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


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Megatron

  1. Cursing & Defamation - The Satanic Religion of Shiism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5r-I7tRVs
  2. I didn't intend for an all-out e-brawl. Go do that in another thread.
  3. @Ya_isa (as) - you're wasting your time with these posts. I'm going to have these posts removed.
  4. Let me make it clear this thread is not intended for discussion/debate. I kindly ask the Shia community to state who you think it is most to blame, and leave it at that.
  5. @Pangea - we can discuss my personal views later on in this month.
  6. You are mistaken. It's about who Shia blame the most for the tragedy of Karbala. Thank you for your contribution.
  7. There's quite a few versions, or interpretations. However, that's not what this thread is about. Maybe we can have a discussion during Ashura' 2017?
  8. I thought the ones who actually carried out the evil deed would be the main culprits.
  9. Today is the day when one of the heinous crimes in living memory was perpetrated. I wanted to know whom the Shias hold most accountable for this tragedy. I often come across relenteless cursing against Yazid year-in, and year out, but does he get the lion share of the blame?
  10. Matam Mubarak to those who think it's alright to advocate this sort of barbaric madness on innocent children.
  11. W/S I got it from here: http://hadithanswers.com/a-narration-stating-that-Allah-taala-created-an-angel-in-the-form-of-ali-radiyallahu-anhu/
  12. Do Shias scholar accept this Hadith as authentic? Nabi (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “On the night of Mi’raj every time I passed by a group of Angels, they asked me about Ali ibn Abi Talib that I started to believe that ‘Ali was more famous in the skies than I was. When I reached the fourth sky, I saw the Angel of death. The Angel of death asked me, ‘O Muhammad! how is ‘Ali?’ I said, ‘O my friend, how do you know ‘Ali?’ He said, ‘O Muhammad, I am responsible for taking the life of everyone that Allah has created except for two beings, that is your life and ‘Ali’s life, because Allah himself will take your lives.” Then I reached under ‘Arsh (the Throne) and when I looked up I saw Ali ibn Abi Talib standing under the Throne of my Rabb. I said, ‘O Ali, did you race me up here?’ Then Jibril asked me, ‘O Muhammad, to whom are you speaking?’ I replied, ‘I am talking to my brother, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.” Jibril replied, ‘O Muhammad, this is not ‘Ali. This is an Angel that Allah has created in the form of Ali ibn Abi Talib. When we (Angels) miss ‘Ali, we go and look at this Angel” (Refer: Siyaru A’alamin Nubala, vol. 18 pg. 121)
  13. Hi, Wow, and I thought you could not stoop much lower. I'm well aware of the verses of Munafiqun, and it relates to the hypocrites of Madinah not the senior companions otherwise, please provide evidence from the Sunnah. Baseless conjectures is not sufficient. The verse 1:44 exclusively refers to the Battle of Uhud, and there many other verses following the battle of Uhud where Allah proclaimed unquestionably he is happy with the companions, and such verses are not exclusively to the supporters of Ali, or who accepted the Ali's delusive Imamat. Why, would Allah refer to a few people as a group if it was only a handful of men that the verses were eluding to.There is wide spread ijtema that when Allah says (at least a dozen times) he is pleased with then, and they're pleased at least a dozen with them referred to the companions. Show evidences from our literature that the verses in Surah Munafiqun pertains to the holy Sahaba otherwise you're just chuntering nothing more than wishful bakwaas. Oh, yeah? Prove it was a fact? More tasteless assumptions, hehe. I can sense your desperation. I can say for a fact that al-Tabari who narrates the entire incident does not mention even a single companion not participating. Eh-eh, wrong again. It was dispatched in the time of the Prophet (SAW), but then they were summoned back because of the news the Prophet (SAW) had passed away. I mentioned this before, don't you read, or are you typically ignoring what you can't prove? If nothing is mentioned in the incident then you accept it as is instead of making radical assumptions that are based on nothing more than emotional insecurities. The dimension had not changed in the slightest because the same contingent returned victorious, and with the same leader. <<----- To pin-point to the nazireen (readers) he is comfortably over-looking this paramount fact, and therefore can't distinguish the difference because disobeying a command, and initially critiquing a command. Fact, again? You haven't proven the narration is authentic, and disproved the narration in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) demanded Abu Bakr lead the salah. If I'm not mistaken the narration itself is tawatir which, strengthens the notion to fact that Abu Bakr was never to be in the army of Usamah, but close to the Prophet (SAW). Not a fact, but wishful thinking. He was in the mosque showing off his credentials as the only qualified person to take over. True, but doesn't support your weak argument. Incorrect because the expedition marched on, and returned with the same leader. No, denying this. Yes, they did, and were wrongful to do so hence, why the Prophet (SAW) rebuked them. Possibly because one interpretation according to our Hadith commentators is the Prophet (SAW) meant this is the second occasion where his choice if leader was being questioned. and not necessarily laying blame to the same companions who did so with Zaid. Both interpretations are likely. You wish, but not according to stronger reports in Bukhari. He was actually, and I'll locate the reference a little later. Definitely a great warrior, but again Ali not being including doesn't support your narrative that it's due to the planning of the Prophet (SAW) to set him as the next leader. There are a TON of narrations that can refute this "theory" (not factual research) that the companions purposefully rebelled against the Prophet's (SAW) family, and commands which, is why what you're desperately trying prove, but you'll end up making yourself look silly. So, this is your homework: 1) Provide evidence to support your "fact-finding" that the Abu Bakr (RA) was definitely in the army of Usamah i.e. prove the narration mentioned ibn Hajar, and narrated by the historians (which, is probably one narration if I bet my energon) is authentic then prove how the multiple narrations in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam, and referred to him as a "Khalaial is batil/weak. Both incidents were just days before his (SAW) passing. 2) Provide evidence that the companions withdrew from the arm if Usamah as you said this is a fact. 3) I'd love to see evidence how the 100 of verses in Surah Munfiqun is addressing the senior companions, and not the companions of Abdullah ibn ubayy ibn Salool. Take your time matie as you'll need it.
  14. Brother Faruk, I believe brother 'Umar ibn 'Ali, and Bukhari8k's posts are sufficient to answer your question.
  15. Brother @Faruk, I think you edited your thread since I first read it. You asked was Ali only considered one of the first rightly guided Calipha because of Imam Ahmed? No, he was always considered as one of the rightfully guided because Ali's rein was within the prophesied 30 years. The Prophet (SAW) said to the nearest meaning that in 30 years after his departure from the world will be rightly guided Caliphate, and then will come dynastic rule. There, is however a dispute among Sunni Ulama whether Hassan can be considered as one of the rightfully guided. Many say he isn't because he retired, while the minority say otherwise. I'm with the latter.
  16. Interesting. To my knowledge there was no Hadith literature at time of their rule. The earliest Hadith (Sunni) book that was compiled if I'm not mistaken was the Muwatta of Imam Malik, which was a few decades after their time. Which, literature are you referring to?
  17. Asalamualaikum respected brother. It still doesn't prove the inconsistency of the Imam's approach when dealing with zulam. Hussain was being pressured to give bay'ah to Yazid, but outright refused, and paid with his life. Hassan probably had more support than 72 men, but still gives up the Caliphate, and accepts Mu'awiyah as the leader. Seems like Hassan, and Hussain had different ideas on how to tackle such political/civil issues. Not exactly the marking of an infallible method/approach.
  18. *round of applause* Bravo, this keeps on getting better, and BETTER! Emotional tantrums, and wild theories will get you no where my confused soul. You've side-stepped to a whole new tangent. You're now basing your argument that just because they grieved the Prophet (SAW) then it means they're inner intention was always screaming treachery. You serious? Before, I address your points, I implore you to answer the following questions: - After expressing disappointment to the choice of the Prophet (SAW), why did the companions still accept the Usamah as their leader when they embarked on their journey? They certainly were not forced since it's an army versus one individual. - Why did they not get rid him half way through the journey? - If you're going to say the majority of them supported hm, and only a few objected then why didn't they just throw in the towel, and say the hell with it? Why risk their lives if they weren't going to get a leader of their preference? al-Tabari narrates the entire incident with a good (jayyid) chain of narrators that when they returned the expedition was deemed a success with no mention of Usamah being replaced as the Prophet (SAW) had intended. If you ponder over the questions you'll hopefully come to the conclusion that this means mission accomplished! In simple terms the very same companions you shamelessly accuse of disobeying still spent their wealth, and left their families for the sake of this deen. *points finger in his face* - answer accordingly as cowardice is not a trait of someone who loves Ahlul Bhayt, right? As for the narration you mentioned let's examine the chain, and verify whether it is authentic, so, I invite @submitter71 to carry out this task as this is his forte. Your argument about Abu Bakr, and the other companions conspiring behind the Prophet's (SAW) back can be smashed to pieces with authentic narrations from Bukhari which, confirms a few days before the death of the Prophet (SAW) he nominated Abu Bakr to lead the salah, and confirmed Abu Bakr's status as the number 1 companion of all. This opens up a spectrum of uncertainty whether the historical narration presented by the historians you listed is authentic or not. I won't share the narrations as I know it in my bones you've come across them before, and will just conveniently dismiss them as fabrications without academic rebuttal. If that's going to be your game then the onus is on you to prove how the historical narration above is authentic, and by extension refuting @submitter71's research when he shares it otherwise your entire argument falls flat on it's face because a debate of this nature is not won by Hadith-pickin' narrations that's compatible with your whims/desire then emotionally rant how you "feel" it supports your narrative, and place other Hadith which, portray a totally different even in the trash. That seems to be your approach: Theories, too many assumptions, and less corroborating evidence. , nice one. How many of the "men" of Banu Hashim were living in Madinah? Abbas, ibn Abbas, Ali, and who else? For argument sake even if they were conspicuously plotting to usurp the leadership from Ali, you think they weren't in a position to wrestle it back? The army was in thousands, and the Banu Hasim in Madinah were not even a dozen, so what was Ali, ibn Abbas, (who was not even a teenager at the time), and Abbas going to do? Sacrifice themselves, and refuse to give ba'yah to a bunch of usurping oppressors like Hussain, and his companions did? Oh, wait: Your bredrins admitted that 'Ali was neither in a potion to go to war with less arms, nor did he intend to in order to avoid Islam being overrun by the Kuffar which, begs the question didn't the Prophet (SAW) anticipate the same? Furthermore doesn't that sorta' contradict your own Hadith that says the Prophet (SAW) predicted the usurpation of this Imamat, and therefore instructed Ali to exercise patience? You don't have an arm, and leg to stand on dude. The Qur'an, and in plethora of authentic Hadith confirm beyond a spec of doubt the Prophet (SAW) expressed his divine satisfaction with the senior companion's contributions to Islam, and how they're abode in the Akirah will be Jannah'. Your rage for them, and misconstrued interpretations of nit-picked narrations isn't going to change that. You're essentially leveling blame on a group of Jannadians of committing the one of the gravest sins in our religion, and if I'm not mistaken left the fold of Islam? Either way, what paradoxical delusions.
  19. Hassan had that chance by defeating Muawiyah, and if he had then Calipahte would've still been with the Prophet's (SAW) family, and in the process saved his brother's life, but instead he retires.
  20. Asalamualaikum. So, let me get this right. Ali, decided it's not wise to go the war because he was out-numbered, and was fearful not for his own life, but his companions. Plus, he didn't want the risk the Iman of new Muslims with a civil war taking place between Muslims, so early. That's interesting considering the Prophet (SAW) never relinquished his position when the Quraish offered to become a king, and continued preaching Tawheed for the best part of a decade despite the few deaths that took place, and the persecution the other companions were experiencing/experienced. Hassan, who had a full army, and was on the verge of going to war with Muawiyah, but in the end handed him the leadership on a plate only with few a conditions to take on board? Why didn't Hassan defeat Muawiyah when he had the man-power? If you're going to say he didn't want more blood of Muslims being spilled, well we accept that, but it doesn't make any sense from a Shia stand-point because Ali went to war with Muslims on two occasions and thousands still perished. Hussain, who walked in the face of death to resist giving bay'ah to an oppressor even if it meant sacrificing his own kind. How come Hussain didn't follow the Sunnah of his father, and remain silent in order to save the life of his grand-father's Ahlul Bhayt?
  • Create New...