zahralzu

shias have always thrown doubts and allegations at sunni hadith whenever they seem to demean the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)); like the hadith narrated by anas b malik that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) recieved a dish from the sky that gave him the strength of 30 men to go around his wives in one day... turns out similar reports can be found in shia books: shias have always supported the conspiracy that companions and aisha deliberately slander the prophet (authibillah call him suicidal, lustful, bewitched, delerious, etc) while we apparently give him more piety... is this really the case?

how would you respond to imam huseyn's (عليه السلام) shocking reaction to muawyah's death?

this condition mentions the requirement to follow the sira of the 3 caliphs...is this not a huge problem?

money? you don't think there's easier ways to get rich? say, like by supporting isreal as opposed to making enemies with america?

what would be our motive behind lying? you don't think our lives would be a lot easier if we just became sunni? you don't think we'd be discriminated against less? be killed less?

walking barefoot and having a dirty beard and sleeping under a tree doesn't make you less of a criminal, all this talk about umar being the opener/sadiq/faruq/just/humble is poetic and baseless, i only wish sunnis would give up likening him to a prophet figure; a drunken pagan that beat his sister half to death for accepting islam and one of the biggest enemies of islam who tortured the muslims for at least 6 years would absolutely be a prophet if mohammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) wasn't the sealer, right? what could go wrong! we don't deny he opened jeurselum, like we don't deny umayyad's also opened other areas; this isn't a merit that intercedes for someone such that they take over god's authority, if asceticism is enough to put a leader above our heads then say (رضي الله عنه) about jose mujica; the biggest ascesctic of our time, though he's still a kafir! just like asceticism won't intercede for jose's kufr, it also won't intercede for umar's oppression and hypocrisy, (we're not missing anything)

i suppose we're muslim but we follow the islam of ahlulbayt not the corrupted islam of saqifa and this is why it seems so different. in our islam there's no compulsion. we believe abu bakr usurped the rights of the imam, instigated multiple terrorist attacks on those who refused to give him bayah, including on the house of the daughter of the prophet, he then declared wars of ridda against those who rejected his caliphate (why we're here to begin with); did takfir on them and justified their killing, then finally elected umar as his successor without any right to do so. umar then put the kafirs (umayads) back into positions of power with no right, then elected uthman without any right to do so, uthman took all zakat for umayads and left everyone starving, until everyone revolted against him and had him killed. imam ali (عليه السلام) treated the blacks and whites as equals, and the poor and riches as equals, and the nobel and servile as equals and caused them to turn against him. muwayiah crucified the shias, as did his son yazid. following umayads came the abasids who also did whatever they wanted in the name of islam. following the abasids came the uttomans who also did what they wanted in the name of islam. you don't think all this iligitimate leadership led to the corruption of islam? this is why to us what happened at jamal/siffin/karbala aren't irrelevant wars and disputes for the history books that won't get us into jannah if we don't know about it. these disputes effect us till this day...at least fox news believes the saqifa islam is the only islam

if he would've abided by the conditions we would probably have no problem with him

but does this not prove that muawiyah is not a hypocrite since you can't voluntarily give authority and pledge allegiance to a hypocrite?

the famous narration that orientalists like to use about the prophet supposedly receiving food that allowed him to go around all his wives in one day has always been dismissed by shias as slander being attributed to the prophet by companions authenticated by sunnis: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/21 however, a similar narration can be found in shia books: https://ibb.co/ZSbdLt5 is it safe to say that such narrations in sunni books shouldn't be rejected simply because they make us uncomfortable?

what about incestual relationships between members of the same gender? like brothers or fathers and sons? where there's also no chance of conception and thus no harm, is this not morally wrong?

spreading islam by the sword is a miracle?

of course i'd never claim that isis is muslim or that isis has any place in islam weather sunni or not, but i also don't think this was ammar's motive either, rather, he was trying to get to the root of where all this terrorism began...i see many people blaming america/isreal but that' nonsense because terrorist ideologies existed way before isis; america didn't "make" isis, it just funded a pre-existing ideology, so you're gonna need to move rewind, rewind to where? ibn abd al-wahab? that's also too recent and terrorism existed way before, so move back, to khawarij? unlikely, to muwayiah crucifying shia? also too recent, the furthest you can go back is to saqifa, otherwise you go back to the prophet and the quran which is basically committing kufr if you say this is where terrorism stems from. by the looks of it, too many sunnis are indeed justifying saqifa and ridda wars and burning of the house of fatima as "misunderstandings" and sweeping them under the rug; but you must be ready to either out the saqifa authority or the prophet's...what was the first terrorist attack in all of muslim history? where did all this terrorism come from? i know this wasn't what the question initially started out as but it now seems to be heading in this direction as the 'truth' is made clearer; that islam was corrupted the minute the prophet was martyred, and not centuries later...

please read this report that sunnis use to justify what happened to malik (apparently followed a false prophet thus apostated) and let me know what u think! https://ibb.co/sw8gv5L

There's proof of both Imam Hassan and Huseyn (عليه السلام) pledging allegiance to Muawiyah: https://ibb.co/8jY5Hbs https://ibb.co/ph3n5NZ I know shias like to explain this by suggesting Imam's treaty with Muawiyah is like the prophet's ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) hudaybia treaty with the meccans; but I'm not talking about peace treaties here, rather, this is a pledge of allegiance. How to digest this?

There's a hadith that christians like to use a lot, claiming the prophet "didn't know weather he'll be going to heaven": when the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) going to visit a house where the body of a Muslim who had died still lay. A woman addressed the dead body, saying: “May Allah have mercy on you. I testify that Allah has honored you. Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) asked the woman, “How do you know that Allah has honoured this man? “I know, by Allah,” she said. Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) replied, “This man, death struck him and I wish him the best in the name of Allah. By Allah, although I am the Messenger of Allah, I know not what will happen to me, just like you.” ( Bukhari, vol.9, book 87, no. 145. Narrated by Kharija bin Zaid bin Thabit) the quran 46:9 also says: "Say, “I am not the first messenger ever sent, nor do I know what will happen to me or you. I only follow what is revealed to me. And I am only sent with a clear warning.” how do you answer to this?

u know we mean the scholar so why the whataboutism

But you also need to see where all the hatred towards these sahaba comes from, we don’t “hate” for the sake of it, these revered individuals are tyrants from our perspective, and we use research to show you how, our reasonings are substantial, only sunnis don’t take our reasonings into account, nor do they care, sunnis are offended when Shias curse Umar, but they don’t consider how offended we are that they revere the person we think to be the murderer of the daughter of the prophet, it works both ways, so look at it from our perspective, look into WHY we hate Aisha (because she poisoned the prophet and led a war against the imam and insulted the prophet with her slanderous fabricated hadiths against him) look into WHY we hate Abu bakr (because he usurped imam’s rights and murdered “apostates” (Shias that rejected his caliphate thus refused to pay HIM zakat) and arranged for Umar and his gang to burn the house of the daughter of the prophet), etc. Don’t just call us “kafir” for hating these people, we have the right to hate the enemies of Ahlulbayt and the prophet...

it even says it in his name that he was a freed slave; proof he never actually was as 'rich' as the sunnis claim, nor did he 'donate' his money in the cause of allah, nor did he use his 'money' to set slaves free

i was wondering why/how it's the case that only 313 of the 2 billion people awaiting the imam will join him?

It was very ironic that Aisha, Talha, zubayr, etc at least played some part in the murder of uthman yet they insisted the reason behind the battle of Jamal was to avenge for his killers... Then Muawiyah claimed battle of siffin was also to avenge for the murder of uthman...I was wondering if there were reasons to think otherwise; if there's proof that Muawiyah didn't care for uthman as much as he claimed?

Asalamulaikum, The Sunni narrative surrounding the Ridda wars is that a few tribes rejected zakat as a pillar of Islam and thus were declared apostates and for that reason Abu Bakr's fighting them was justified. A few Shia scholars (eg. Ammar Nakshawani, Yassir Habib, etc.) have argued that these tribes didn't reject zakat as a pillar, but rather refused to pay zakat specifically to Abu Bakr given they didn't recognise the legitimacy of his caliphate, and thus it was not appropriate of Abu Bakr to do takfir on them nor was it justified to kill them even if they rejected zakat as a pillar much less refused Abu Bakr by refusing zakat. These scholars go so far as to claim these were the first terrorist attacks in the history of Islam. However, many Shia sources suggest the Imams did not oppose the Ridda wars... imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) prescribes the death sentence for anyone who refuses zakat: Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2: https://ibb.co/R9Zr9rS Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approving of Abu Bakr's Ridda wars: https://ibb.co/MpQ52D0 There's much contradiction about zakat and the Ridda wars and was hoping for some clarity.

this starts off by using the word 'الظاهر' which means 'obviously', 'apparently', 'it seems as though', 'you'd think that', 'they're claiming that'; but it doesn't mean 'the reality is' or 'what's in their hearts'; this is taken as 'sarcasm', the word الظاهر actually negates everything said later and thus exposes the Syrians for their hypocrisy

Shias claim Mu'awiyah's (and aisha etc) hypocracy can easily be proven by his hatred for Imam Ali (عليه السلام), and consider anyone fighting the divinely appointed imam to be a hypocrite, yet, not only did the Imam not do takfir on him but he didn't even accuse him of hypocrisy... Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق.٢٩٨ – قرب الإسناد: بالاسناد قال: إن عليا لم يكن ينسب أحدا من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ولكنه كان يقول: هم إخواننا بغوا علينا.297 – Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.298 – Furat by his chain: Ali didn’t attribute anyone from those who fought with him to shirk or to hypocrisy, but he use to say: Our brothers which revolt against us. Abul Abbas Abdullah ibn Jafar al-Himayri narrated in his Shia book “Qurub al-Isnad” book (p94/#318) : جعفر ، عن أبيه : أن علياً لم يكن ينسب أحداً من أهل حربه إلى الشرك ولا إلى النفاق ، ولكنه كان يقول : « هم إخواننا بغوا علينا » Jafar from his father, Ali didn’t attributed anyone from those who fought against him to shirk and neither to hypocrisy, but he said: They our brothers which revolt against us. should this change our view on him?

you don't think that if it wasn't talking about an individual hated by shias that they wouldn't have felt the need to censor it and replace his name with "such and such"? and Ibn Abi al-Hadid he had Tashayyu in him. Also Yahya bin abi Zayd al-Alawi Said it was Umar :/