujjat, Mahdi, Khalaf Salih, Qa'im, Muntazar, and Master of the Age."
Nur al-absar (Cairo edition), p. 342.

6. Ibn Hajar, in his al-Sawa'iq al-muharriqa, following the biography of Imam Hasan 'Askari writes: "He has not left a son besides Abu al-Qasim, who is known as Muhammad and Hujjat. That boy was five years old when his father died."
al-Sawa'iq al-muharriqa, p. 206.

7. Muhammad b. 'Ali Hamawi writes: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Muntazar was born in the year 259 AH/874 CE in Samarra."
Ta'rikh mansuri

8.Ibn Khallikan relates in his biographical dictionary Wafayat al-a'yan: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-'Askari is the twelfth Imam of the Imamiyya, that is the Twelver Shi'ites. The Shi'ites believe that he is the one who is the awaited Qa'im and the Mahdi."
Wafayat al-a'yan (1284 AH edition), Vol. 2, p. 24.

9. In Rawdat al-safa Mir Khwand writes: "Muhammad was the son of Hasan. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim. The Imamiyya acknowledge that he is the Hujjat, the Qa'im, and the Mahdi."

10. Sha'rani writes in his al-Yawaqit wa al-jawahir: "Mahdi is the son of Imam Hasan 'Askari. He was born on the fifteenth night of Sha'ban, 255 AH. He is alive and will remain so until he will emerge with Jesus. Now it is 957 AH. He is, thus, 703 years old."
al-Yawaqit wa al-jawahir (1351 AH edition), Vol. 2, p. 143.

11. Sha'rani, quoting Ibn 'Arabi's Futuhat makiyya, section 366, writes: "When the earth will be filled with tyranny and injustice the Mahdi will rise and will fill the earth with justice and equity. He will be among the descendants of the Prophet and from the line of Fatima. His grandfather will be Husayn, and his father will be Hasan 'Askari, the son of 'Ali Naqi, the son of Muhammad Taqi, the son of 'Ali Rida, the son of Musa Kazim, the son of Ja'far Sadiq, the son of Muhammad Baqir, the son of Zayn al-'Abidin, the son of Husayn b. 'Ali b. Abi Talib."
Ibid., p. 143.

12. Khwaja Parsa in his book Fasl al-khitab writes: "Muhammad, the son of Hasan 'Askari, was born on fifteenth night of Sha'ban, 255 AH/870 CE. His mother's name was Narjis. His father died when he was five years of age. From that time until now he is in occultation. He is the awaited Imam of the Shi'a. His existence is well established among his companions, trusted associates and family. God will prolong his age as He has done in the case of Elijah and Eliash."
Yanabi' al-mawadda, Vo. 2, p. 126.

13. Abu al-Falah Hanbali in his Shadharat al-dhahab and Dhahabi in al-'Ibar fi khabar min ghabar write: "Muhammad is the son of Hasan 'Askari, the son of 'Ali Hadi, the son of Jawad, the son of 'Ali Rida, the son of Musa Kazim, the son of Ja'far Sadiq, 'Alawi, Husayni. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim and the Shi'a know him as Khalaf Salih, Hujjat, Mahdi, Muntazar, and the Master of the Age (Sahib al-zaman)."
Shadharat al-dhahab (Beirut edition), Vol. 2, p. 141
as well as in al-'Ibar fi khabar min ghabar (Kuwait edition), Vol. 2, p. 31

14. Muhammad Amin Baghdadi in the book entitled: Saba'ik al-dhahab writes: "Muhammad, who is also known as Mahdi, was five years old at the time of his father's death."
Saba'ik al-dhahab, p. 78.

Yes obviously we know a lot of the Hadith in the "Sahih Sitta" are bad, that's why we're not retarded and just quote hadith, we check them first for authenticity. Alright, so if you dispute with the Hadith, let's go straight to the Qur'an. 2:124:

æóÅöÐö ÇÈúÊóáóìٰ ÅöÈúÑóÇåöíãó ÑóÈõøåõ ÈößóáöãóÇÊò ÝóÃóÊóãóøåõäóø ۖ ÞóÇáó Åöäöøí ÌóÇÚöáõßó áöáäóøÇÓö ÅöãóÇãðÇ ۖ ÞóÇáó æóãöä ÐõÑöøíóøÊöí ۖ ÞóÇáó áóÇ íóäóÇáõ ÚóåúÏöí ÇáÙóøÇáöãöíäó

And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

This is from the translation of Mohammad Habib Shakir, derive three things right there from the Ayat. Ibrahim got promoted to Imamate (So Imamate is higher than Nabuwat), Allah is the one who appoints Imams, and Allah does not allow the unjust to be Imams. Now the meaning of Imam is literally one who is in front of, or leader. That is out conception of Imamate, now don't get us wrong, the Imams were higher than all the Nabis, except the last one, because he was Sayyed Al Kaunain, Khatim Al Mursaleen, Habib Ilahil Alimeen, he was the Last and greatest Prophet, he was the highest.

Okay then you say that since Harun died and didn't rule his people, Imam Ali also couldn't. Okay first faulty logic there, because x happened in that situation, y will happened just like x. Anyways the obvious reply is if that Harun had outlived Musa, he would have been a Khalif. The Qur'an said that Harun would take the place of Musa, be his Khalif and Vazeer. And use logic for one second, would the Prophet say that, "Oh Ali, you are to me as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me, it is not proper I should depart except by you being the Khalifa after me, but you won't get to be because Harun died, so you don't get the right to be either." What kind of retarded logic is that. It was in Imam Ali's right. If you still dispute, then here.

Last point, Maula, Wali, and such hadith establish the authority of Imam Ali, the Hadith like Manzila, or this:


A Jew named al-A`tal came to the Prophet and said, "Muhammad! I wish to ask you about certain things which I have been keeping to myself; so, if you answer them, I shall declare my acceptance of Islam before you." The Prophet said, "Ask me, O father of Imarah!" So he asked him about many things till he was satisfied and admitted that the Prophet was right. Then he said, "Tell me about your wasi (successor): who is he? No prophet can ever be without a wasi; our prophet Moses had appointed Yusha` [Joshua] son of Noon as his successor." He said, "My wasi is Ali ibn Abu Talib followed by my grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn followed by nine men from the loins of al-Husayn." He said, "Then name them for me, O Muhammad!" The Prophet said, "Once al-Husayn departs, he will be succeeded by his son Ali; when Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ja`far will succeed him. When Ja`far departs, he will be succeeded by his son Musa. When Musa departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son al-Hasan will succeed him, and when al-Hasan departs, al-Hujjah Muhammad al-Mahdi will succeed him. These are the twelve ones." That Jew, therefore, embraced Islam and praised Allah for having guided him.

Shaykh Sulayman Qanduzi al-Hanafi, book Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, p. 523.

establish his divine right.

Edited by AlAjalYaImam, 17 August 2012 - 11:14 PM.


#33 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 18 August 2012 - 12:57 PM

Ya Allah!

AlAjalAlman, can't you write to the point. Seriously I can't read lengthy posts like this. Will you counter your arguments one by one please. I will try to read parts when I have time.

#34 Ameen

Ameen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Religion:muslim

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:24 PM

Ulil Amr is the khalifah of Muslims, as Abu Bakr r.a, Umar r.a were after Prophet s.a.w. We are supposed to obey the Ulil Amr when they command us according to Quran and Sunnah. We are not bound to obey them if it's against Quran and Sunnah. The same is said about parents; we must obey them except when they command us to go against Allah.

Now a days unfortunately we don't have any khilafah and so there are no Ulil Amr of Muslims in most of the countries. But if a Muslim ruler is pious and he doesn't go against Quran and Sunnah then it is obligatory upon people to obey him.

But since a khalifah or a ruler is a human being; they can make mistakes or go wrong, so in that case we have to refer to Quran and Sunnah.



Since the killers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended by Saiyidina Ali r.a, civil war erupted and so Ali r.a's khilafah couldn't be established fully.



If I don't reply to everyone's post, it doesn't mean I can't reply to them. I don't do things that I don't feel like. It depends upon my mood. But I'm sorry if I ignored your post before. I didn't do it intentionally. Just missed it.


You said " Ulul-Amre is the Khalifaa of Muslims " and the examples you gave are Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Hazrath Umar [ra]. What about Hazrath Usmaan [ra] and Hazrath Ali [as]??? Are these two not also Ulul-Amre??? Where does it say in the Quran, that you only should obey them if they follow the Quran and Sunnah??? How can one tell that the Ulul-Amre isn't following the Quran and Sunnah??? Or do we know more better than the one who is in authority amongst us and Allah has made obedience towards them compulsory??? How do we know better??? Allah has mentioned obedience towards them, Ulul-Amre, their [Ita'ath] alondside him and his Messenger and made it compulsory. So where does your condition come in from???

Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] waged war on a group of companions and their community, just because they refused to pay Zakah on the first Khalifs terms. They wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh], which they had done for years. Was this war justified??? Was it according to the Quran and Sunnah??? Lets say for example if one refuses to pray, to fast or to pay Zakah altogether, full stop then does that make them a sinner and punishable by Allah or a Kafir and punishable by the Khalifaa??? Is it ok to wage war on such people according to such terms????

Was it compulsory on the fourth Khalif to apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif???? If he didn't then his status as Khalif is questionable. Who put down this condition??? Nobody! It's just an excuse which was used by individuals to rebell against the fourth Khalif and it is an excuse used by certain individuals nowa days to undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif. If the fourth Khalif couldn't apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif, then how does this undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif??? How can we assume that the fourth Khalif went against the Quran and Sunnah by this???

Does one even know the nature and full facts regarding Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] murder??? Who murdered him and why he was murdered??? What about the prime witness in this murder case, Naila [ Hazrath Usmaan's wife]??? Why isn't there any statement from her in the entire history books???? Why did she chose to remain silent about her husband's murder and murderers??? What is the fourth Khalif suppose to do, when the prime witness refuses to testify and wants the case closed due to personal reasons??? What right did anybody have, after this, to use this as an excuse and rebell against the fourth rightly guided Khalif??? Instead of building up strength and courage to criticise those who rebelled, we come up with the stupidity and go ahead with criticism for the fourth rightly guided Khalif. WHY???

#35 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 18 August 2012 - 01:48 PM

You said " Ulul-Amre is the Khalifaa of Muslims " and the examples you gave are Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Hazrath Umar [ra]. What about Hazrath Usmaan [ra] and Hazrath Ali [as]??? Are these two not also Ulul-Amre??? Where does it say in the Quran, that you only should obey them if they follow the Quran and Sunnah??? How can one tell that the Ulul-Amre isn't following the Quran and Sunnah??? Or do we know more better than the one who is in authority amongst us and Allah has made obedience towards them compulsory??? How do we know better??? Allah has mentioned obedience towards them, Ulul-Amre, their [Ita'ath] alondside him and his Messenger and made it compulsory. So where does your condition come in from???


Not just Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra, Saiyidina Umar ra were our Ulil Amr but Saiyidina Uthman ra was also our Ulil Amr. These three khulafa are termed to as Khulafa-e-Thalatha (The three caliphs).

The case of Saiyidina Ali ra was different. He became khalifah during turmoil when rebellion against the khilafah of Islam had just begun. The rebels had joined Saiydina Ali ra for protection and that's where the problems started. People differed..civil war started. So the majority of the Sahabah of the Prophet s.a.w didn't support Ali or Muawiyah. They kept distance and remained neutral.

In other words the khilafah of Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't be established the way it was under the first three khulafa.

And Quran and Sunnah is not for Ulil Amr alone, it's for each and every Muslim. Gaining knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim man and woman. So people are able to decide when the Ulil Amr is right and when he's not. And by people I mean consensus of Ummah.

Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] waged war on a group of companions and their community, just because they refused to pay Zakah on the first Khalifs terms. They wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh], which they had done for years. Was this war justified??? Was it according to the Quran and Sunnah??? Lets say for example if one refuses to pray, to fast or to pay Zakah altogether, full stop then does that make them a sinner and punishable by Allah or a Kafir and punishable by the Khalifaa??? Is it ok to wage war on such people according to such terms????


Some people or tribe who were NOT companions of the Prophet of Islam. They had only embraced Islam because of the dawah of some companions. After the demise of the Prophet s.a.w they thought Islam had weakened and they could evade by not paying zakat. They rejected one of the basic pillars of Islam.

And Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu waged a war against them according to the Quran and Sunnah. Because he was the closest companion of the Prophet of Islam and he understood Islam better than anyone else.

Other sahabah including Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu also supported him on this decision.

Was it compulsory on the fourth Khalif to apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif???? If he didn't then his status as Khalif is questionable. Who put down this condition??? Nobody! It's just an excuse which was used by individuals to rebell against the fourth Khalif and it is an excuse used by certain individuals nowa days to undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif. If the fourth Khalif couldn't apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif, then how does this undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif??? How can we assume that the fourth Khalif went against the Quran and Sunnah by this???


Rebellion against the third khalifah was unique in the history of Islam by then. It was an attack on the Islamic Khilafah. It was an attack on the capital of Khilafah of Islam. There are stern commands against those who rebel against the Khalifah of Islam in the prescribed Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Unfortunately, for some reasons Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't apprehend the rebels instead the rebels manipulated him.

1400 years ago, the contemporaries of Saiyidina Ali ra were not considered quite lower than him in status. Many thousands of the blessed companions were alive then. So it's possible some people might have suspected Ali ra behind this murder in order to capture power. That's why a sect called Kharijites appeared which ultimately killed Saiyidina Ali ra.

It was an age of fitnah (mischief). If Saiyidina Ali ra had been able to catch the culprits in the first place, lots of such tragedies wouldn't have taken place and he would remain the uncontroversial khalifah of the people of his time.

Does one even know the nature and full facts regarding Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] murder??? Who murdered him and why he was murdered??? What about the prime witness in this murder case, Naila [ Hazrath Usmaan's wife]??? Why isn't there any statement from her in the entire history books???? Why did she chose to remain silent about her husband's murder and murderers??? What is the fourth Khalif suppose to do, when the prime witness refuses to testify and wants the case closed due to personal reasons??? What right did anybody have, after this, to use this as an excuse and rebell against the fourth rightly guided Khalif??? Instead of building up strength and courage to criticise those who rebelled, we come up with the stupidity and go ahead with criticism for the fourth rightly guided Khalif. WHY???


It's very simple!

Since you couldn't curb the rebellion against the khilafah of Islam by catching the murderers of the third khalifah whom people recognized, even Saiyidina Ali ra recognized according to the agreed upon reports, you opened the door of rebellion against you too.

If the door of rebellion against the 3rd khalifah had been shut, it wouldn't have been opened for the 4th khalifah.

The wife of Saiyidina Uthman Ghani radiyallahu anhu was not just one witness to this crime. People knew had surrounded the house of the khalifah. People knew who killed him.

Edited by Sonador, 18 August 2012 - 01:51 PM.


#36 Ameen

Ameen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Religion:muslim

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

Not just Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra, Saiyidina Umar ra were our Ulil Amr but Saiyidina Uthman ra was also our Ulil Amr. These three khulafa are termed to as Khulafa-e-Thalatha (The three caliphs).

The case of Saiyidina Ali ra was different. He became khalifah during turmoil when rebellion against the khilafah of Islam had just begun. The rebels had joined Saiydina Ali ra for protection and that's where the problems started. People differed..civil war started. So the majority of the Sahabah of the Prophet s.a.w didn't support Ali or Muawiyah. They kept distance and remained neutral.

In other words the khilafah of Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't be established the way it was under the first three khulafa.

And Quran and Sunnah is not for Ulil Amr alone, it's for each and every Muslim. Gaining knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim man and woman. So people are able to decide when the Ulil Amr is right and when he's not. And by people I mean consensus of Ummah.



Some people or tribe who were NOT companions of the Prophet of Islam. They had only embraced Islam because of the dawah of some companions. After the demise of the Prophet s.a.w they thought Islam had weakened and they could evade by not paying zakat. They rejected one of the basic pillars of Islam.

And Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu waged a war against them according to the Quran and Sunnah. Because he was the closest companion of the Prophet of Islam and he understood Islam better than anyone else.

Other sahabah including Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu also supported him on this decision.



Rebellion against the third khalifah was unique in the history of Islam by then. It was an attack on the Islamic Khilafah. It was an attack on the capital of Khilafah of Islam. There are stern commands against those who rebel against the Khalifah of Islam in the prescribed Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Unfortunately, for some reasons Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't apprehend the rebels instead the rebels manipulated him.

1400 years ago, the contemporaries of Saiyidina Ali ra were not considered quite lower than him in status. Many thousands of the blessed companions were alive then. So it's possible some people might have suspected Ali ra behind this murder in order to capture power. That's why a sect called Kharijites appeared which ultimately killed Saiyidina Ali ra.

It was an age of fitnah (mischief). If Saiyidina Ali ra had been able to catch the culprits in the first place, lots of such tragedies wouldn't have taken place and he would remain the uncontroversial khalifah of the people of his time.



It's very simple!

Since you couldn't curb the rebellion against the khilafah of Islam by catching the murderers of the third khalifah whom people recognized, even Saiyidina Ali ra recognized according to the agreed upon reports, you opened the door of rebellion against you too.

If the door of rebellion against the 3rd khalifah had been shut, it wouldn't have been opened for the 4th khalifah.

The wife of Saiyidina Uthman Ghani radiyallahu anhu was not just one witness to this crime. People knew had surrounded the house of the khalifah. People knew who killed him.


It's not Khulafaa-e-Salaasa, infact it's Khulafaa-e-Rashidah. The four rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, which are also known as Haq Char Yaar. If you talk about turmoil, then turmoil was from day one, right after the Prophet's [pbuh] death. After the meeting in Sakeefa Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was elected as Khalif. Certain people and companions of the Prophet [pbuh] opposed this meeting and the outcome of this meeting. Infact they were not even part of this meeting and had nothing to do with the decision. Violence was used against these people and the companions to get them to accept the meeting in Sakeefa and the outcome of that meeting.

Yes the Case of Hazrath Ali [as] was different from the first three Khalifs. Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was selected as Khalif by a handful of people who gathered in Sakeefa during the night. It would have been appropriate if such a meeting was held, after the funeral of the Prophet [pbuh], openly in broad daylight within Masjid-e-Nabawi, to select the first Khalif of the Muslims and Hazrath Ali [as] came out and announced that we have selected Hazrath Abu Bakar amongst us as the first Khalif. But no, infact it was done quickly and secretly during the night, and then the decision was imposed through means of violence as history clealy tells us. The second Khalif was selected, not elected, through successorship and the third was again selected, not elected, by a very small committee.

Hazrath Ali [as] was elected through a vast majority, without any other candidates, without any competition. Your claims, my friend, are all one sided. Is it justified according to the Quran and Sunnah, that you can wage war on certain people because they refuse to pay Zakah according to your terms and conditions??? Infact they wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh]. But lets say they refused to pay Zakah, then how is it justified according to the Quran and Sunnah to wage war on such terms???

The justification you have given for the war on Zakah is, that Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was close to the Prophet [pbuh] and he understood Islam better. Ok! The Ayath says " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " It further on goes " Then if you differ on anything amongst you, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger ", Now a tribe differed with the first person in authority amongst them, not about paying Zakah or if Zakah was a pillar of faith or not, but about the terms and conditions on paying Zakah, then why wasn't the matter referred to Allah and his Messenger???? Why go to war and kill people without due cause???

The same thing applies to those who rebelled against the fourth Khalif, why didn't they refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger???? Why the rebellion??? Why a direct violation of Allah's command???? If Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] knew Islam better because he was close to the Prophet [pbuh], then who was more closer to the Prophet [pbuh] than Hazrath Ali [as]??? Didn't Ali [as] know Islam better than the rest??? Doesn't the same reason apply to Hazrath Ali [as], that he knew better???

TO BE CONTINUED!

Edited by Ameen, 18 August 2012 - 02:39 PM.


#37 Muhammad Ibrahim

Muhammad Ibrahim

    Member

  • Banned
  • 492 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:51 PM

How is this even a debate? The guy in the video made no sense whatsoever, not to mention he admitted Surah Al-Ahzaab says he is.

"The Quran says in Surah Al-Ahzaab, Ayah 33:
"...Verily, Allah has decreed to purify you, O' Ahlul Bayt, and sanctify you in a perfect way"

Sunni rebuttal: "No! It's taken out of context, it's only talking about the wives of the Prophet (pbuh)!"

Firstly, it is important to note that nowhere in this Ayah are the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned.

Surah Al-Ahzaab, Full Ayah 33:

"Stay in your houses and do not display your finery with the display of the former [days of ] ignorance. Maintain the prayer and pay the zakat and obey Allah and His Apostle. Verily, Allah has decreed to purify you, O' Ahlul Bayt, and sanctify you in a perfect way."

Each Ayah is an individual sign of Allah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayah
"Ayah or Aayah is the Arabic word for evidence or sign:

"These are the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, revelations, etc.) of Allah, which We recite to you (O Muhammad) with truth. Then in which speech after Allah and His Ayat will they believe?" (Surat Al-Jathiya 45:6)"

Secondly,
"The verse of Purification, or Surah Ahzab 33:33. Now in your words it refers to the women of the household of the Prophet (pbuh), the first sentence does, but then the second sentence, which Goku was referring to: Oh household of the Prophet, God only wishes to remove impurities from you in a thorough purification." This sentence refers to the Ahlul Bayt, or 4 specific people. Who go as follows:

1. Imam Ali (A.S.)
2. Sayyida Fatima (S.A.)
3. Imam Hasan (A.S.)
4. Imam Hussain (A.S.)

Now before going further, we look at the 3 meanings of the word Ahl (Family):

The extended Family
The Wives
The close family

The word Ahl is being referred to is the close family. The reason it's not the close family, let's look grammatically why it's not the wives. Now it's a known fact the Qur'an is not in the order it was revealed in, some verses are here, and others are there, so it's not out of the ordinary that the verse referring to the family, and one referring to the wives will be side by side. But a clear indication the verse is not talking about the wives is the words Ankum (from you) and Yutahhirakum (To cleanse you). They are both in the masculine plural form. Though it is known that in Arabic Masculine is unisex, there is a problem saying that since the fact that the previous sentence in reference to the wives used only feminine verbs and pronouns, while this sentences uses masculine. The feminine for the above would be Ankunna and Yutahhirakunna. The sudden change in grammatical gender reference is one indication it is not the wives.

Now let's see another indication this verse about removing impurities was not towards the wives. The word for impurity here is Rijs, which is referred to in the Qur'an as sinfulness of either false beliefs, or sinful acts (Refer to Qur'an: 5:90, 10:100, 22:30, 9:95, 9:125). So if said purification happened, then the wives wouldn't commit such Rijs after this purification. However we see that there are verses in the Qur'an which say that they did do misconduct (33:30). And there are such where they hurt the Prophet and Allah says he can give better wives than them (66:1-5).

Beyond the evidence from the Qur'an, let's look at the Sahih Hadith of the Shiites and the Sunnis. They have been deemed Sahih and accepted by both Sunni and Shiite books. So I will give you them, with Sunni references also:

Hussain Ibn Sabrah asked Zaid Ibn Arqam, "Who are the members of His household? Aren't His wives part of the members of his family?" Thereupon Zaid said, "His wives are members of his family [in a general sense], but (Islamically), the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of zakat is forbidden." Hussain asked, "Who are they?". Upon which Zaid said, "Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil, the offspring of Jaffer, and the offspring of Abbas." Hussain said "These are those for whom the acceptance of zakat is forbidden?" Zaid replied, "Yes."

Sahih Muslim #31.5920-2.

According to Sahih Muslim, Zaid then expanded on this hadith and stated this:

Hussain Then asked: "Aren't the wives (Of the Prophet) included amongst the members of the household?" He said, "No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man [as his wife] for a certain period; he then divorces her, and she goes back to her parents and her people. The members of his household include his own self, and his kith, and kin, for whom the acceptance of zakat is prohibited."

Sahih Muslim #31.5923

Now to get the exact hadith on who is being referred to in this verse of the Qur'an, again we look at the hadith which are both deemed Sahih by Sunnis and Shiites, and are accepted. To this let me give you the sources of the Hadith (As recorded in the Sunni books, not the Shiite sources), because I don't want write them all out.

Sahih Muslim #31.5955
Sunan Tirmidhi #3787, #3205
Tafsir Al Durr Al Manthoor, under 33:33
Tafsir Tabari again under 33:33
Tafsir Ibn Katheer, Another reference by Al Durr Al Manthur under said verse, Tafsir Ibn Atiyyah, Tafsir Thalabi, all under 33:33

I won't go on to proofs of the Masoomiyaat, and other ideas and proofs around the Ahlul bayt being referred to in this verse, but yeah I'll end there after proving it is the Ahlul Bayt (Ali, Fatima, Hasan, Hussain) being talked about in the verse.

I already proved 33:33, let's focus on 5:55, you say it has nothing to do with my religion, honestly, either you're ignorant of your own Sunni books, or you're a Qur'anist, if you're a Qur'anist, God take mercy on you, it just blows me away that a sect like that exists. But let me provide you Hadith to show that this verse was in reference to Imam Ali on the incident of giving his ring to the poor man, while he was praying. Firstly let's see the verse on it's own without hadith, it translates to "Verily your Vali is none other than Allah, and his Messenger, and those who have believed, and keep on prayers, and give the poor-rate, while bowing down." Now many translators say it means and they bow down, but no, it's not "Wa Raki'oon" (And Bow Down), it's "Hum Raki'oon" (While they Bow down). You need to think that this verse is referring to a specific person, who's done all these tasks. Now to find out we go to the Hadith of the Shiite and Sunni, though the Ahadith are with the Shiites anyways, let's see the Sunni places they've been recorded.

Tafsir al Kabir, by Ahmad Ibn Mohammed Al Ta'libi, under 5:55
Tafsir Al Kabir, by Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari, Volume 6, page 186, 288-289
Tafsir Al Jamiul Hukam Al Qur'an, by Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Qurtubi, Volume 6, Page 219
Tafsir Al Khazin, Volume 2, page 68
Tafsir Al Dur Al Manthur, by Jalaludeen Al Sayuti, Volume 2, page 293-294
Tafsir Al Khashaf, by Al Zamakhshari, Egypt 1373, volume 1, page 505, 649
Asbab Al Nuzool, by Jalaludeen Al Suyuti, Egypt 1383, Volume 1 page 73, on Authority of Ibn Abbas
Shahr Al Tijrid, by Allamah Qushji
Akham Al Qur'an, Al Jassas, Volume 2 page 542-543
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 5 page 38
Kanzul Umal, by al Muttaqi al Hindi, volume 6 page 391
Al Awsat, by Tabarani, narrated on authority of Ammar Ibn Yassir
Tafseer Al Manar, Volume 6 page 366
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Voume 2, page 113-114, (Beirut 1986 edition)
Al Riyad Al Nadir, Volume 2 page 302

All of those above sources, and more, all confirm it was Imam Ali being referred to directly within this verse, and all record the incident of the ring.

I just want to say how you go around, calling people Ignorant, and considering yourself to be so wise, is the most ironic thing I've seen, as can be observed in this situation..."

So what is there to discuss? It's pathetic how desperate Sunnis are to reject real Islam.

#38 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 18 August 2012 - 03:00 PM

It's not Khulafaa-e-Salaasa, infact it's Khulafaa-e-Rashidah. The four rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims, which are also known as Haq Char Yaar. If you talk about turmoil, then turmoil was from day one, right after the Prophet's [pbuh] death. After the meeting in Sakeefa Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was elected as Khalif. Certain people and companions of the Prophet [pbuh] opposed this meeting and the outcome of this meeting. Infact they were not even part of this meeting and had nothing to do with the decision. Violence was used against these people and the companions to get them to accept the meeting in Sakeefa and the outcome of that meeting.


How many people were killed in that violence? And how many people revolted against the khilafah of Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique radiyallahu anhu?

All we know is that Saiydina Siddique-e-Akbar waged 'an offensive war' against the rejectors of Zakaat (which is a pillar of Islam) and against the followers of the false prophet. As well as Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu sent military expeditions to spread Islam.

And yes the first four khulafa of Islam are remembered as khulafa-e-Rashideen because they were the best of the companions masha Allah.

But the first three khulafa of Islam have a distinguished status, not just from the Prophetic sayings but from their performance as heads of the Islamic Empire.

Yes the Case of Hazrath Ali [as] was different from the first three Khalifs. Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was selected as Khalif by a handful of people who gathered in Sakeefa during the night. It would have been appropriate if such a meeting was held, after the funeral of the Prophet [pbuh], openly in broad daylight within Masjid-e-Nabawi, to select the first Khalif of the Muslims and Hazrath Ali [as] came out and announced that we have selected Hazrath Abu Bakar amongst us as the first Khalif. But no, infact it was done quickly and secretly during the night, and then the decision was imposed through means of violence as history clealy tells us. The second Khalif was selected, not elected, through successorship and the third was again selected, not elected, by a very small committee.


If Saiyidina Abu Bakr's appointment as khalifah was resented upon by people then they should have rebelled against him the way people revolted against Yazid under Husain ra.

So your allegation doesn't carry any weight.

Hazrath Ali [as] was elected through a vast majority, without any other candidates, without any competition. Your claims, my friend, are all one sided.


But that 'supposed' vast majority did not support him against his opponents and he had to move his capital from Madinah to Kufah. Not just that, he agreed upon giving the khilafah of Syria to his opponents and therefore during his tenure, the Islamic khilafah (government) was divided. That 'vast majority' couldn't even grant him victory in Siffeen.

Is it justified according to the Quran and Sunnah, that you can wage war on certain people because they refuse to pay Zakah according to your terms and conditions??? Infact they wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh]. But lets say they refused to pay Zakah, then how is it justified according to the Quran and Sunnah to wage war on such terms???


This is your stance that they wanted to pay zakaat to someone else. If by that you mean Saiyidina Ali ra then they should have gathered around him the way shias invited Husain ra to Kufah with promises that they would make him their khalifah.

And yes, if khilafah is established and people refuse to pay zakaat or pray salat, the khalifah is supposed to fight them until they submit back to Islam.

The justification you have given for the war on Zakah is, that Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] was close to the Prophet [pbuh] and he understood Islam better. Ok! The Ayath says " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " It further on goes " Then if you differ on anything amongst you, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger ", Now a tribe differed with the first person in authority amongst them, not about paying Zakah or if Zakah was a pillar of faith or not, but about the terms and conditions on paying Zakah, then why wasn't the matter referred to Allah and his Messenger???? Why go to war and kill people without due cause???


The tribe that differed didn't turn to Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah). Had they turned to Allah and His Messenger, they would have gathered around their Infallible Imam Ali. Unfortunately even the Infallible Imam Ali didn't decide this matter according to the wishes and desires of shias. He didn't come up with his support for that 'oppressed tribe' against Abu Bakr. It was a golden chance to topple Abu Bakr's regime. Wasn't it?

The same thing applies to those who rebelled against the fourth Khalif, why didn't they refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger???? Why the rebellion??? Why a direct violation of Allah's command???? If Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] knew Islam better because he was close to the Prophet [pbuh], then who was more closer to the Prophet [pbuh] than Hazrath Ali [as]??? Didn't Ali [as] know Islam better than the rest??? Doesn't the same reason apply to Hazrath Ali [as], that he knew better???


Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu was no doubt a very blessed companion of the Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam. But you can't compare him with Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra. The reason being Ali ra was just a child when Islam came. He was the first child to embrace Islam. He was living in the house of Prophet s.a.w so he was dependent upon the Prophet for food and shelter. In contrast, Saiyidina Abu Bakr radiyallahu anhu was a grown up man of the Prophet's age group. He was a companion of Muhammad s.a.w even before Islam. He didn't depend upon the Prophet s.a.w for food and shelter. If you study our religious literature, you will find out that Saiyidina Ali ra didn't accompany the Prophet s.a.w as much as the blessed companions Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhum did. And it is also the consensus of Ummah (Ahl-as-Sunnah) and our companions of Muhammad s.a.w that the best of Ummah was

Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu

then Umar radiyallahu anhu

then Uthman radiyallahu anhu

then Ali radiyallahu anhu and so on.

People rebelled against Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu for the reasons that I have mentioned above. And that's why I said his khilafah couldn't be established the way it was under Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman radiyallahu anhum.

#39 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 18 August 2012 - 03:18 PM

I think I'll take a leave now; tired! Wassalam brothers.

#40 al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

al-`Ajal Ya Imaam

    al-Kanadee

  • Unregistered
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Location:Rafidistan
  • Religion:Shi`ah Ithna `Ashari Usooli Muslim
  • Interests:Listening to Maulana Rizvi's Surah Jumu`ah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXJbWV-InKs

Posted 19 August 2012 - 12:52 AM

Ya Allah!

AlAjalAlman, can't you write to the point. Seriously I can't read lengthy posts like this. Will you counter your arguments one by one please. I will try to read parts when I have time.


Illahi man, writing two words doesn't do anything, I write evidences, and everything when I write my posts, and if you've seen classical debates, like the ones in Al-Mura'ajat, between the Sheikh Sayyed Abdul Hussain Sharafud Deen Musawi, and Sheikh Salim Al Bishiri, they were pretty long letters too.

#41 Ameen

Ameen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Religion:muslim

Posted 19 August 2012 - 05:23 PM

How many people were killed in that violence? And how many people revolted against the khilafah of Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique radiyallahu anhu?

All we know is that Saiydina Siddique-e-Akbar waged 'an offensive war' against the rejectors of Zakaat (which is a pillar of Islam) and against the followers of the false prophet. As well as Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu sent military expeditions to spread Islam.

And yes the first four khulafa of Islam are remembered as khulafa-e-Rashideen because they were the best of the companions masha Allah.

But the first three khulafa of Islam have a distinguished status, not just from the Prophetic sayings but from their performance as heads of the Islamic Empire.



If Saiyidina Abu Bakr's appointment as khalifah was resented upon by people then they should have rebelled against him the way people revolted against Yazid under Husain ra.

So your allegation doesn't carry any weight.



But that 'supposed' vast majority did not support him against his opponents and he had to move his capital from Madinah to Kufah. Not just that, he agreed upon giving the khilafah of Syria to his opponents and therefore during his tenure, the Islamic khilafah (government) was divided. That 'vast majority' couldn't even grant him victory in Siffeen.



This is your stance that they wanted to pay zakaat to someone else. If by that you mean Saiyidina Ali ra then they should have gathered around him the way shias invited Husain ra to Kufah with promises that they would make him their khalifah.

And yes, if khilafah is established and people refuse to pay zakaat or pray salat, the khalifah is supposed to fight them until they submit back to Islam.



The tribe that differed didn't turn to Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah). Had they turned to Allah and His Messenger, they would have gathered around their Infallible Imam Ali. Unfortunately even the Infallible Imam Ali didn't decide this matter according to the wishes and desires of shias. He didn't come up with his support for that 'oppressed tribe' against Abu Bakr. It was a golden chance to topple Abu Bakr's regime. Wasn't it?



Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu was no doubt a very blessed companion of the Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam. But you can't compare him with Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra. The reason being Ali ra was just a child when Islam came. He was the first child to embrace Islam. He was living in the house of Prophet s.a.w so he was dependent upon the Prophet for food and shelter. In contrast, Saiyidina Abu Bakr radiyallahu anhu was a grown up man of the Prophet's age group. He was a companion of Muhammad s.a.w even before Islam. He didn't depend upon the Prophet s.a.w for food and shelter. If you study our religious literature, you will find out that Saiyidina Ali ra didn't accompany the Prophet s.a.w as much as the blessed companions Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhum did. And it is also the consensus of Ummah (Ahl-as-Sunnah) and our companions of Muhammad s.a.w that the best of Ummah was

Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu

then Umar radiyallahu anhu

then Uthman radiyallahu anhu

then Ali radiyallahu anhu and so on.

People rebelled against Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu for the reasons that I have mentioned above. And that's why I said his khilafah couldn't be established the way it was under Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman radiyallahu anhum.



You’ve brought up one matter after the other and you’ve moved on from one thing to the other, without discussing anything thoroughly and completely. Let’s be fair, just and honest here at least with ourselves, if not anybody else. You’ve put your version forward regarding different matters and events, without discussing them properly and without giving any references as evidence and proof, what so ever, to back your version. At least discuss one matter thoroughly, completely and properly before moving on to the next.

One thing I have to say here is that I have discussed a lot of matters with people of your mind set but they only seem to discuss matters on a short term basis then move on to the next subject or start adding other matters to the one that was being discussed. You and your kind seem to show a lot of favouritism towards the first three Khulafaa and always seem to take their side what so ever.

Every time they are discussed you seem to take their side, you protect them and you defend them by disregarding anything that goes against them. You represent them as they were some perfect and saintly figures, although nobody is a saint, apart from Messengers and Angels, according to your belief. Take a look at all matters and events evenly by being just and fair with yourself, with an open heart and a wide mind.

You mention and talk about the first three Khulafaa in such a manner as though they never put a foot wrong, they had no failure attached to them, they were successful all the way through and they never said or did anything that would put a question mark over their characters. You never seem to raise any suspicion or doubt concerning the first three Khulafaa, but when it comes to the likes of Hazrath Ali [as], Hazrath Fatimah [as], Hazrath Hassan [as] and Hazrath Hussain [as] it’s a different story.

Take a look at your posts and you will see for yourself, that you have raised every suspicion and doubt regarding Hazrath Ali [as] but it’s a different story from you when it comes to the Khulafaa-e-Salaasa. At least be fair, just and honest, with yourself if not anybody else by balancing the equation and looking at matters and events evenly, if you are not familiar with the true status of Hazrath Ali [as] and his household

We started off with the following Ayaath: “ Obey Allah, obey the Messenger and those who are in authority amongst you, if you differ about anything then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger “. You haven’t bothered to discuss this matter completely but instead you’ve added other matters and events, which are your version of things, without any references what so ever. Do a bit of research and look things up, rather than just mentioning things you’ve heard.

#42 Ameen

Ameen

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,590 posts
  • Religion:muslim

Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:15 PM

How many people were killed in that violence? And how many people revolted against the khilafah of Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique radiyallahu anhu?

All we know is that Saiydina Siddique-e-Akbar waged 'an offensive war' against the rejectors of Zakaat (which is a pillar of Islam) and against the followers of the false prophet. As well as Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu sent military expeditions to spread Islam.

And yes the first four khulafa of Islam are remembered as khulafa-e-Rashideen because they were the best of the companions masha Allah.

But the first three khulafa of Islam have a distinguished status, not just from the Prophetic sayings but from their performance as heads of the Islamic Empire.



If Saiyidina Abu Bakr's appointment as khalifah was resented upon by people then they should have rebelled against him the way people revolted against Yazid under Husain ra.

So your allegation doesn't carry any weight.



But that 'supposed' vast majority did not support him against his opponents and he had to move his capital from Madinah to Kufah. Not just that, he agreed upon giving the khilafah of Syria to his opponents and therefore during his tenure, the Islamic khilafah (government) was divided. That 'vast majority' couldn't even grant him victory in Siffeen.



This is your stance that they wanted to pay zakaat to someone else. If by that you mean Saiyidina Ali ra then they should have gathered around him the way shias invited Husain ra to Kufah with promises that they would make him their khalifah.

And yes, if khilafah is established and people refuse to pay zakaat or pray salat, the khalifah is supposed to fight them until they submit back to Islam.



The tribe that differed didn't turn to Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah). Had they turned to Allah and His Messenger, they would have gathered around their Infallible Imam Ali. Unfortunately even the Infallible Imam Ali didn't decide this matter according to the wishes and desires of shias. He didn't come up with his support for that 'oppressed tribe' against Abu Bakr. It was a golden chance to topple Abu Bakr's regime. Wasn't it?



Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu was no doubt a very blessed companion of the Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam. But you can't compare him with Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra. The reason being Ali ra was just a child when Islam came. He was the first child to embrace Islam. He was living in the house of Prophet s.a.w so he was dependent upon the Prophet for food and shelter. In contrast, Saiyidina Abu Bakr radiyallahu anhu was a grown up man of the Prophet's age group. He was a companion of Muhammad s.a.w even before Islam. He didn't depend upon the Prophet s.a.w for food and shelter. If you study our religious literature, you will find out that Saiyidina Ali ra didn't accompany the Prophet s.a.w as much as the blessed companions Abu Bakr and Umar radiyallahu anhum did. And it is also the consensus of Ummah (Ahl-as-Sunnah) and our companions of Muhammad s.a.w that the best of Ummah was

Saiyidina Abu Bakr Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu

then Umar radiyallahu anhu

then Uthman radiyallahu anhu

then Ali radiyallahu anhu and so on.

People rebelled against Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu for the reasons that I have mentioned above. And that's why I said his khilafah couldn't be established the way it was under Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman radiyallahu anhum.


First of all sense and logic is above all and everything else, which comes along with your own ability to think. Why would this particular tribe refuse to accept Zaka'ath as a pillar of faith and then refuse to pay it??? They accept everything else and other pillars of faith but not Zaka'ath but why??? Does this make any sense???? How many tribes or people do you have up till now who have refused to accept this or that as a pillar of faith???? This particular tribe accepted Zaka'ath as a pillar of faith during the Prophet's [pbuh] time and paid Zaka'ath on a regular basis, but suddenly after the Prophet's [pbuh] death and during the reign of the first Khalif, they not onle refused to pay Zaka'ath but also disregarded it as a pillar of faith. How strange! It's so funny how we come up with silly and baseless excuses just to cover up the wrong sayings and doings of the Khulafaa-e-Salaasa.

We have to look at what makes sense and what is logical. Is this really the truth or is this what really happened, that this particular tribe accepted Zaka'ath as a pillar of faith like everybody else because it is a core belief of your faith and paid Zaka'ath on the terms and conditions, the procedure of distribution, of how the money will be spent, that they agreed with the Prophet [pbuh], but after the Prophet's [pbuh] death the Shaikhain wanted to make changes to this agreement and get control over how this money will be spent, which triggered the disagreement and what led to the first Khalif declaring war over these people. Was this war justified??? Was there no other solution than meet our demands or violence will be used???

The situation is exactly the same of how the Shaikhain wanted and got control over the earnings that came from the garden of Fadak by taking control over Fadak. The situation was same here that the Shaikhain wanted total control over the distribution of Zaka'ath paid by this tribe disregarding the dealings and ways that the Prophet [pbuh] had put down regarding the handling of Fadak and Zaka'ath. You decide what is sensible and logical and what is not. You consider Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] better than Hazrath Ali [as] just because of the age factor??? Who is better and superior depends on character, performance and achievement, with all due respect to both or any individual.

You are right about not comparing Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] to Hazrath Ali [as], infact nobody should be compared to Hazrath Ali [as] because he was from the Ahlul Baith, which no other companion is and apart from this I can give you many reasons from Quran and Sunnah that Hazrath Ali [as] was Afzalul-Khalaq and Afzalul-Bashar after the Messenger but your belief lies with you and by all means carry on with what you believe in but if you want to convince others then you have to make a strong case backed with references, not just a few words here and there and that's it. Hazrath Ali [as] accepted Islam straight from childhood and grew up under the shadow and influence of the Messenger.

Rijs such as Kufar and Shirk never came any where near Hazrath Ali [as] but the Shaikhain and others accepted Islam in their early to mid 40s. What were they before that and what they ripend with we all know. Just discussing things and all due respect to all companions of the Prophet [pbuh] from the bottom of my heart and I mean it!

I think I'll take a leave now; tired! Wassalam brothers.


You talk about rebellion as though it is a just way forward and a genuine excuse. If you rebel against the authority, then there is a problem with that authority, so criticise the authority not the rebels, but if you don't rebel then there is no issue with that authority, therefore the authority is established. Ever heard of patience and tolerance in the name of the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims??? This is the policy and nature that the Ahlul Baith developed with Khulafaa-e-Salaasa due to the infancy of Islam and the hidden enemies of Allah and his Messenger under the curtain of Islam during the taking of Mecca [Fatah-e-Macca]. The Ahlul Baith didn't rebel against any Khalifaa due to this policy and nature because it wasn't in the welfare of Islam and it was no benefit to the Muslims.

Edited by Ameen, 19 August 2012 - 06:15 PM.


#43 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:43 AM

@ Ameen

I'm not used to writing lengthy paragraphs for no reason. I believe in precision and write to the point.

First of everything, according to Ahl-as-Sunnah, the best of the companions after Muhammad sallahu alayhe wasallam is Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra, whether you like it or not. It's an accepted fact and there's consensus among Ummah regarding this.

After Saiyidina Abu Bakr comes Saiyidina Umar and then Saiyidina Uthman regarding status. So you can't argue on making Saiyidina Ali above all the sahabah.

Saiydina Ali ra is not the only person who's considered to be from the 'Extension of Ahl-al-Bayt' as per hadith. Other men are also from Ahl-al-Bayt. Ahl-al-Bayt are basically wives of a man as Quran calls only wives Ahl-al-Bayt at all three places.

Saiyidina Ali is the cousin of the Prophet, not the son. There are other cousins as well. He's also a son in law of the Prophet, but he's not the only son in law.

He has his own status that ummah believes in. Here Ummah means Ahl-as-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

Number 2: The case of munkireen-e-zakaat (rejectors of zakat) is clear without any ambiguity. Now if shias have a different story, we don't care. Simple!

Number 3: There was rebellion against Saiyidina Uthman's khilafah but he didn't kill a single person of the rebels. Now check what Saiyidina Ali did to the rebels of his khilafah???

Number 4: If rebellion makes Saiyidina Uthman wrong, then rebellion makes Saiyidina Ali wrong too.

Number 5: If Shaikhain wanted to make money out of zakat collected, then that's also a shia story. We don't care for that. We don't believe any such absurd claims. Why? Read number 6.

Number 6: Shaikhain did not start monarchy by appointing their sons to be the crown prince or the next khalifah. But what you see in the family of Saiyidina Ali is otherwise. The so called Imamah or khilafah is supposed to pass down from father to the son and so on. According to shia belief, Imam Ali appoints his son Imam Hasan to be the next imam and khalifah, right? Now if I reverse your allegation towards the family of Imam Ali, can you handle that? If Abu Bakr wanted money he would make his son the next khalifah, or Umar wanted money, he would make Ibn Umar the next khalifah, so that money would remain in his family. But these great personalities of Islam didn't do so.

Number 7: If I proved, that Hadrat Muawiyah gave stipends in a big amount to Hadrat Hasan and Hadrat Husain, would you be able to handle that?

Number 8: My point here is, I usually be very cruel when being critical about a matter. But in case of Saiyidina Ali ra and his family I try my best to be polite and respectful. The reason is Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu is our master, like other sahabah are our masters. If it was some other personality, I would be much more bold and cruel.

Embracing Islam by Abu Bakr and Ali

As mentioned above, Ali ra was a child of around 10 years when Muhammad Mustafa sallAllahu alayhe wasallam was apointed as Messenger of Allah. Abu Bakr ra was of the same age group as of the Prophet s.a.w.

Ali ra was dependent upon the Prophet for food and shelter. So if the guardian of the house asks a 'dependent boy' to accept Islam, what else a person may expect from the boy?

But if you talk about Abu Bakr ra, he was not dependent on the Prophet. He was a mature man, and not bound to embrace Islam because those days leaving your faith and embracing Islam was a total risk. If a person embraced Islam, they were ready to face the consequences at the hands of Kuffar of Makkah.

Now Abu Bakr worshipped idols before Islam or not, it's not important. There are people who are born on Islam but die on kufr, so?

If you see a particular inclination in my writings towards the khulafa-e-thalathah as compared to Saiyidina Ali ra, then the reason is you. I'm here defending them because you're attacking them. And what you see from me against your first imam is my arguments that I'm using to prove you wrong.

To me, all sahabah are respectable and honourable, whether it's Abu Bakr and Umar or Ali.

Another Reason why Imam Ali is not Infallible

Because he gets killed by Ibn Maljam. He has the fault to be overpowered by a khariji.

#44 wayfarer.

wayfarer.

    ashraful makhluqat

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,656 posts
  • Location:Dunya e faani
  • Religion:submission to His will

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:13 AM

Another Reason why Imam Ali is not Infallible

Because he gets killed by Ibn Maljam. He has the fault to be overpowered by a khariji.



what medications are you on?

Edited by wayfarer., 20 August 2012 - 09:14 AM.

  • Rasul likes this

#45 Rasul

Rasul

    Defender of Shiism

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,386 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Religion:Shia Islam - Ithna Ashari
  • Interests:Ahl al-Bayt (as)

Posted 20 August 2012 - 12:09 PM

lol
  • wayfarer. likes this

#46 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:52 PM

How come a person be Infallible who is not able to protect himself from the attack of a Khariji?

#47 wayfarer.

wayfarer.

    ashraful makhluqat

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,656 posts
  • Location:Dunya e faani
  • Religion:submission to His will

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:25 PM

sonador, perhaps you're confusing the word ma'soom / ismah which is translated as "infallible" with some other word. The closest english translation of it is "sinlessness" which means, not sinning despite having the ability to do so, with Allah's protection

http://www.answering...te/en/index.php

^ pls read the above link for more information.

#48 Sonador

Sonador

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 825 posts
  • Religion:Islam

Posted 20 August 2012 - 05:26 PM

^ Alright then shia imams can't commit any sins, but they may make mistakes or blunders, because they are not infallible, they are only sinless!

Now shall we start counting the mistakes and blunders of the sinless imams?

#49 Ugly Jinn

Ugly Jinn

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,379 posts

Posted 20 August 2012 - 10:38 PM

If God wanted believers to refer to divine Imams, He would have clearly said so like, "And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah, Messenger and the Imams...", but God clearly stated to refer to 2 entities, not 3, and Imam is not one of them.

People are 'interpreting' the Quran and adding things when God clearly didn't say it Himself.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 20 August 2012 - 10:39 PM.


#50 dagger_in_the_back

dagger_in_the_back

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 93 posts
  • Religion:Islam (Sunni)
  • Interests:Religion

Posted 21 August 2012 - 02:22 AM

this verse is ambigious , not specific about Ahlul bayth of Hazrat Ali ra, Ulil Amr of this can be applied to anyone,
Anyhow the verse says if you dispute , you should refer it to Allah(Quraan) and His Messenger(Sunnah). so Infallible Authority is Quraan and sunnah. not ulil Amr



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users