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
Sign in to follow this  
bakr_umar

Got the names of the Companions of the Imam Mahdi

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam Alaikum

^Brother, there's a passage in there which Dhakkoo Saheb has mistranslated (one of his many mistakes in his books).

Al-Zajjaj said "according to the NASSABIYOON" (i.e. the geneaologists), not "according to Ahle-Sunnat" (as was translated).

Its always best to refer primary or secondary texts, not tertiary books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, it does. The Ithna asharis believe that the ALL ancestors of the Imams are Muslims. But they also believe that Abu bakr (ra) is not. How do you compromise that?

Salaam Aleikum,

I think what they mean is that every parent of Imams and Prophets are believers.

In 'Ehsan al-Fawaid Sharah al-Aqaid' , Ayatullah Muhammad Hussein Najafi mentions 'Tariq' as the name of Ibrahim's (a) father.

Is Tariq the same person in bible?

Wassalam

Edited by Zufa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for those who answered. I think it is good to admit Abu Bakr (ra) as one of the ancestors of seven of the Imams.

Salaam Aleikum,

Yes even if he is, there is no problem with it. Abu Bakr is an important person after all, and we should not insult him.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, it does. The Ithna asharis believe that the ALL ancestors of the Imams are Muslims. But they also believe that Abu bakr (ra) is not. How do you compromise that?

We say his forefathers are all muslims from his father's side, not from his mother.

Those who carry the noor of the Imam (a.s) are muslims.

Our hadith say prophets such as Adam, Ibrahem, nooh are carried noor of Ale-Muahmmed (pbuh).

As for noor of Imam sadiq (as) it was carried by Imam Ali (as)-Imam Husain (as)- Zaunul Abideen (as)-Baqir (as).

Abu Bakr never carried the noor of Imam Sadiq (as).

Edited by Sadook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam Aleikum,

Yes even if he is, there is no problem with it. Abu Bakr is an important person after all, and we should not insult him.

Wassalam

Yes there is a problem Abu Bakr was an enemy of Ale-Muhammed (pbuh) who snatched the right of Imam Ali (a.s) and angered the duaghter of the prophet (pbuh). And to hell with people like that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes there is a problem Abu Bakr was an enemy of Ale-Muhammed (pbuh) who snatched the right of Imam Ali (a.s) and angered the duaghter of the prophet (pbuh). And to hell with people like that .

Salaam Aleikum,

That is the problem of Abu Bakr. I do understand how the Shia feel about it, but we should not go any further to personalities emotion. The right he snatched is the political and Imam Ali (as) is the successor of Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in Religion. So the duty of Imam Ali (as) after Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) was to teach Islam and protect it. We have our own Imam tree and so do Sunnis have their own Chalipha tree also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes there is a problem Abu Bakr was an enemy of Ale-Muhammed (pbuh) who snatched the right of Imam Ali (a.s) and angered the duaghter of the prophet (pbuh). And to hell with people like that .

Is this what you really think of Abu Bakr (ra) and the Compnaions (ra)? Shouldn’t you be more respectful of them? Why do you want to come between the Imams and the Companions? We sunnis believe that they were brothers, what was in their hearts for Allah and what they did for Islam overwhelms any mistakes, even though the mistakes you claim never did happen. How do I believe that they were brothers? (Sources from Shia books, ask for any specific point and let me provide the book and the page number)

1) Ali (ra) had: a son from Laila bint Masood named Abu Bark, a son from Om habeeb named Omar, and a son from Om Albaneen named Othman. You may say these names were common. Well, would any shia today name his/her son after one of these names, let alone naming three of your sons after three of the Khulafa (ra)?

2) Al-hasan and Al-hussain (ra) both had sons named Abu Bakr and Omar. Can you start admitting that there is a pattern going on here?

3) Um Kalthoom the daughter of Ali (ra) was married to Omar (ra). No comment here.

4) Ali (ra) sent Al-hasan and Al-hussain (ra) to defend Othman (ra).

As far as our love for Ahl Albayt (pbuh):

1) The hadith of Al-kesa’a was narrated with sahih sanad only in Sunni books, and the narrator is, guess who?, Um Almomeneen Aishah (ra).

2) Fatima’s (ra) narrations in sunni hadith books are 11. Fatima’s (ra) narrations in Shia hadith books is zero, unfortunately.

3) Ali’s (ra) narrations: 1583 in Sunni books, 690 in Shia books.

4) The most important point in my view and I want you to think about this particular point: you will NEVER find a sunni cursing or saying anything bad about Ahl Albayt (as) , but you know what the Shia say about the loved Companions (ra).

After all this, do you still want to divide Ahl Albayt and the Companions? Do you still hate them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam Aleikum,

4) The most important point in my view and I want you to think about this particular point: you will NEVER find a sunni cursing or saying anything bad about Ahl Albayt as.gif , but you know what the Shia say about the loved Companions ra.gif.

After all this, do you still want to divide Ahl Albayt and the Companions? Do you still hate them?

Brother/Sister snafial. Thank you for give us such an detail. I believe Shias differ in some part, but that is debatable issue. The statement you have mentioned here is actually great. This is show us clearly that one of the most important thing for Unity of Shia and Sunni is actually Ahlulbait (as). Both of the side follow them and love them.

Anyway, about the companions, i believe they are very important. Because they can confirm more about the Teaching of Prophet Muhammad (saws). We can see clearly from many hadith of the companions witness. Like the event of Ghadir Khumm, or Battle of Badr etc.

Wassalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snafial, can you please answer my question, if you want a proper discussion and if you REALLY want answers to your questions?

What do you say about this hadith in Bukhari?

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 173:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snafial, can you please answer my question, if you want a proper discussion and if you REALLY want answers to your questions?

What do you say about this hadith in Bukhari?

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 173:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"

Actually, Spizo, your question is very simple. If we go back and ask ourselves: “who amongst the companions have changed the deen?” we would find Abu bakr, Omar, Otham, and Ali (ra) perfectly clear of the blame, as it is the case with the majority of the Sahabah, that’s why the hadith in Arabic describes the number of those as (hamal alneam) which means very few. Unfortunately, the Shia had it the other way around, they say the majority changed the deen while three, or four, or nine only stayed in their religion. Is that the number that the prophet (pbuh) was capable of educating and elevating? Don’t you have a shame calling the prophet (pbuh) a failed teacher? I know you wouldn’t dare say that about the companions of Khomeini.

1) But if you are so trusting in Al-Bukhari, he also narrated a hadith that says:

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 22:

Narrated Abu Said:

The Prophet said, "Do not abuse my companions for if any one of you spent gold equal to Uhud (in Allah's Cause) it would not be equal to a Mud or even a half Mud spent by one of them."

So, Spizo, would you stop abusing the companions of the Prophet (pbuh)?

2) Plus, do you suggest the Allah didn't know that those companions would change the deen when Allah revealed (9:100): And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph.”

3) Furthermore, we know that Arabia after the prophet (pbuh) separated into the believers and the muratadeen. We also know that the companions and Ahl Albayt were together (as they always are) in the camp of the believers who fought for the religion not to be changed.

4) Finally (please read carefully), If the first Caliph after the Prophet (pbuh) was Ali (ra) not Abu Bark (ra), I’m certain that we would have people like you cursing Ali (ra) and saying that the Caliphat should’ve gone to Abu Bakr, because some people are only interested in “should’ve’s” and they can easy be followers to whoever wants to bring about Fitnaa and divide the believers.

5) I leave you with this verse and hope that you would rethink your purpose in life from a caller of hate to caller of love, (48:29): “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.”

Are you enranged at the Companions?

Edited by snafial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick comment...

5) I leave you with this verse and hope that you would rethink your purpose in life from a caller of hate to caller of love, (48:29): “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.”

Are you enranged at the Companions?

'With him' in the verse means their body is with him as well as their hearts. Its complete ''withness''. Otherwise it would include the munafiqeen who were physically with the Prophet [sawa] much of the time.

Secondly, I dont know about you, but I certainly wouldnt describe the sahaba in the battles of jamal and siffeen as being 'firm against the unbelievers, compassionate amongst themselves'. I dont think killing each other is a sign of compassion, but maybe Im mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this what you really think of Abu Bakr (r.a) and the Compnaions (r.a)? Shouldn’t you be more respectful of them? Why do you want to come between the Imams and the Companions? We sunnis believe that they were brothers, what was in their hearts for Allah and what they did for Islam overwhelms any mistakes, even though the mistakes you claim never did happen. How do I believe that they were brothers? (Sources from Shia books, ask for any specific point and let me provide the book and the page number)

Respected brother in islam,

Your arguments sorry to tell you are worthless. They are not new. Shias will never leave such shubuhat floating in the air un-refuted. And I strongly recommend you to do some research and see what shia have said in reply to those arguments that you put forward. But if you would like me to direct you to shia webs arabic or english, I will be more than happy to do so.

Now I need you to understand a few things before I reply to your arguments below. We the shias dont hate the companions. We hate the enemies of the prophet (pbuh) and his family, and if even a comapanion was to oppose them then yes we would surely do tabarra from him and hate him. Because, it would be cosidered hypocrisy to say that I love Imam Ali (a.s) and love his enemies. You love truth and falsehood at the sametime. Light and darkness cannot exist in the same room.

1) Ali (ra) had: a son from Laila bint Masood named Abu Bark, a son from Om habeeb named Omar, and a son from Om Albaneen named Othman. You may say these names were common. Well, would any shia today name his/her son after one of these names, let alone naming three of your sons after three of the Khulafa (r.a)?

2) Al-hasan and Al-hussain (r.a) both had sons named Abu Bakr and Omar. Can you start admitting that there is a pattern going on here?

I can clearly understand your argumnent, but that which you are using as evidence to prove the love between the Ahlu Al-Bayt (a.s) and the companions is inconsistent. Because, if your claim was right that since our Imams (a.s) named their children with names of particular companions then that means thay they loved them, then the shias historically should of not carried the names of Umar, yazeed, Abu Bakr and Mauwiya since they hated them. But history has shown otherwise and shias did indeed call their sons Umar and Abu Bakr. This should of not happened if your claim (naming Umar and Abu Bakr = loving them) was true. Shias hated Umar and Abu bakr and yet they sill named their sons with those names. This clearly highlights that your argument is false and there is another reason behind our Imams (a.s) naming their sons Umar and Abu Bakr.

If we reflect back historicaly to the time of the companions we see that many companions had the names of Abu Bakr and Umar, so why did you claim they names their sons after the khulafaa and not those other companions? And whats your proof they our Imams names specifically after them?

The truth is that the names Umar and Abu Bakr were common names, and back then when the names Umar and Abu Bakr where mentioned one would not think of the khulafaa Umar and Abu Bakr directly. However, today when we mention the names of Umar and Abu Bakr, we quickly think of the khulafaa.

3) Um Kalthoom the daughter of Ali (r.a) was married to Omar (r.a). No comment here.

There is no saheh shia hadith which explicitly says that Imam Ali (a.s) married his daughter to Umar. However, there is some saheh shia hadiths that sunnis like to use as proofs by giving their interpertation of the hadiths, but the shias have disagreed with that interpertation. Like the ones in Al-Kafi and I think you know which I am talking about.

However, I noticed that you tried to imply that this more than clear that Imam Ali (a.s) loved Umar and Abu Bakr, will then again this as evidence is inconsistent. Because we see Awliyaa of Allah marrying offering their daughters t enemies of Allah. Such as Prophet Lut (a.s) who offered his daughters to homosexuals. Does this prove that prophet Lut (a.s) was pleased with them as homosexuals? I dont think no muslim will agree, thus we can conclude that if it was true that Imam Ali (a.s) did marry his daughter to Umar, then was because he wanted to guide Umar or bring back to the path of islam by developing a relationship with him, just like how prophet Lut (a.s) did by offering his daughters to his own enemies.

4) Ali (r.a) sent Al-hasan and Al-hussain (r.a) to defend Othman (r.a).

This doesn't take a genuis to solve. But I will cut it short. Imam Ali (a.s) knew that the killing of Uthman will lead to a sedition that will cause the muslims to divide. So Imam (a.s) sent his Imam Hassan (a.s) and Husain (a.s) to stand at the door of Othman inorder to prevent the believers from entering on Othman and killing him.

As far as our love for Ahl Albayt (pbuh):

Your love? Sunnis love to Ahlu Al-Bayt (a.s)? Let me show the opinion of UR scholars on the grandson of the prophet (pbuh), Imam Sadiq (a.s) who Allah testified for his purety.

Here is the opinion of some of your scholars on Imam sadiq (a.s)

Ibn Sa'ed author of Tabakat Al-Kubrah says concering Imam Sadiq(a.s):

æÞÇá ÇÈä ÓÚÏ ßÇä ßËíÑ ÇáÍÏíË æáÇ íÍÊÌ Èå æíÓÊÖÚÝ

"He has narrated many ahadith, and his narraions CANNOT be used as hujjah and his weakened"

Is this then love you are talking about? The grandson of the prophet (pbuh) is rejected in hadith.

Lets continue

Ibn Al-Madani says that Yahya Ibn Sa'ed was asked about Jaf'ar Ibn Muhaammed: He said there something inside me that does not trust him, so I (Ibn Al-Madani ) said what about mujaled? He said Mujaled is more beloved to me than him (Imam Sadiq)

: ÓÆá íÍíì Èä ÓÚíÏ Úä ÌÚÝÑ Èä ãÍãÏ ÝÞÇá: Ýí äÝÓí ãäå ÔÆ¡ ÞáÊ: ÝãÌÇáÏ ¿ ÞÇá: ãÌÇáÏ ÃÍÈ Åáí ãäå

See tahzeeb Attahzeeb volume 4 page 89

This is your love for Ahlu Al-Bayt (a.s) is this what you were refering to?

But this raises a question hos great must Mujaled be so that he is more beloved to your scholars than Imam Sadiq (a.s)

Lets see

When Ahmed Ibn Hanbal was asked about Mujaled he said:

æßÇä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÍäÈá áÇ íÑÇå ÔíÆÇ

Mujaled was worthless!

So if Mujaled was worthless and he is more beloved to your scholars than Imam sadiq (a.s) how low does your scholars think of Imam Sadiq (a.s)??????

So now you now why Bukhari did not narrate anything from Imam Sadiq (a.s). But incase you accuse me of assuming thsi here is ibn taymiyah agreeing:

æÞÏ ÅÓÊÑÇÈ ÇáÈÎÇÑí Ýí ÈÚÖ ÃÍÇÏíËå

áãÇ ÈáÛå Úä íÍíì Èä ÓÚíÏ ÇáÞØÇä Ýíå ßáÇã Ýáã íÎÑÌ áå .

"And Bukhari doubted the some of his (Imam sadiq) narrations after when he was informed that yahya ibn Sa'eed Al-Qattan critisized him and therefore he did not report his narrations"

Minhajj Assunah volume 4 page 143

You want me to belive you love Ahlu Al-Bayt (a.s) when your scholars have insulted them and have favoured worthless people over them.

1) The hadith of Al-kesa’a was narrated with sahih sanad only in Sunni books, and the narrator is, guess who?, Um Almomeneen Aishah (ra).

Thats not proof that she love them. Because that would mean narrators such as

2) Fatima’s (ra) narrations in sunni hadith books are 11. Fatima’s (ra) narrations in Shia hadith books is zero, unfortunately.

Sunnis only have 11 narration for Fatima (a.s) :o . And you say you love Ahlu Al-Bayt (a.s).

And about what what menioned about shias not having any narrations from Fatima (a.s), I suggest you to read a book called musnad Fatima (a.s) hundreds of narrations for Fatima (a.s) were reported in that book.

3) Ali’s (ra) narrations: 1583 in Sunni books, 690 in Shia books.

Thats a lie every single narration that is musnad to any of our Imams (a.s) passes through Imam Ali (a.s). As Imam sadiq (a.s) said when he was asked about the isnaad when he does not mention it. See alkafi

4) The most important point in my view and I want you to think about this particular point: you will NEVER find a sunni cursing or saying anything bad about Ahl Albayt (as) , but you know what the Shia say about the loved Companions (r.a).

Tell me isn't favouring worthless people over them insulting them, like how your scholars did?

After all this, do you still want to divide Ahl Albayt and the Companions? Do you still hate them?

I hate the enemies of Ahlu Al-Albayt (a.s), even if they were companions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Spizo, your question is very simple. If we go back and ask ourselves: “who amongst the companions have changed the deen?” we would find Abu bakr, Omar, Otham, and Ali (ra) perfectly clear of the blame, as it is the case with the majority of the Sahabah, that’s why the hadith in Arabic describes the number of those as (hamal alneam) which means very few. Unfortunately, the Shia had it the other way around, they say the majority changed the deen while three, or four, or nine only stayed in their religion.

. .and who were these "few" companions? Name them. . .and do enlighten me as to how these "few" companions changed and introduced innovations in deen.

Is that the number that the prophet (pbuh) was capable of educating and elevating? Don’t you have a shame calling the prophet (pbuh) a failed teacher? I know you wouldn’t dare say that about the companions of Khomeini.

Don't you have any shame comparing the Prophet (s) to Khomeini? Don't you have any shame calling the Prophet (s) a failed teacher even for those "few" companions who changed the deen?

1) But if you are so trusting in Al-Bukhari, he also narrated a hadith that says:

I can use this very same argument against you when you bring us selective quotes from the Shi'i books. But you do know it doesn't work this way.

So, Spizo, would you stop abusing the companions of the Prophet (pbuh)?

Hm . .you just abused the companions who introduced the innovations in deen.

2) Plus, do you suggest the Allah didn't know that those companions would change the deen when Allah revealed (9:100): And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph.”

Allah (swt) didn't know about those "few" companions either? Secondly, just because they were the companions of the Prophet (s), does it mean according to you that they are immune from sins and the fire of hell, only on the basis of this virtue of their being companions?

3) Furthermore, we know that Arabia after the prophet (pbuh) separated into the believers and the muratadeen. We also know that the companions and Ahl Albayt were together (as they always are) in the camp of the believers who fought for the religion not to be changed.

How was it distinguised as to who were believers and who were murtadeen? I mean on what basis was the distinction made?

4) Finally (please read carefully), If the first Caliph after the Prophet (pbuh) was Ali (ra) not Abu Bark (ra), I’m certain that we would have people like you cursing Ali (ra) and saying that the Caliphat should’ve gone to Abu Bakr, because some people are only interested in “should’ve’s” and they can easy be followers to whoever wants to bring about Fitnaa and divide the believers.

Nonsense.

5) I leave you with this verse and hope that you would rethink your purpose in life from a caller of hate to caller of love, (48:29): “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.”

Are you enranged at the Companions?

I am 'enraged' at those Companions who enraged Lady Zahra (sa). .

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 111:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and whoever makes her angry, makes me angry."

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, it does. The Ithna asharis believe that the ALL ancestors of the Imams are Muslims. But they also believe that Abu bakr (ra) is not. How do you compromise that?

As Salaam Alaykum

That's just misquoting shia belief. The 6th Imam's mother was a descendant of Abu Bakr but Shias do not accept any old pre-islamic arab's ancestors (such as Abu Bakr's ancestors) as muslim only those who were the patriarchal ancestors of Mohammad (sws) and Ali (as) ie the Hashemites. Likewise the 4th Imam's mother ws the daughter of the Iranian Shah and a muslim but we don't accept the pre-islamic Ancient Pesian Kings who were her ancestors as muslim. Likewise the 12th Imam's mother was the grand-daughter of the Byzantine Emperor and she was a muslim but we don't accept the Byzantine Christian Kings who were her ancestors as muslim till you go all the way back to Simon Peter the deisciple of Jesus and his early descendanhts who (I think) founded the dynasty. Likewise though the mother of the 8th Imam was a muslim from Nubia we do not acccept those of her ancestors who were pre-islamic Nubians as muslims.

You are talking bewildering nonsense about the beliefs of Shias, probably to prop up Abu Bakr who I can sense you hve an infatuation with (ie you are a diehard Sunni).

Salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this what you really think of Abu Bakr (ra) and the Compnaions (ra)? Shouldn�t you be more respectful of them? Why do you want to come between the Imams and the Companions? We sunnis believe that they were brothers, what was in their hearts for Allah and what they did for Islam overwhelms any mistakes, even though the mistakes you claim never did happen. How do I believe that they were brothers? (Sources from Shia books, ask for any specific point and let me provide the book and the page number)

1) Ali (ra) had: a son from Laila bint Masood named Abu Bark, a son from Om habeeb named Omar, and a son from Om Albaneen named Othman. You may say these names were common. Well, would any shia today name his/her son after one of these names, let alone naming three of your sons after three of the Khulafa (ra)?

2) Al-hasan and Al-hussain (ra) both had sons named Abu Bakr and Omar. Can you start admitting that there is a pattern going on here?

3) Um Kalthoom the daughter of Ali (ra) was married to Omar (ra). No comment here.

4) Ali (ra) sent Al-hasan and Al-hussain (ra) to defend Othman (ra).

As far as our love for Ahl Albayt (pbuh):

1) The hadith of Al-kesa�a was narrated with sahih sanad only in Sunni books, and the narrator is, guess who?, Um Almomeneen Aishah (ra).

2) Fatima�s (ra) narrations in sunni hadith books are 11. Fatima�s (ra) narrations in Shia hadith books is zero, unfortunately.

3) Ali�s (ra) narrations: 1583 in Sunni books, 690 in Shia books.

4) The most important point in my view and I want you to think about this particular point: you will NEVER find a sunni cursing or saying anything bad about Ahl Albayt (as) , but you know what the Shia say about the loved Companions (ra).

After all this, do you still want to divide Ahl Albayt and the Companions? Do you still hate them?

All these childish arguments from sunnis , point by point, are dealt with in depth on the answering-ansar.org website. Or if that is too much depth for you type in search on this site or read the other posts for a quick perspective on your points. Or are you a virgin to these issues? Why waste time when many have refuted them before, including on this site. As an example the caliph Abu Bakr was not even known by that name in his lifetime - the 2 arab words Abu Bakr constitute an epithet given to him later in history - so Imam Ali (as) could not in naming a son Abu Bakr be naming him after the caliph Abu Bakr.

Many of the companions spent most of their lives as muslims killing each other (War of the Yemen, War against Uthman, War of Jamal, War of Siffeen, War of Nahrwan....or are all these wars and massacres in which 100s of thousands died a bizarre series of misunderstandings between saintly santa claus sahaba types as sunnis would have us believe) . You have a higher opinion of them than they had of each other. So why follow such a grossly obvious bunch of political self-seeking rebel rousers and assorted misfits and traitors. All sunnis islam is is the racist religion of the early arab kings and your hadith books the political propaganda they spun for themselves. Citing isolated hadith and playing games with names as you have in addition to being refuted on the above websites is an old tactic to distract people from the big picture. The sahaba murdered each other with the sword. That is the big picture. They hated each other. Murder and massacre is the big picture. Not silly names. Imam Ali (as) was appointed the Prophet (saws)'s successor at Ghadhir Khumm before tens of thousands of people in a hadith that is found in scores of your sunni books. That is the big picture. Use your commonsense. Since I do not have love for the sahaba I don't let my heart rule my head.

The other thing I don't like about a lot of sunni propagandists is as shown by the brothers above the sunnis deliberately lie or produce false testimony out of sheer ignorance. You have not told the truth saying the only narrations from Fatima (sa) are in sunni books, as shown in a post above. You have also lied about Hadith-e-Kisa. The chain from Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari is sound according to numerous shia scholars.

So stop lying or get your facts right about us. There is one advantage - that is when your sunni's fabrictions about shias are exposed, it has the advatnage of turning true seekers of truth to the true path, ie the path of Imam Ali (as). God's curse be on all enemies of the ahl ul bayt.

Wa Salaam

Edited by husainshahid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
As far as our love for Ahl Albayt (pbuh):

No matter how much Sunnis say they claim to love Ahlul-Bayt (as), and I don't doubt their sincerity, but the fact is is that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) hardly play a significant role in Sunni doctrine and are not given the emphasis they deserve. I have visited Sunni masjids several times and have heard many of their khutbas and lectures, and I don't recall Ahlul-Bayt (as) hardly ever being mentioned. Imam Ali (as) may get mentioned at most two or three times a year, and I remember Hasan (as) and Hussein (as) mentioned once, but only in passing. But I swear to God you will hear Abu Bakr and Umar drilled into your head every single time with an infinite amount of stories backed by "hadiths" proving their character.

This tells me that obviously these individuals are more prized and more emphasized in Sunni dialogue than the Ahlul Bayt (as), and that the proposed claim to love Ahlul-Bayt (as) is nonsubstantive and is done mostly for appeasement for Shias. Even though Imam Ali (as) is considered part of the Khalifa Rashidun, I bet many Sunni lecturers are scared to talk about him lest they seem to look "Shia" or that maybe they feel Abu Bakr and Umar would get somewhat demoted, especially considering the clear superiority of Ali (as).

Ask any average Sunni about anything pertaining to the Ahlul-Bayt (as), and most can tell you next to nothing. And considering all the contributions the Ahlul-Bayt (as) made to the religion of Islam, this is seriously pitiful. But I'm bet they can tell you hundreds of stories about Umar crying every night in a heartbeat.

So to me, this love is based on no action, so it is meaningless to me. Can Sunnis really reconcile love for Ahlul-Bayt (as), while at the same time not be careful to demote their heroes at the same time? I don't think they can, so that's why most Sunnis avoid talking about them.

Trying to prove that Sunnis love the Ahlul-Bayt (as) by counting the number of verses in hadith books proves nothing to me, because the fact is is that their role in mainstream Sunni dialogue and academia is extremely minimal and their importance for most common Sunnis is virtually none.

Just my opinion. I know this is the Imam Mehdi (as) forum, but I just wanted to say this.

Edited by Shia Engineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...