Leibniz

If one has to name the most irrational barbaric and inhuman religious ritual of our times , it has to be the self flagellation of all sorts done by some Shias.

What I feel after going through the historical accounts is that Ali , Talhah and Zubair were the most politically ambitious "Sahabas". Zubair even sided with Hashmites for a brief period against the outcome of Saqifa. Interestingly these three " Sahaba" largely vanished from the scene once Abu Bakr took over and they remained inactive in terms of wars and administration. This further makes one believe that they were disgruntled and had a bad blood with the incumbent caliphs. Secondly , its also plausible that they were covertly planning against the caliphs to dethrone them. They were gathering and masting political support for themselves. All what these three were doing , actualized during the last years of Uthman. Ali had Egyptians , Persians and some Kufans on his side. Zubair had Basrans and Talhah had some support in Kufa. This political support which became obvious after Uthman , must have been gained in the decades pre Uthman turmoil. Thirdly , the offsprings of these three were politically ambitious as well. They carried on the legacy and you see all the Alids , Zubayrites inspirants of caliphate. The sons of Talhah (Who was the weakest among the three) lost prominence and joined the Zubayrites.

Yeah I feel so that Ali was more close to Persian clients than the Sahabas. Its more likely that he spent his life as a disgruntled man once he was denied the caliphate. He could not fight for it and he must have thought that the majority of Sahabas don't like him. The ultimate shelter for Ali were the Persian clients who were aliens in Hijaz then and Ali's affiliation with them was very natural. A lonely man had found a company and a political support , something which careied on for generations to come. The reports of his cooperation with Omar are scarce and I feel that if that was the case we should have had abundant reports about it. What do you why Ali opened the case of the killing or Harmazan and his daughter against Obaydullah Ibn Omar as soon he became the caliph?

There is no harm in murdering the enemy who wants to murder you. We don't know the exact circumstances but if Imam Ali had a role in Omar's murder , I don't find it something out of the blue. Murder was a normal thing back then.

I was going through Twitter and I found a tweet which intrigued me. I have been hearing since my childhood that the Indian sage Mahatma Gandhi had expressed high praise for Al-Hussain. But the Tweet claims that its a fabrication and there is no evidence for this. Instead Gandhi has praised Abu Bakr and Omar. Can someone well versed in Gandhi comment on it? Source? Gandhi's praise for Abu Bakr and Omar

For me he is a human being who was politically embattled with his opponents. They tried to nab him and he must have tried to nab them. It's all natural human tendency.

I am not justifying Obayd's actions so spare me the copy paste.

On the other hand , I feel Imam Ali had a covert role in the assassination of Omar. Firstly , Imam Ali was close to the Persian clients and right after the murder of Omar he has been quoted as saying "I have no role in it". Thirdly , when Obyadullah Ibn Omar went on spree killing to avenge the death of his father and ended up killing the daughter of Harmazan as well , it was Imam Ali who asked Uthman to impose death penalty upon Obayd as Qisas which Uthman refused. Fourthly , the first thing that Ali did as Caliph was to reopen Obaydullah's case and try him for the killings that he undertook as revenge of Omar's murder. This decision made Obaydullah flee to Mua'via and join his ranks.

It was Omar who was bent on chopping Abu Sufyan's head when he approached the Prophet just before the fall of Mecca and it was Abbas who pleaded in Abu Sufyan's favour telling Omar that you would not have asked for chopping his head had he been a Bani Adi.

What is so reprehensible about a consensual sexual act that he/she be burnt to death? What you are saying is like saying that a person prone to sinistrality is not punishable but his act of writing with the left hand (to which he is neurologically prone to) is punishable.

Hadiths like these are taking the people out of the fold of Islam and such narrations are quoted by many in the western world to shun away people from Islam and make them believe that Islamic Sharia is some barbaric code of law. Once we know that some people are genetically prone to homosexuality , who can justify such a barbaric stone age punishment inflicted upon a couple for just being homosexual? I wonder what was going in minds of the Hadithists when they were penning down such narrations and those who were "authenticating" them down the line.

Why would anyone "attack" a benign personality like Abdullah Ibn Ja'far? What purpose does it serve? It was merely correcting the history. But it seems that you have taken the notion of infallibility to the next level ; from infallible Imams to the infallible Bani Hashim.

Ws , I fear that's not very accurate as Budayh, Sahib Khathir, and Nashi-t were famous "full fledge" singers and all three of them had a very bad moral reputation as well. The association of Abdullah Ibn Ja'far with music is not limited to these narrations , there are much more to it

Folk most probably as Abdullah Ibn Ja'far was more associated with folk vocalists. "Abd Allah loved music and did not see listening to it prohibited. He supported singers such as Budayh, Sahib Khathir, and Na[Edited Out]" http://en.mobile.wikishia.net/index.php/'Abd_Allah_b._Ja'far_b._Abi_Talib

I believe that the the first 5 Imams were pious individuals and were great leaders who can be followed religiously but they were not infallible. I don't know much about the rest of the 6 Imams so I can't say anything about them. As far as Al Mahdi is concerned , I think there is ample evidence to the fact that Hassan Askari died issueless and the figure of his son was later innovated to keep the ball rolling. As far as house of Saud , I hope it falls apart soon. It would be in the interest of Muslims as a whole and we shall get rid of one the most pungent monarchy in the history of Islam.