Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

fzilla

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fzilla

  1. its funny seeing the reactions of the shias as soon as they read the name omar....without even realizing who they are talking about.
  2. im no scholar, nor am i shia but for us, sunnis, the importance of the ahlulbayt is not forgotten. its a diff view completely as to how to remember them and respect them between sunnis and shia. so i guess u can easily answer this and say they were ignorant of the shia view of ahlulbayt....but even then i wouldnt say ignorant but rather knew the shia view but didnt agree with it.
  3. what is the point of discussing this list? us sunnis will believe in this hadith because it has a list of ppl we love and respect. shias wont for thier own obvious reasons.
  4. umm so to show u love the family of the Prophet u have to do what? now us sunnis have to prove to u that we love them? im sorry but thats bs. the only love ur talking about is hating others to show ur love. i, nor any sunni, needs to show how much we love the Prophet(pbuh) and or his family. thats real fresh coming from a shia perspective.
  5. omg ur right....what was i thinking...my islam is completely diff. nevermind i still pray 5 times, believe in Allah and his Messanger, fasting, hajj, and zakat. nope my religion is changed cause the talaq rule is changed and we have taraweeh.
  6. i have a shia friend who wouldnt pray with us cause apparently he was afraid we would make fun of him or hate if we saw he was shia. thing is we didnt know he was shia cause he never prayed with us...if anything we thought it was weird how he would never pray. unlike what most ppl have u believe....no one is going to bite u or care. now this shia friend of mine goes to jummah with me to our mosque and prayes his way along with 200+ ppl and no one cares. dont be afraid of anything..if anything they might be caught of guard but its not they are going to be like "omg ur shia..get out". those ppl are the minority.
  7. this is a bunch of bs. i will try to avoid from such topics cause of ramadan and esp since they degenerate into name calling and other stupid stuff but im sunni and taraweeh has never been farz on me from any angle...fam or religious upbringing. and even the fam memebers who go to pray this...have never ever mentioned Hazrat Omar or how we do this because of our love for him. lol thats just bs...we do this solely for Allah...the only time Hazrat Omars name comes up is when ppl describe how it started and such....u will never hear a sunni person going "oh yeah lets pray taraweeh to show how much we love Hazrat Omar"....sunnis dont do any acts to show much they love the sahaba....only to show our love for the Prophet (pbuh) and Allah. and thats not denying who we respect....ask any sunni and the love of Hazrat Omar is in them. lol ive never heard that we do taraweeh to show we love Hazrat Omar...that sad and funny at the same time. Do we make out niyat for him as well now as well?
  8. of course parents effect things but not so much to the point that people think that if a and b get together then thier offspring, c, will turn out to be a certain way. there is no certainty with that. as for my person opinion of couese shia and sunni can marry, two of my cousins married shia. the only problem or obstacle is the kids and what religion they are to be raised. i dont know what my cousins will do as they dont have kids yet but if i was in a situatin like that i for one would teach the basics of islam to my kids, and leave history till they are of the age they can think for themselves and examine it themselves and then decide. also as far as the spouse, since im a sunni male, i would and could not in anyway shape or form tolerate my wife cursing the people i uphold so i guess that would be something that would need to be cleared up.
  9. u still didnt answer the question put forth. if immate is as important to shias as they claim, a pillar of ur faith, then why isnt it mentioned in clear text in the quran as is prayer, fasting, and zakat? re read the article cause ur arguing something else. based on ur logic of following history of other Prophets (peace be on all of them) we must also hold out that we are to recieve another Prophet since they all followed each other. but no we are discussing our Prophet (pbuh) and what his/our book tells us to do. not what our book talks about other Prophets so we infer on our own. i guess this counts as a "bump" as well.
  10. completely off topic but i do love how well these forums are moderated...all the shia are allowed to hurl insults, jokes, and call sunnis and figures they respect anything under the sun yet when one is provoked and resonses back in anger she is accused of learning things from other ppl. look at the posts directly abover KP's posts and tell me if any of them are out of line. but then again what does it matter....its the norm here.
  11. so umm did anyone read the article and have actual comments on it or no?
  12. u know as a sunni i dont know if that sits well with me. b4 i met and made some shia friends i didnt know squat about the differences and the people u dont respect compared to who we do, and u know what i rather know. i rather know what ur beliefs are. i rather who u hate or dont like. u want ppl to convert to shiism then u might as well tell them all of it and not sugarcoat it.
  13. lol i love this logic. since we dont agree on the issue of immate and u follow the prophets family as imams, that means we must follow the companions? there is a difference between respect and following. if this is a joke post im really sorry but that was on of the dumbest posts ive seen here.
  14. ignoring ur blatant disrespect: Both Rasulullah Sallalaahu Alyhi wa Sallam and Ali Radhi Allaahu Ta'ala anh testified to the Eemaan of Muawiyah [EDIT], قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم للحسن بن علي رضي الله عنهما: ابني هذا سيد، ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين عظيمتين من المسلمين صحيح البخاري Rasoolullah Sallalaahu alyhi wa Sallam said about Hasan Radhi Allaahu Ta'ala 'anh: "This son of mine is a sayyid, and soon the time will come when through him Allah will reconcile *two great masses of Muslims*." (Sahih Bukhari Bab Manaqib Hasan Narrated by Abu Bakrah Radhi Allaahu Ta'ala 'anh) Later this was proven true when Hasan Radhi Allaahu Ta'ala 'anh gave bayah to Muawiyah [EDIT] Rasoolullah Sallalaahu alyhi wa Sallam said about him: "O’ Allah, make him guided, a guider, and guide people through him." [sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Book of Virtues, Chapter of Virtues of Mu’awiyah,"] Regarding the first Naval jihaad Rasoolullah Sallalaahu alyhi wa Sallam said "..Jannah is Waajib for them..." This Jihaad was led by Muawiyah [EDIT] Ali Radhi Allaahu 'anhu also confirmed that he and Muawiyah [EDIT] were on the same deen this is proven even from the Shia sources. Al-Shareef Al-Ridi narrated in Nahjul Balagha a speech delivered by Ali where Ali Radhi Allaahu 'anhu says: "In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder." [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648] In Sunan Bayhiqi it is narrated that on the eve of the war of Jamal, Ali Radhi Allaahu ta'ala 'anh was asked about the opponents: "Are they Mushrikeen?" He replied: "They have run from shirk and come into Islaam" Then he was asked "Are they Munafiqeen?" He replied "Munafiqeen are those who don't remember Allah, except a little (while the opponents do a lot of Zikr)" Then he was asked "Then what are they?" He replied:"They are our brothers who have rebelled from us" [sunun Bayhiqi - Dairat ul Ma'arif edition page 173 vol 8] And on return from Siffeen he said "Don't underrate the Emarah of Muawiyah either, when he will not remain you will see heads flying from the necks" [sharah Aqeedat ul Waasitiyah page 458] And Muawiyah [EDIT] said: "Ali is better and more virtuous than me and I differ from him only in the matter of qisaas of Uthmaan (Radhi Allaahu Ta'ala 'anh) and if he takes the qisaas of the blood of uthmaan I will be the first of the people of syria to make bayah to him" [al-Bidayatu wan Nihaayah page 129,259 vol 7] So in fact eemaan and Islaam of Muawiyah [EDIT] is proven through concrete proofs, while your eemaan and Islaam are not proven through anything, so according the order of the truthful and the believed (Sallalaahu alyhi wa Sallam) who said: إذا رأيتم الذين يسبون أصحابي فقولوا‏:‏ لعنة الله على شركم‏ If you see those who criticize my companions, say to them "May the curse of Allah be on the evil of you" [MOD NOTE: NO CURSING OF MUAWIYA (LA) WARNING GIVEN]
  15. During his Maradhul Maut (last illness), on a Thursday, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked the Sahaabah who were present to bring pen and paper to enable him to write something which will save them from going astray. Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was in pain (it being his Maradhul Maut) and the Kitaab of Allah was sufficient. Difference of opinion arose among the group present. When voices were raised, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered them all to leave. On the basis of this episode, the Shiahs charge Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) with the following crimes: (1) That he prevented Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from writing out his last Testament in which he wanted to specify the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). (2) In having prevented Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Umar (according to the Shiahs) is guilty of preventing the delivery of Wahi which Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to have written. If the Ahaadith relevant to this episode are examined with a clear and unbiased mind, the falsity of the Shiah charges will be manifest. REFUTATION OF THE SHIAH CLAIMS (1) The request or order for pen and paper made by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was not made directly and exclusively to Hadhrat Umar ( radhiallahu anhu). A group of Sahaabah was present. In some narrations, the term (Bring for me) is used by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This is a plural verb directed to the group. In a narration in Musnad-e-Ahmad, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) mentions that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had ordered him (i.e. Hadhrat Ali) to bring the writing materials. Why should the charge of refusal to bring the writing materials now be leveled against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu)? He was not specifically singled out for this task. In fact, if anyone was specifically deputed to bring the writing materials, it was a Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). Why then do the Shiahs refrain from criticizing Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for having failed to comply with Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instruction? Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) himself narrates that on account of the severity of Nabi-e-Kareem’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) illness, he did not comply. He did not want to leave the presence of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) whose demise, according to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was imminent. So the Shiah charge of disobeying Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should be directed by them against Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), not against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). (2) Secondly, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had merely presented his opinion on the matter. He felt that it was unjust and an imposition of a burden on Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to have him dictate a testament in his state of extreme pain which he experienced during his Maradhul Maut. When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) presented his opinion, two groups formed. One group agreeing and the other dissenting. As a result of this difference, voices were raised, and Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered them all out. (3) If Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was guilty as the Shiahs allege, why did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) order the whole group to leave? This group included Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhuma). It is quite obvious from the tenor of the Hadith that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked them to leave because of their mutual argument, not because Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) or anyone else had prevented him from writing or having the testament written. (4) If whatever Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to write was Wahi (Divine Revelation), then it is inconceivable that anyone or anything could have prevented him from proclaiming the Wahi which is obviously part of the Qur`aan. How is it possible for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to have concealed (Nauthubillah!) the Wahi of Allah Ta`ala when throughout his life he propagated the Truth and the Qur`aan in the face of the greatest dangers, persecution, tortures and hardships? Even in the initial stages of his mission when he was all alone and weak, he never desisted from proclaiming the Wahi of Allah Ta`ala. When he and the Sahaabah were suffering brutal tortures and hardships under the Kuffaar of Makkah and when they wanted him to cease his Message, he fearlessly proclaimed: “If you put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand, I shall not desist from proclaiming the Truth.” How can people of Imaan ever accept that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had withheld revelation or vital information of the Deen merely because of an argument between the two groups of Sahaabah? How can this be imagined when the Qur`aan says: “O Rasool! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Rabb. If you do not, then you have not delivered (fulfilled) your mission.” Several months prior to Rasulullah’s demise the following Aayat was revealed: “This day have I perfected for you your Deen and I have completed for you My favour and have chosen for you Islam as (your) Deen.” When the Deen was already perfected, it is inconceivable that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)desired to write something in addition to the perfected Message of Allah Ta`ala. If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had withheld vital information of the Deen, he would come within the purview of the aforementioned verse in which it is said that ‘then you would not have delivered your Mission.’ But, it is unanimous in the Ummah and crystal clear that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had delivered every aspect of the Deen. Not an iota of Allah’s Wahi was concealed as the Shiah contention implies. Which Mu`min is prepared to believe that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had concealed any part of the Deen simply because Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had opined that there was no need for writing anything during this state of illness of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? When Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) with all his hatred for Islam during his pre-Islam days, together with the might and venom of the entire Quraish were unable to deter Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from proclaiming the Deen, how can it be intelligently accepted that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) withheld and concealed the Truth and the Deen when there was absolutely no threat from any quarter confronting him? (5) This episode transpired on Thursday. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) lived another four days after this incident. If he had vital Deeni information or Wahi to deliver, why did he not execute this task during the four days succeeding this episode? What was there to prevent him? And, if there was anything to prevent him and he succumbed to the pressure, it will lead to the kufr conclusion that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was guilty of Kitmaanul Haqq - Kitmaan-e-Deen (concealing the Truth and concealing the Deen) - Nauthubillah! Only Shiahs possess the capacity for entertaining such kufr and formulating such slander which blemish the concept of Divine Nubuwwah. During the four days after this episode, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not in the constant company of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) nor was there any impediment to prevent him from writing or proclaiming verbally what he had wished to have written on that particular day (Thursday). Then what precluded him from revealing to Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) or Hadhrat Ibn Abbaas (radhiallahu anhu) or to any other Sahaabi in the group which was in favour of the testament whatever he wanted to have written. There was sufficient time and opportunity in the four days prior to his demise for recording whatever he wanted to say. But, on the contrary, he simply left the subject. This indicates that whatever he had wanted to have written was advice in general-such naseehat which existed in the Qur`aan and Sunnah. It is precisely for this reason that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) initially said “The Kitaab of Allah is by us.” (6) If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was constrained to abstain from having his Message recorded, he could have proclaimed the Message verbally at any other time subsequent to this incident when Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) was not around. But, it is kufr, clear and conspicuous, to even imagine that Hadhrat Umar’s presence or anyone else’s presence could deter Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from proclaiming Wahi of Allah Ta`ala. (7) On the occasion of the Treaty of Hudaibiyyah, our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) instructed Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu), on the insistence of the Kuffaar, to erase the word, “Rasulullah”, from the treaty document. However, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) emphatically refused and Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) then erased the word with his own hands. But no Shiah criticizes Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) for an act which superficially appears to be disobedience. (NB. It is not our claim that Hadhrat Ali’s refusal was disobedience nor did Rasulullah -sallallahu alayhi wasallam-construe his refusal as disobedience). The point in mentioning this incident is simply to present an analogy. If the Shiahs assert, as they do, that Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) had opposed the wishes of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) , then to a greater degree should they charge Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) with disobedience because he had not only ignored a wish of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), but refused a command. (8) In the unanimous view of all the authorities of the Shariah, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is Ma`soom, i.e. he is Divinely guarded against all sin and disobedience. It is inconceivable that the soul chosen by Allah Ta`ala to deliver the Qur`aan had concealed or withheld any part of the Deen. As far as the Shariah is concerned, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had delivered it in entirety and perfection. (9) It is quite obvious that whatever Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) wanted to have recorded pertained to general advice, hence later on he did not even deem it necessary to pursue the matter. (10) Even after having cancelled his initial proposal of having the advice recorded, he instructed the Sahaabah during the very same episode to: 1) Expel the Mushrikeen from the Arabian peninsula. 2) To be hospitable to foreign delegations as was his practice. 3) Despatch the army of Usaamah. Although he ordered the Sahaabah to leave, he nevertheless, issued these last very important instructions. It is quite probable that these were the very things he wanted to have written down. He regarded these acts as vital, hence he made this order during his Maradhul Maut immediately after the episode out of which the Shiahs endeavour to eke substantiation for their fabricated slanders and charges against Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu). (11) When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) asked them to leave, he said : “ It is not appropriate for you to argue in my presence.” It is abundantly clear that he asked them to leave because of their mutual argument. He did not make any reference to the issue of the dispute between the two groups. When the Sahaabah sought further clarification from Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he commented: “ The state in which I am (presently) is better than what you are inviting me to.” Immediately after this comment, he commanded the expulsion of the Mushrikeen from Arabia. All this indicates that he did not attach importance to whatever he had initially wanted to have written or that he had changed his mind. (12) The logical conclusion of the Shiah accusation is that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had either withheld or concealed information pertaining to the Deen as a result of an argument among the Sahaabah. In a Hadith in Bukhaari Shareef, Hadhrat Aishah (radhiallahu anha) said: “Whoever says that Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had concealed anything from what has been revealed to him, has most certainly spoken a lie. Allah Ta`ala says (in the Qur`aan): ‘O Rasool ! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Rabb...’”
  16. Sayyidina Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of Imam Zainul Abideen, and the senior member of the Ahly Bayt in his time who said: A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Khilafa of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), "Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali 'If i am Maula of someone , Ali is his Maula?'" He (Al Hasan) replied, "By Allah, if he meant the by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the prayer, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, 'Oh people! This is your protector after me.' The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people. If the business (of Imamat) had been as you say it is, and Allah and His Messenger had chosen Ali for this matter after the Prophet, then he would have been the person with the gravest error and wrong action since this would mean either that he ignored what the Messenger of Allah commanded him to do, or he would have made excuses to the people for having done so." (Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Volume 5) just wanted to know what the shia pov of that is. ill try to find the sunni sources for the original question of the thread. i have too seen it b4 and i know with a chain.
×
×
  • Create New...