Jump to content


- - - -


Photo
- - - - -

Unveiling Answering-Ansar.org


11 replies to this topic

#1 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:54 AM

The marriage of Hazrat Umar to Umm khulthum (daughter of Hazrat Ali)

Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem.

This is a refutation of some points raised in an article posted in AA.org site titled: “Nikah of Lady Umme Kulthum[as]”. This article was written in refutation to brother Abu Muhammad al-Afriqi’s article regarding the same topic. I will start by quoting parts of the original article’s introduction which would set the background behind this debate:

“A major part of the edifice upon which Shi‘ism has constructed itself is its idiosyncratic portrayal of the early history of Islam. It is especially in its representation of the relationships that existed between ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib t and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr t and Umar t that Shi‘ism has acquired a character of its own.

Shi‘i historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of history would inevitably involve the invention of events, or versions of actual events, that would be at variance with standard sources. They seem to have been considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their version of history would override, and indeed obviate the need for a critical comparison of their narratives with those of other historians of repute. Their confidence appears to have been well founded, for a milennium has passed and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically emotional and sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically scrutinised in a spirit of emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides itself on the advancement of research methodology and techniques, the anomaly of a methodology that has emotive appeal as its central component stands out like a very sore thumb.

It is this spirit—of emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarship—that Shi‘i propagandists up to this very day insist on "revealing" to their Sunni audiences the "truth" about the "persecution" suffered by the Ahl al-Bayt y at the hands of the Sahabah y . They can often be found launching into their particular misrepresentations of history, with no respect for standards of historic authenticity, and even less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact bringing disgrace upon the Family of Rasulullah r . Their audiences too, are just as often completely captivated by these "revelations". The last thing on the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions the writer or speaker makes himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of history.”

He also said:

“Another fact of history which clashes with the alleged persecution of ‘Ali and Fatimah by the Sahabah is the marriage of Umm Kulthum, the daughter of ‘Ali and Fatimah, to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. This marriage, in which ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib gave this daughter borne to him by Fatimah, in marriage to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab—the very same man whom the Shi‘ah allege caused the death of Fatimah—assails the foundations of Shi‘ism in a way that few issues can. It threw the house of Shi‘ism into violent disorder, and the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah, reeling under its impact, found themselves lunging at just about any twig in sight. This paper looks at the various Shi‘i responses to the marriage of Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, and demonstrates the embarrasment in the Shi‘i camp to which this contradictory cacophony of responses eloquently testifies.”

And now to AA.org opening statement:


(AA.org States:)
“In this article we have sought to refute Ansar.org's claim that Umar al Faruq was the son in law of Imam 'Ali (as). Afriki's article is not a new piece of research scholarship against the Shi'a. Countless adherents of Mu'awiya have echoed these words and cited the same 'proofs', from al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, through to countless Ulema of Sippa-e-Sahaba - all have tried and spectacularly failed, and all will appear before Rasulullah (s) on the Day of Judgement in ignominy and abject humiliation”


If any person who believed that Umm Kulthoom (ra) was married to Umar (ra) will “appear before Rasulullah (s) on the Day of Judgement in ignominy and abject humiliation”, then can we say the same about Imam Baqer and his son Jafar who stated this fact according to the following narrations?


-Imam Jafar said:

"When Umar died, Ali came over to Umme-Kulthum, held her by the hand and took her home"

Al Fur'u min al-Kafi @ Kitab-ut-Talaq, Chapter Al-Mutwaffi anha Zaujuha, Vol 6, P.115-116

-Imam Baqer said :

"Ali's daughter Umme-Kulthum and her son Zaid bin Umar bin al-Khattab, died at the same time. No one knew who died first. Therefore none of them was made the inheritor of the other, and their funeral prayers were offerred simultaneously"

Tadhib-ul-Ahkam @ Kitab-ul-Mirath, Chapter Mirath-ul-Furqi wa Mehdum, Vol 9, P.262


The crew of AA.org have resorted to every possible way to reject these explicit narrations that do not suite their appeals, and have come up with judgments that go against what their renowned scholars of Rijal declared.

AA.org have criticized the first narration because of the narration of Hisham Ibn Salim. They said:


QUOTE(AA.org States:)
We have already proven in Reply one that from the Shi'a texts of Rijjal that Hisham bin Salim who had a "al fasad aqeedah and believed that you physically see Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì" (Rijjal Kashi page 184). A narration by a man with views that diametrically oppose Shi'a aqeedah means that they are to be rejected.



It is interesting to know that in Rijjal Al-Kashi, there no such narration that Hisham believed that “you physically see Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì". The first and second narrations under his biography are about Imamate, the third

Al-Khoei, in Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith Vol 20 p. 325, said with regards to Hisham Ibn Salim Al-Jawaliqi: “In his Adadiya treatise, Shiekh Mufid counted him amongst the prominent figures, the leaders, those from whom (judgments concerning) Halal and Haram are taken, as well as Fatwa and Rulings, those who can not be criticized for anything, and those to which there is no way of condemnation.”


QUOTE(AA.org States:)
The text claims that Sulayman is universally acclaimed as "thiqah" (reliable). - but by whom? No elaboration is given as to WHICH Shi'a scholars graded him as thiqah. The reality is Sulayman ibn Khalid was an adherent of the Zaydiyya Madhab. In our Shi'a authority source 'Tanqeeyh al Maqaal Volume 1 page 57' with regards to Sulayman bin Khalid we learn that:

"Najashi and Tusi did not deem him to be reliable. Ibn Daud deemed him to be Daeef (weak)".


Al-Khoei refutes such claims of his weakness and established that he is reliable “thiqah”. He says in Vol 9 p. 261: “ The reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid should not be doubted, because of what you have known from the testimony of Ayoub Ibn Nuh and the testimony of Shiekh Mufid regarding his reliability. This is also supported by what Al-Najashi mentioned that he was a Faqih and an authority . Even if this does not prove that he is Thiqqa, it surely proves that he is Hassan, for it is apparent that he meant that he was an authority in narration and since he is a narrator, he depended upon him in narration.

Thus, it is apparent that there is no reason for Ibn Dawuud to include him in his book amongst the second section , the section of weak narrators. Nor is there a reason for (what is mentioned) in Al-Madarik regarding the issue of making the person about to die face the Qibla of the claim that the reliability of Sulayman Ibn Khalid is not established. As for what Al-Kashi narrated ….” And then he related a tradition by which Imam Jafar is claimed to have said about Sulayman and others: “ I am not an Imam of theirs, do they not know that the one they follow will kill Al-Sufyani”. Al-Khoei commented: “ If the deduction is considered correct as to condemning Sulayman Ibn Khalid, then it is weak because of Abdul Rahman Ibn Abi Al-Dulaym, and that his reliability is not established.”

Al-Khoei also refuted the claim that he was Zaidi. He said: “Even though Sulayman Ibn Khalid joined Zayd (‘s revolution), this does not prove that he was Zaydi and there is no proof for it. Rather the last narration of Al-Kashi proves that he was an Imami who extremely preferred Imam Sadiq over Zayd. As for what is apparent from Al-Barqi’s statement, then it only shows that he committed something that is not lawful, and Allah –tala- shed his bounties on him and he repented. He might mean by the matter, revolting without the permission of the Imam.”

He also mentioned earlier on from the Book of Saad: “He revolted with Zayd and then escaped. By Allah’s bounty he repented and returned after that.”

CONCLUSION: The pathetic attempt by AA.org to reject this authentic narration, according to their standards, has been refuted by Al-Khoei. This narration by itself is sufficient proof to the truth that Ali (ra) married his daughter to his brother in Islam Umar (ra). The children of Abdulla Ibn Saba’ may want to wail and bang themselves against the wall in Ashura because of it if they wish, but this will not change the reality.

And now to their attempt at the isnad of the second narration:

Al-Khoei related the narration by which Hisham has been criticized in Rijjal Al-Kashi and commented: “I say, this narration proves that Hisham Ibn Salim was condemned, however, because of its weakness it cannot be depended upon. A similar thing has been reported about Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam”.

They have also criticized the first narration because of Sulayman Ibn Khalid. They said:


QUOTE(AA.org States:)
Not only does the Tadheeb tradition contradict history, namely that that Umme Kalthum had died and then somehow appeared in later history to marry again (two men that died before her) its chain is also weak. One narrator is Saeed Ibn Salma who according to Rijjal al Makoofi was an unknown narrator (Volume 1 page 68 and Volume 2 page 27).



The narrator is identified in Al-Khoie’s Mujam Rijal Al-Hadith as one of the companions of Imam Jafar, as stated by Al-Tusi. And as is well known in Usool, the one knowing a matter is given precedence over the one who is ignorant of the matter, which is sometimes states as the one affirming is given precedence over the one negating.

CONCLUSION: Another authentic narration, according to Shia standards, proving that Umm Kulthoom bint Ali (ra) was married to Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (ra).

I will now move on to the alleged contradiction of history. The first alleged contradiction is between the report that Umm Kulthoom’s (ra) funeral was attended by her two brothers Al-Hassan and Al-Hussein and between the report that she was with her brother Al-Hussein (ra) in Kerbala.


QUOTE(AA.org States:)
We are citing Ahl'ul Sunnah's authority work Akbar al Taweel page 228 "Dhikr Khurooj al Husayn":

"When night fell Husayn left Madina, accompanied by his two sisters Zeyneb and Umme Kalthum".

The is a complete consensus amongst the Shi'a Ulema that UMME KALTHUM binte Fatima (as) was present at the tragedy of Kerbala, and we have cited an Ahl'ul Sunnah work to prove this.


Out of their hastiness to reject their Imam’s narration, AA.org failed to realize that this is not Umm Kulthoum Bint Ali which was married to Umar (r.a.a). Umm Kulthoum Bint Ali which was married to Umar (r.a.a) was the daughter of Fatimah (r.a.a) , while this Umm Kulthoum Bint Ali is the daughter of Umm Saad Bint Urwa Ibn Masud Al-Thaqafiyya. She is referred to as the Umm Kulthoum Al-Sughra (junior) to distinguish her from her sister who was referred to as Umm Kulthoum Al-Kubra (senior).

Shia references:

[1] Murooj Al-Dhahab by Al-Masudi
[2] Al-Irshad by Shiekh Al-Mufid , Vol 1 p. 681
[3] Ayan Al-Shia p.623


Another game that AA.org play in an attempt to rewrite history for their audience is the claim that Umar –ra- had numerous wives called Umm Kulthom, hence we have to accept their assertion that this created a confusion amongst those who reported that Umar (r.a) married Umm Kulthom Bint Ali (r.a).


QUOTE(AA.org States)
History establishes that Umar had several wives called Umme Kalthum:

1. Umme Kalthum Jameela binte Asim bin Thabit - the mother of Asim bin Umar.
(Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 251).

2. Umme Kalthum binte Jarweela Khuzeema - Her actual name was Maleeka. She was the mother of Zaid bin Umar. (Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 22).

3. Umme Kalthum binte Ukba bin Abi Mayyath - Zuhri narrates that during the period of jahiliyya she was the wife of Amr bin Aas. She left him and embraced Islam. Her relatives approached Rasulullah (s) and asked that she be returned. Rasulullah (s) replied 'Any woman that embraces Islam cannot be returned, Amr bin Aas was a kaffir at the time, she was not returned and Umar married her.
(Sharh Bukhari, by Qasthalani Volume 4 page 349).

4. Umme Kalthum binte Rahab. (Sunan Abu Daud and Ibn Majah)

5. Umme Kalthum binte Abu Bakr - Born to Asma binte Umais. She was also the mother of Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. (Alam al Nisa Volume 4 page 250). She was born in 12 Hijri, after the death of Abu Bakr (Tabari Volume 2 page 50; Tareekh Kamil Volume 2 page 161; Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 267; al Isaba page 286) Asma married Imam 'Ali (as) and the young Umme Kalthum joined her mother in the house of Imam 'Ali (as).

Sunni research scholar Malik Daulath Abadi in "Hidayaath al Saud" page 359 states:

"Asma binte Amees was initially the wife of Ja'far bin Tayyar then she married Abu Bakr from this relationship two children were born a boy and a girl called Umme Kalthum. After that she married Hadhrath 'Ali and Umme Kalthum came into his house. This is the Umme Kalthum that Umar married?she died at a young age, whilst residing in the house of Umar. She left no children".


Lets examine the alleged "facts"

[1] Umme Kulthum Jameela binte Asim bin Thabit: That the kunya of Jameela is Umm Kulthum can only be found in relatively late Islamic works such as Tareekh Al-Khamees. Such kunya was not mentioned by early scholars who preceded the author of Tareekh Al-Khamees by centuries , such as: Musab Ibn Saad (d. 230 A.H) , Al-Zubairi (d. 233 A.H), Ibn Shabba (d. 262 A.H), Al-Balathiri (d. 279 A.H), Ibn Qutaiba (d. 253) , Al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H), Ibn Hazm (d. 456 A.H), Ibn Al-Jawzi (d. 597), Al-Barri (d. 645 A.H). In fact Ibn Abd Al-Bar (d. 463 A.H) and Ibn Al-Atheer (d. 630 A.H) specify her kunya as Umm Asim. It appears that this a confusion between the mother of Asim and the mother of Ubaidillah who was called Umm Kulthum, which is the next wife.

[2] Umme Kalthum binte Jarweela Khuzeema: This is true. She is reported to be the mother of Ubaidillah and Zaid (junior). And she is the only wife of Umar (r.a), besides Umm Kulthum Bint Ali (r.a) to have the name of Umm Kulthum.

[3] Umm Kulthum Bint Uqba: She is the one whom Surat Mumtahanah in the Quran addresses. As soon as she emigrated from Mecca to Medina she was married to Zayd Ibn Haritha (r.a.a) in the Prophet's [s.a.w.w] lifetime and divorced also in the Prophet's [s.a.w.w] lifetime. Then she was married to Al-Zubair (r.a.a) also in the Prophet's [s.a.w.w] lifetime and divorced from him also in his lifetime. Then the Prophet [s.a.w.w] recommended to her to accept Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf (r.a.a) whom she was married and later became his widow. And then she was married to Amr Ibn Al-As for month and then she died. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab could not possibly have married her because she was married to Abdul Rahman Ibn Awf who outlived him by almost ten years!!!!

[4] Umme Kalthum binte Rahab: Does not exist. The only wife of Umar (r.a) called Umm Kulthum that is mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawuud is Umm Kulthum Bint Ali (r.a):

Book 20, Number 3187:

Yahya ibn Subayh said: Ammar client of al-Harith ibn Nawfal told me that he attended the funeral of Umm Kulthum, and her son. The body of the boy was placed near the imam. I objected to it. Among the people there were Ibn Abbas, AbuSa'id al-Khudri, AbuQatadah and AbuHurayrah. They said: This is the sunnah (established practice of the Prophet).

[5] Umm Kulthoum Bint Abu Bakr: Umar (r.a.a) proposed to marry her before Umm Kulthoum Bint Ali (r.a.a) but she refused. Saad Ibn Waqas (r.a.a) recommended Umm Kulthoum Bint Ali (r.a.a) to him instead. And she got married to Talha (r.a.a) and gave birth to his daughter Aisha. As for Umm Kulthum being raised in the house of Ali (r.a), then this is an unfounded claim. Umm Kulthoum Bint Abu Bakr was the daughter of Habiba Bint Kharija Ibn Zayd and NOT Asma Bint Umays. Umm Kulthoum Bint Abu Bakr was NOT raised in Ali (r.a.a)'s house because she was NOT the daughter of his wife! [Reference: Usd Al-Ghabah 6/383]


Ibn Al-Atheer also referred to the following hadith from Muwatta:

Book 36, Number 36.33.40:

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Abu Bakr as-Siddiq gave me palm trees whose produce was twenty awsuq from his property at al-Ghaba. When he was dying, he said, 'By Allah, little daughter, there is no one I would prefer to be wealthy after I die than you. There is no one it is more difficult for me to see poor after I die than you. I gave you palm-trees whose produce is twenty awsuq. Had you cut them and taken possession of them, they would have been yours, but today they are the property of the heirs, and they are your two brothers and your two sisters, so divide it according to the Book of Allah.' A'isha continued, "I said, 'My father! By Allah, even if it had been more, I would have left it. There is only Asma. Who is my other sister?" Abu Bakr replied, 'What is in the womb of the daughter of Kharija? I think that it is going to be a girl.' "


It seems that AA.org have committed the same crime they have accused brother Al-Afriki of: "fraudulent research".

Finally, under the title of Ahl'ul Sunnah's disrespect of the family of Imam 'Ali (as), report narrations whereby Umar (r.a) is said to have "touched the girl's calf" after she reported to him that her father accepted his proposal. It is needless to say that this is a baseless narration. All the books which report this incident, either do not provide a chain of narration at all, or give a chain that stops at Al-Zubair Ibn Bakar who died 256 A.H, and did not meet any of the companions nor those who followed them (tabeen). Thus it would a waste of time to even discuss the contents of such narrations.

To conclude, we have come to see that AA.org cheap tricks have fallen short of changing history, rather they have only revealed to their audience their vile hatred towards the companions of the Prophet [s.a.w.w], and that they are willing to reject the established sayings of their Imams to maintain their distorted view of history; that is that the companions of the Prophet [s.a.w.w] and Ahlul Bayt were perpetual enemies.

Keeping their wishful thinking aside, textual evidence from both Shia and Sunni sources prove that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (r.a) married his daughter to his brother in Islam Umar (r.a), and not only that but that he also loved him , respected him and spoke good about him.

#2 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:58 AM

This marriage proves your falsehood about Umar (ra), as he married the Daughter of Ali (ra).

#3 Socrates

Socrates

    Islam is Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (as)

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,771 posts
  • Location:Iraq
  • Religion:Shi'a Imamiyyah
  • Interests:Tawalla and Tabarra

Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:59 AM

This marriage proves your falsehood about Umar (ra), as he married the Daughter of Ali (ra).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Umar attempting to burn down the door of Fatimah is recorded in Tabari.

Oh wait - you will just say that Tabari is Shia. :lol:

#4 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 08:07 AM

Lol look at ur pathetic knowledge of sunni sources.

Imam At-Tabari compiles as he himself says weak and fabricated things along with the good, so that scholars after him could authentecice the true from the weak and fabricated.

Go and learn more before speaking about our sources.

#5 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 08:08 AM

did u even read the post? The refutation goes into ilmul rijaal, and exposes answering ansar in every aspect. May Allah guide u.

#6 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 09:20 AM

still no replies to the article (read whole article if u are searching for truth, and then answer).

#7 Theocratic

Theocratic

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • Pip
  • 134 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 10:42 AM

(salam) hehehehe How many times this thing is to be discussed Just double click this i am waiting for your reply there.

http://www.shiachat....pic=70005&st=25

#8 Aghamalang

Aghamalang

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPip
  • 591 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 12:12 PM

Funny thing is AA dont just attack the chain they offer dozens of replies to the narrations, including the fact that our Imams prohibited marrying daughters to alcoholics, [Edited Out]s, people with bad manners and those that suffered from a partcularly anal ailment...and we know who fell into this criteria dont we.....

Then we have the mutiple contradictions from your Nasabi Ulema on her death, her children when they died, and not forgetting the fact that Umar was himself impotent as Khaleefa

Why not address all the points in the article, and the funny thing is you have rejected the narration that suggests that Umar was a paedoophile for fondling the girl BECAUSE the narrator wasnt born during the lifetime of the Prophet (s) then by this token why has he in the same article narrated Hadeeth that stop at Imam Baqir (as) after all he wasnt norn during the lifetime of the Prophet (s) either!!! Yet he presents it as fact when citing the narration from Tabaqat ibn Sad

You can bark all you like, but even your Hanafi Ulema like Muft Ghulam Rasool have written at length on thid matter and concluded that the marriage never took place

#9 akidulhassanali

akidulhassanali

    Member

  • Banned
  • 106 posts

Posted 15 January 2006 - 05:03 PM

Sources were used from ur books like 'sahih' al-kafi, which AA so badly tried to say were not authentic, and yet they got flawed, just read the whole article top to bottom, and see for urself.

#10 rahat

rahat

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,964 posts
  • Location:Shiaville

Posted 16 January 2006 - 02:28 AM

Who, exactly, insisted that Al Kafi was "Saheeh"?

Such a claim was not even made by its author, Shaikh Kulayni.

Furthermore, your counterclaims are a bit lacking. You only insist, without providing any evidence or logic, that the opposite is true, for each and every hadith.

Regardless, I do not have any idea of whether Imam Ali's daughter was married to Umar or not... but there are dozens more articles on Answering Ansar, such as the 100 questions. Here's a sampling, refute them or answer them, I'd just like to see a response:

1. It is an established fact that all things are recognised by their name, even Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl' ul Sunnah or Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur'an wherein any of these names have been indicated.

2. If these titles cannot be located in the Qur'an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such 'mutawatir' 'marfuu' or 'saheeh' narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl'ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.

3. If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.

4. What were you famously known as before adopting these names?

5. Why have you forsaken your previous title?

6. According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid'a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid'a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid'a?

7. Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl'ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?

8. Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?

9. Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?

10. Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?

-
rahat

Edited by rahat, 16 January 2006 - 02:43 AM.


#11 Socrates

Socrates

    Islam is Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (as)

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,771 posts
  • Location:Iraq
  • Religion:Shi'a Imamiyyah
  • Interests:Tawalla and Tabarra

Posted 21 January 2006 - 08:07 AM

Lol look at ur pathetic knowledge of sunni sources.

Imam At-Tabari compiles as he himself says weak and fabricated things along with the good, so that scholars after him could authentecice the true from the weak and fabricated.

Go and learn more before speaking about our sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anything agianst your beloved sahaba is fabricated right? :lol:

You pathetic losers.

#12 haideriam

haideriam

    Ya Qaim Ali Muhammad(AS) Adrikni

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Religion:Islam - Muhhib

Posted 21 January 2006 - 08:36 AM

[

“A major part of the edifice upon which Shi‘ism has constructed itself is its idiosyncratic portrayal of the early history of Islam. It is especially in its representation of the relationships that existed between ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib t and the eminent Sahabah like Abu Bakr t and Umar t that Shi‘ism has acquired a character of its own.

Shi‘i historians seemed little troubled by the fact that their own reconstruction of history would inevitably involve the invention of events, or versions of actual events, that would be at variance with standard sources. They seem to have been considerably confident that the emotional appeal of their version of history would override, and indeed obviate the need for a critical comparison of their narratives with those of other historians of repute. Their confidence appears to have been well founded, for a milennium has passed and still there is evidence in abundance of an emphatically emotional and sentimental approach to issues whose historicity needed to have been critically scrutinised in a spirit of emotional detachment. In this belated century that prides itself on the advancement of research methodology and techniques, the anomaly of a methodology that has emotive appeal as its central component stands out like a very sore thumb.

It is this spirit—of emotional prejudice overriding objective scholarship—that Shi‘i propagandists up to this very day insist on "revealing" to their Sunni audiences the "truth" about the "persecution" suffered by the Ahl al-Bayt y at the hands of the Sahabah y . They can often be found launching into their particular misrepresentations of history, with no respect for standards of historic authenticity, and even less in awe of the way in which they are in actual fact bringing disgrace upon the Family of Rasulullah r . Their audiences too, are just as often completely captivated by these "revelations". The last thing on the mind of both propagandist and audience is the grievous contradictions the writer or speaker makes himself guilty of in his emotionally laden corruption of history.”


CAN ANY NASIBI DENY KARBALA IN HISTORY, OR IS THIS MADE UP BY SHIAS TOO. THAT IS WHY KARBALA IS SO IMPORTANT FOR IT EXPOSES THE LIES OF THE NASIBIS THAT IT WAS NOT HUNKY DORY AS THEY WANT TO PORTRAY IT.


To conclude, we have come to see that AA.org cheap tricks have fallen short of changing history, rather they have only revealed to their audience their vile hatred towards the companions of the Prophet [s.a.w.w], and that they are willing to reject the established sayings of their Imams to maintain their distorted view of history; that is that the companions of the Prophet [s.a.w.w] and Ahlul Bayt were perpetual enemies.

Keeping their wishful thinking aside, textual evidence from both Shia and Sunni sources prove that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (r.a) married his daughter to his brother in Islam Umar (r.a), and not only that but that he also loved him , respected him and spoke good about him.

THE NASIBIS WILL NEVER REALLY UNDERSTAND OR TRY TO UNDERSTAND, FOR ALL THEY TRY AND DO IS MAKE UP HISTORY AS THEY GO ALONG AND THEIR PERVERTED REASONING. FOR SOME THERE IS NO GUIDANCE AND THE QURAN TESTIFIES TO IT...SUMMUN BUKMUN UMYUN FA HUM LA YARJAOON

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Edited by haideriam, 21 January 2006 - 09:30 AM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users