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 Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Toronto110

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. I respect your disagreement in this matter. I am no Aalim, therefore I would suggest you to consult one for detailed explanation. But one thing I must tell you, very humbly, from my so called (in)experience that the most learned, intellegent and hard working people I have found in my whole life belongs to Shia Clergy. Obviously not all of them, but there is a sizeable minority of Ulema who are extremely intellegent, and hard working and they obviously have the blessing of Imam e Zamana AS. And they are the one who reach the peaks of piety. Regarding Lal Masjid, I used my thought process by referring to orders of Allah (SWT) that during a war dont kill children, women and old (I think there is an Ayat in Quran and a Hadith in this regard). Lal masjid matter could have been dealt like the matter of Kharjites during Nahrwan times. Jazak Allah & Iletmaas e dua
  2. Quote: I would like to know why everyone calls Imran Khan pro-Taliban. Isn't he just trying to end the cycle of destruction shown below? USA Drone strikes--> Unnamed innocents die--> Retaliation fueled by anger--> terrorist attacks-->Justification for more Drone strikes--> repetition. Did I miss something?" Unquote It is ironic that on one hand Imran Khan is trying to do all this in the name of Islam, be it saving lives or stopping drone attacks, but on the other hand he had such a corrupt life till early 200s that very few Pakistani public figures had. Sorry brother, I see a Munafiq who is just using drone attacks, innocent life loss etc as a trump card as he knows that majority of poor people are hurt because of this. Look how all the "lotas" are gathering around him. All these munafiqs are gathering around another munafiq. On the other hand, Musharraf, is at least a straight forward person, although I disagree what he ordered to do in Lal Masjid. or Cheif Justice matter
  3. Quote: "But brother, this voting system is all about independant thought process and the right of each and every citizen to select a leader/representative. I never knew that our scholars/marjas expected us to follow their rulings when it comes to vote for political leaders......" Brother or Sister, Asslamoalaikum wa Rehmat Allah. May Allah (SWT) increase our knowledge. I was also not aware of this ruling few years back. But as per Shia Jurisprudence, We are "bound" (must) to get permission from Marjaa's wakeel for every matter which relates to ruling the general public. For eg, Getting a job in Customs dept., Judiciary, Income Tax The whole idea is that Imam e Zamana (AJTF) is the only ruler of this world and only HE (as) can authorize someone. http://www.sadiqhasan.com/advancefiqh.shtml I think you understand urdu. I am posting a link of Sadiq Sahib's duroos which he delivered in late 1980s. One of them describes the ruling of Ulema regarding the matter stated above. Jazak Allah and Iltemaas e Dua
  4. one of the best act you can do for your Imam (as). I heard from Maulana Sadiq Hasan that it is one of our daily/weekly (something) responsibility.
  5. Imran Khan possitive: Shaukat Khanum Hospital, University, Sincere to Pakistan Negatives: Dictatorial attitude (He was a dictator when he was Captain of cricket team, and tried to ruin Waqar's career and practically he did) Pro Taliban Staunch Wahabi Overall: A sincere Pakistani who is a pro taliban staunch wahabi with a dictatorial attitude is a question mark to all Suunis and Shais. Musharraf: positive: Sincere to Pakistan, beleives on freedom of Speech (that is why all the media channels were able to bash out their message against him) Gave Karachi the right amount of money and adequate support for its uplift. Not against any specific sect or religion Negatives: Did not stop Para Chinar War Formed a corrupt team of politicians (Chaudry Brothers. Disgraced Sheikh etc) (But whom you can trust. A SVP of CitiCorp turned out to be corrupt when he had a chance. Disgrace) Overall: A sincere secular muslim who is not with Taliban and does not hate any specific sect or religion I will not vote for both of them as they are not approved by Agha Sistani's Wakeel of my city. Only Imam e Zamana AS can authorize someone to rule a country or territory and during HIS (as) occultaion, a Marjaa can authorize on his behalf. Therefore, I would suggest brothers and sisters to choose a candidate after proper consulation from a Wakeel. JazakAllah
  6. Asslamoalaikum Brother, Can you please specify your location?
  7. Brother, ASslamoalaikum, Ask him to get hold of these books. see what writers have written about Yazid. There is no specific book where you can find answer to this specific question. Beside that Tarikh e Tabari is a reasonable account of history. Ask him to read
  8. The Sunni Ulema have accepted that in Kerbala Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth and Yazeed was on falsehood As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works: Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 72 Neel al Autar Volume 7 page 181, Kitab al Jihad Shadharath al Dhahab Volume 1 page 69 Dhikr the events of 61 Hijri Tareekh Ibn Khaldun Volume 1 page 180 Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 370 Chapter 11 part 3 Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 241 Dhikr Yazeed al-Awasim min al Qawasim, page 232 In Sharh Fiqh Akbar we read: "Some illiterates have said (Allah forbid) that Imam Husayn was a rebel, this is Batil according to the aqaid of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, this may not be palatable to those that have fallen away from the truth". This is a leading book of Hanafi aqaid that is clealrly stating that Hanafi Sunnis do not deem our Imam to be a rebel, obviously those Sunnis that say otherwise are actually practising taqiyya, posing as Sunnis when they are actually hardcore Nasabis. Neel al Autar: "There are those people who aided the Deen, they opposed the leader of the time because the leader was Unjust who had left the way of the Prophet, these people are the people of truth and Imam Husayn is at the top of such individuals" Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shaukani stated clearly that Yazeed was unjust and abandoned the way of the Prophet (s), and Imam Husayn (as) aided the Deen by opposing Yazeed, and our Imam was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood. Shadharat al Dhahab: "The people is Islam are in absolute agreement, that Imam Husayn's opposition to Yazeed's bad deeds was a good step, similarly the act of Ibn Zubayr and the Madinans opposition against the Banu Umayya was also a good step". Even advocate of Mu'awiya Ibn Khaldun in Mudaqqimah states: "Husayn was on the right path, he attained martyrdom for which he shall be rewarded". Another Mu'awiya supporter, the Grand Sheikh of Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya states: "The middle way is that of the Ahl'ul Sunnah who don't deem Husayn a baghi or the Khaleefa , and deem his murder to be martyrdom" In this connection Allamah Shibli also makes an important observation: "Husayn did not oppose giving bayya to Yazeed because he wanted to become the Khalifa - his opposition was to elevate the kalima of Tauheed and Deen of Hanafeeya, in this regards he was following the footsteps of his father". Zaynab page 157 When Imam Husayn, according the Ahl'ul Sunnah Sect, died a martyr then his difference with Yazeed cannot be condensed down to a political dispute. People who are confused need to understand that you can only die a martyr if you are defending the Deen - and Ibn Taymeeya said the Ahl'ul Sunnah hold the opinion that Imam Husayn (as) was a martyr. Can we not therefore conclude that the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah is that Imam Husayn (as) the martyr was slain upholding the Deen and his killer Yazeed was following falsehood? This is self-implicit if one accepts, as Ahl al Sunna do, that Husayn (as) achieved the rank of martyrdom. These references prove that the scholars of Islam acknowledge that Imam Husayn (as) attained Martyrdom, hence Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth in Kerbala. The Prophet (s) stated that the Ummah must come to his (as) aid that he would be martyred in Kerbala Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority of Hadhrath Ayesha: "Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed killer Yazeed. He will rebel against my beloved Husayn and martyr him" Does this not act as conclusive proof that the battle of Kerbala was a battle between truth and falsehood? Rasulullah (s) deemed Imam Husayn (as) a martyr and cursed Yazeed, his killer who rebelled against Imam Husayn (as). Verily a martyr dies on the path of truth whilst a baghi (rebel) dies on the path of falsehood. Need we say any more on this topic? The acceptance that the Imam (as) was a martyr is proof that he adhered to the path of truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.
  9. Brother, Asslamoalaiku, I will keep on posting small replies to questions. Answers will not be in sequence. First question is the most important one, the last two can be dealt later on. JazakAllah A Sunni Scholar Hafiz Ibn Asakir records this tradition on the authority of Sahabi Anas bin alHarith: أنس بن الحارث يقول سمعت رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) يقول إن ابني ذا يعني الحسين يقتل بأرض يقال لها كربلاء فمن شهد ذلك منكم فلينصره "I heard Rasulullah (s) say 'Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him". Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 14 page 223 This same narration can be located in the following Sunni books: al Isaba Volume 1 page 81 Dhikr Uns bin Harith Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 Kanz ul Ummal Volume 6 page 223 Dhikr Husayn Sirush Shahadatayn page 80 Kifayath al Talib page 429 Dhikr Husayn Neel al Autar page 88 Zakhair al Uqba page 146 If two individuals are fighting and the Prophet (s) tells you to go to the aid of one of them, then that individual will be on the path of truth, since the Prophet (s) would never give an order to stand with falsehood. In Kerbala, on one side was the illegal Khaleefa Yazeed bin Mu'awiyah on the other was Imam Husayn grandson of the Prophet (s), an individual whom the Prophet (s) gave an order that his Sahaba come to his aid. One who fights Husayn (as), fights the Prophet (s) Please see the following Sunni sources: Adhaab al Mufraad page 17 Sunan ibn Majah page 14, Manaqib Husayn Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 587 Manaqib Husayn Zakhair al Uqba page 133 Dhikr Husayn Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 114 Dhikr Husayn Ya Nabi al Mawaddth page 164 Chapter 54 Jama al Usool Volume 10 page 21 Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 177 Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 220 Manaqib Husayn al Fusl al Muhimma page 171 Dhikr Husayn Ahsaaf al Raghibeen page 175 Dhikr Husayn Nuzlul Abrar page 55 Dhikr Husayn Mirqaat Sharh Mishqaat page 55 In Adaab al Mufarad, page 17 we read: "The Prophet (s) said Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn" In Mirqaat, Qadhi Iyad states: "Our Prophet via Prophetic knowledge and revelation knew that his grandson Husayn would be martyred fighting Yazeed bin Mu'awiya, that is why the Prophet made a specific reference about him, stating he shared three qualities with him (s), 1. Loving both is compulsory 2. Disrespecting both is a sin 3. Fighting both is haraam and a sin" This Hadeeth proves that in the same way one that fights the Prophet can never be on Haqq (Truth), likewise on that fights Husayn can never be on Haqq either, this proves that in Kerbala Yazeed was on the path of falsehood, and Husayn (as) on the path of truth. One that fights the Ahl'ul bayt fights the Prophet We have relied on the following Sunni works: Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81 Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350; al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 149 "Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war" Imam Ibn Habban has included this hadith in his collection of 'Sahih' Hadiths (Sahih Ibn Habban Volume 15 page 433), Imam Hakim declared it 'Hasan' (al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 161) and Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi also declared it 'Hasan' (Al-Jame'a al-Saghir wa Ziadateh, page 235). This Hadeeth proves that when Yazeed fought Imam Husayn (as) in Kerbala he was actually fighting the Prophet (s), and is automatically on falsehood. The Prophet's distraught appearance before Ibn Abbas proves Husayn (as) was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood We have located this narration from the following esteemed Sunni works: Sawaiqh al Muhirqah, page 642-643 published in Faisalabad Mishkat al Masabeeh, Volume 8, page 140 al Isaba page 334, Dhikr Husayn al Istiab page 340, Dhikr Husayn Asad ul Ghayba, Volume 2 page 23 Dhikr Husayn Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 11 page 397 Dhikr Husayn Musnad Ibn Hnbal, Volume 4 page 29 Hadeeth number 2165 Tareekh Islam by Dhahabi, Volume 2 page 349 Dhikr Husayn Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 4 page 343 Dhikr Husayn Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 208 Dhikr Husayn Sirush Shahadatayn, page 88 Tadhkirat ul Khawwas al Ummah, page 152, Dhikr Husayn Kifayat al Muttalib, page 428 Dhikr Husayn In Mishkat we read: "One afternoon I dreamt of Holy Prophet (s) standing with his hair disturbed and with dust tangled in them and he was holding a phial filled with blood. I said to the Prophet: "May my parents by sacrificed at you. What are you holding?" The Prophet (s) replied: "I am holding this phial filled with the blood of my son and his companions that I have been collecting all the day long." I remembered that day and when the news of Al Hussain's (as) martyrdom came, and I matched that day with the day I had dreamt the Holy Prophet (s), I came to know that it was the same day". The distressed state of the Prophet (s) at the time of the death of the Prophet (s) serves as clear evidence that our Imam Husayn (as) was with the truth and Yazeed (l) was on falsehood. If Nasibis argue that the words of Rasulullah (s) in a dream are not authentic then we suggest to them to consider these words: Abu Huraira narrates: The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Whoever has seen me in a dream has in fact seen me, for Satan does not appear in my form" Sahih Muslim, vol. 4 p 1225 no 5635 It has been proven that Yazeed opposed the concept of revelation and denied the Prophethood. To raise one's voice against such an enemy of God is certainly proof that Imam Husayn (as) was on the party of truth and was seeking to counter Yazeed's falsehood. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, a staunch Wahabi, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 1 page 6 stated clearly that: "Imam Husayn was aware of the falsehood of Yazeed the Paleeth (impure)" If opposition to such a transgressor is not Jihad then what is? How can these same Nasibi define the Banu Umayyad campaigns of conquests, pillaging / looting etc, to satiate Muslim greed and maintain a life of luxury as Jihad? If Jihad is defined as fighting the kuffar then Yazeed and his ancestors were kaafir, his father may have sought to cloak his hypocrisy but Yazeed openly declared his kaafir beliefs, and al Istiab also gives clear proof over the hypocrisy of Abu Sufyan. When people opposed Yazeed in Madina, amongst them were the largest concentration of still living Sahaba, and the vast bulk were slaughtered. Amongst those who were martyred by the side of Husayn (as) in actual battle were also Muhammad (saws)'s sahaba, while at the actual battle not one sahaba was found on the side of Yazeed's army. Were their actions [as Sahaba] false? Against Yazeed ranged the majority of the surviving sahaba - were all misguided waging war against a man who did not even know the Holy Prophet (saws), was a man who used his penis to penetrate men/ dogs/bears/sisters/daughters/mother? Yazeed expected the Bayya while he openly expressed that Muhammad (saws) was a fraud. Yazeed and the clique of sahaba like Abdullah bin Omar (son of the second khalifa) that supported him were scum of the worst kind.
  10. Brother, Please post a link where you read this news. It is extremely heartening.
  11. Photograph is extremely heart wrenching and graphic. http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper?dt=2011-12-07&bk=A&pg=1 Please pray for injured children. Donate specifically for Shuhuda's orphaned children. Indicate that to your Marjaa's office in Qom or Najaf that this money is specifically meant for orphans and widows of Kabul Ashura incident.
  12. Please read questions from our side. Regards. http://www.answering-ansar.org/challenges/20questions/en/index.php Our 20 questions... Maulana Ghulam Hussain Na'eemi of Sahiwa'al, Pakistan was a Sunni scholar who after considerable research converted to the Shi'a Ithna Ashari Faith. The rationale for his conversion was that he had questions that he found the Ahlul' Sunnah Ulema could not answer satisfactorily. These are those questions; they remain unanswered to this day. Tragically he was martyred for his beliefs, may Allah (swt) reward him and grant him a place in Paradise. Footnotes have been added for the purposes of further clarity. 1. History testifies that when Hadhrath Muhammad (saaws) declared his Prophethood (saaws), the Quraysh1 subjected the Bani Hashim to a boycott. Hadhrath Abu Talib (as) took the tribe to an area called Shib Abi Talib where they remained for three years, suffering from immense hardship. Where were Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar during that period? They were in Makkah so why did they not help the Holy Prophet (saaws)? If they were unable to join the Prophet (saaws) at the Shib Abi Talib is there any evidence that they provided any type of support (food etc), breaching the agreement that the Quraysh boycott all food / business transactions with Bani Hashim? 1. "the Quraysh gathered together to confer and decided to draw up a document in which they undertook not to marry women from Banu Hashim and the Banu al Muttalib, or to give them women in marriage, or to sell anything to them or buy anything from them. They drew up a written contract to that effect and solemnly pledged themselves to observe it. They then hung up the document in the interior of the Ka'bah to make it even more binding upon themselves. When Quraysh did this, the Banu Hashim and the Banu al-Muttalib joined with 'Abu Talib, went with him to his valley and gathered round him there; but 'Abu Lahab 'Abd al Uzza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib left the Banu Hashim and went with the Quraysh supporting them against 'Abu Talib. This state of affairs continued for two or three years, until the two clans were exhausted, since nothing reached any of them except what was sent secretly by those of the Quraysh who wished to maintain relations with them". (Taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 6 page 81 - Muhammad at Mecca, translated by W.Montgommery & M.V. MacDonald). 2. "These days were very hard with them and very often they had to feed on the leaves TALH or plantain" (taken from Siratun Nabi by Shibli Numani Vol 1 p 218, English translation by M. Tayyib Bakhsh Budayuni. 2. Hadhrath Fatima Zahra (sa) died 6 months after her father (saaws), Hadhrath Abu Bakr died two and a half years later and Hadhrath Umar in 24 Hijri. Despite their later deaths how is it that they attained burial sites next to the Prophet (saaws) and not Hadhrath Fatima (as)? Did she request that she be buried away from her father? If so, why? Or did the Muslims prevent her burial? (see Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Vol 5 hadith number 546). 3. Amongst the companions Hadhrath Abu Bakr is viewed as the most superior on account of his closeness to the Holy Prophet (saaws). If this is indeed the case then why did the Holy Prophet (saaws) not select him to be his brother when he (saaws) divided the companions in to pairs on the Day of Brotherhood? Rather, the Prophet (saaws) chose Hadhrath Ali (as) saying "You are my brother in this world and the next", so on what basis is Hadhrath Abu Bakr closer? See The History of the Khalifahs who took the right way, by Jalaladeen Suyuti, English translation by Abdassamad Clarke p177, (Taha publishers) 4. The books of Ahlul' Sunnah are replete with traditions narrated by Hadhrath Ayesha, Abu Hurraira and Abdullah Ibne Umar. Their narration's; far exceed those relayed by Hadhrath Ali (as), Hadhrath Fatima (sa), Hadhrath Hassan (as) and Hadhrath Hussain (as). Why is this the case? When the Prophet (saaws) declared "I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is it's Gate", did Hadhrath Ali (as) benefit less from the company of the Prophet (saaws) than these individuals? 5. If Hadhrath Ali (as) had no differences with the first three Khalifa's why did he not participate in any battles that took place during their reigns, particularly when Jihad against the Kuffar is deemed a major duty upon the Muslim? If he did not view it as necessary at that time, then why did he during his own Khilafath whilst in his fifties unsheathe his sword and participate in the battles of Jamal, Sifeen and Naharwan? 6. If (as is the usual allegation) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahlul'Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time? 7. If Hadhrath Umar was correct when he denied the dying request of the Holy Prophet (saaws) on the premise that the 'Qur'an is sufficient for us' (Sahih al Bukhari Vol 7 hadith number 573) what will be the reward for accusing the Holy Prophet (saaws) of speaking nonsense? (See Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 number 716) 8. Allah (swt) sent 124,000 Prophet's to guide mankind. Is there any proof that on the deaths of any one of these Prophet's his companions failed to attend his funeral preferring to participate in the selection of his successor? If no such precedent exists then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s companions follow this approach? "the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to attending the Prophet's funeral" - taken from Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi). 9. Of the 124,000 Prophets' that Allah (swt) sent, what evidence is there that they left everything for their followers as Sadaqah (Charity)? If they did, then why did the Prophet (saaws)'s wives not give all their possessions to the Islamic State? After all, Ahl'ul Sunnah consider the wives to be Ahlul'bayt. Sadaqah is haram on the Ahlul'bayt, this being the case why did they hold on to their possessions? 10. We read in the Holy Qur'an "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93) History testifies that during the battles of Sifeen and Jamal 70,800 Muslims lost their lives. What is the position of the killers here? Is this verse not applicable to them? If these individuals opposed the Khalifa of the time and were responsible for spreading fitnah (dissension) and murder, what will be their position on the Day of Judgement? 11. Allah (swt) tells us in the Holy Qur'an "And of the people of Madina are those who are bent on hypocrisy. You know them not, but we know them". (The Qur'an 9:101). The verse proves the existence of hypocrites during the lifetime of the Prophet (saaws). After the Prophet (saaws)'s death where did they go? Historians record the fact that two groups emerged following the Prophet (saaws)'s demise, Banu Hashim and their supporters, the State and their supporters. Which side did the hypocrites join? 12. Ahl'ul Sunnah have four principles of law the Qur'an, Sunnah, Ijtihad and Qiyas. Were any of these principles adopted by the parties during their discussions about the Prophet's successor at the Saqifa? 13. If rejecting a Rightly Guided Khalifa is tantamount to apostasy and rebelling against any khalifa even Yazid ibn Mu'awiya will lead to such persons being raised as betrayers in the next world; what of those individuals who rebelled and fought the fourth rightly guided Khalifa? This was the verdict of Abdullah Ibn Umar in his defence of Yazid (See Sahih al Bukhari Arabic - English Volume 9 hadith number 127) 14. It is a basic principle of rationality that if two parties have a dispute both can be wrong, but both can not be right. Applying this to the battles of Jamal and Sifeen, will both the murderers and the murdered be in heaven, because both were right? 15. The Holy Prophet (saaws) had said "I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection". Do any hadith exist in which the Prophet (saaws) had guaranteed paradise for Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, Hanbal and their followers? Tafsir Durr al Manthur, by al Hafidh Jalaladeen Suyuti in his commentary of verse 98:7 16. During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? Why did she leave Makkah, portray Hadhrath Uthman as a victim and mobilise opposition from Basrah? Was this decision based on her desire to defend Hadhrath Uthman or was it motivated by her animosity towards Hadhrath Ali (as)? History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever", see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223 17. If failing to believe in Hadhrath Ayesha is an act of Kufr what opinion should we hold with regards to her killer? Hadhrath Ayesha was killed by Mu'awiya (Tarikh al Islam, by Najeeb Abadi, Vol 2 p 44) 18. It is commonly conveyed that the companions were brave, generous, and knowledgeable and spent their time worshipping Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. If we want to determine their bravery, then let us delve in to history, how many kaffir's did the prominent companion Hadhrath Umar slay during the battles of Badr, Uhud, Khunduq, Khayber and Hunain? How many polytheists did he kill during his own Khilafath? If we wish to determine who is firm against the unbelievers it cannot be that individual who despite the Prophet (saaws)'s order refused to go the Kaffir's prior to the treaty of Hudaiybiya on the grounds that he had no support and instead suggested Hadhrath Uthman go on account of his relationship to the Ummaya clan. Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 1 page 66, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers) 19. The Saha Sittah has traditions in which the Holy Prophet (saaws) foretold the coming of twelve khalifa's after him(1). Who are they? We assert that these are the twelve Imams from the Ahlul'bayt. Mulla Ali Qari whilst setting out the Hanafi interpretation of this hadith lists Yazid ibn Mu'awiya as the sixth Khalifa?(2) Was the Holy Prophet (saaws) really referring to such a man? When we also have a hadith that states 'He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya'(3) then it is imperative that we identify and determine who these twelve khalifa's are. 1. "The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted as long as they are governed by 12 men, he then added from Quraish" (taken from Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui). 2. Sharh Fiqa Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhummud Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi). 3. ibid, page 175 20. Can anyone change Allah (swt) laws? The Qur'an states quite categorically that no one has that right "And it is not for a believing man or woman that they should have any choice in a matter when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Messenger; surely strays off a manifest straying". With this verse in mind, why did Hadhrath Umar introduce Tarawih prayers in congregation, three divorce utterances in one sitting and the formula 'Prayer is better than Sleep' in the Fajr Adhan? What right did he have to substitute Allah (swt)'s orders in favour of his own? Al Faruq by Allamah Shibli Numani, Volume 2 page 338, English translation by Muhammad Saleem, (Ashraf Publishers)
  13. http://www.answering...in/en/chap2.php Brother, I have copied a passage from the above mentioned link. It is wise to read the whole article which consist of detailed arguments and cites numerous examples. Answer in just few lines will never be enough for your thirsty truth seeking mind. Jazak Allah (SWT) It has being part and parcel of postmodern Nasibi propaganda to insist that the ‘ancestors’ of the Shi’a were a treacherous people that consistently abandoned Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain and the remainder Ahlulbayt Imams (Peace be upon them) and in some cases killed them. They seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting Muslims that do not possess a strong background on Islamic history. The shameless people lack the capability to direct these foolish allegations to us, the Shia of Ahlulbayt directly because as they are fully aware that the definition of the term ‘Shia’ did not carry same meaning back then as it does today. This was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are called Sunnis today. The reality is the term Shia was not a homogenous term, and essentially incorporated the affiliates of Ali (as) with differing political and religious views; we have therefore from this point on sought to distinguish the key groupings as follows: The minority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had a divine mandate to rule as he had been appointed as Caliph by the Prophet (s) (hereafter referred to as Shia al-Khasa) The majority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had the legal mandate to rule as he had been appointed as fourth Caliph by the Ummah, like the earlier Caliphs (hereafter referred to as Aama). With this fact in mind, the real question that should be addressed is: Which segment of what made up the generic term ‘Shia’ perpetrated these heinous actions that today’s Nawasib attribute to today’s Shia Imami (twelver) Sect? Once this puzzle is solved all the pieces of this large complex jigsaw fit into place and one can easily gauge the treachery and the hypocrisy of the Nawasib. We will debunk the Nasibi propaganda in this article God willing.
  14. i dont know if you remeber or not butonce you helped in answering some questions by asking moulana in toronto i neeed help with one more thing please contact me on rzaidi84@yahoo.com THanks you Wassalam!

  15. Perfect Reply. Infact I can feel the courtesy of followers of Ahl ul Bayt (as), but brother, this filth has gone too far. Just because of them, we are being killed. Sometime I really feel amazed how come moderators allow this kind of Nusairi views on a shia website without issuing a warning that Shias dont beleive in what these Nusairis beleive. This might confuse and misguide other sects about us who just read the caption and dont feel our disgust for such Kafir like thoughts.
  • Create New...