Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Ali A.s Is Sirat-e-mustaqeem

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
Posted

(salam)

(bismillah)

1. ayah 6 “Keep us on the straight path (siratul mustaqeem)”

Imam Sadiq (as) narrates, “Siratul Mustaqeem is Ameerul Momineen Ali (asws) ibn Abi Talib (as).”

(Maani ul Akbar pg 32)

Imam Ali (a.s) is Sirat e Mustaqeem then it means whosoever whether yesterday or today or tomorrow will rise against Ali a.s, he will be rising against Sirat e Mustaqeem.

What do you say about Muawvia (l.a) and Aysha and company?

  • Veteran Member
Posted

Easy, they'll rant on about how good these companions were to Imam Ali(a.s) and how highly He spoke of them. And that we lie about everything that ever happened .-.

Lol! You made my day by making me remember what a senior lawyer is used to say. He said to me that "I do not agree that Jamal occurred. It is impossible to believe. This is only Shia corrupted history" lol.

I know it is like a peacock hiding its head in the sand.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

Let me ask you something first.

Don't you find it odd at sefin that as Ali RA is about defeat Moawiyah's army, there is a party that decides to disobey Ali RA and stop fighting?

Don't you find it odd at sefin that there is another party within Ali's RA people, that decides to directly aid Moawiyah by fighting against Ali RA for eventually ending the war? Remember these people were the rebels who assassinated Osman RA and now are joining Moawiyah, someone who supposedly supported him.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

Let me ask you something first.

Don't you find it odd at sefin that as Ali RA is about defeat Moawiyah's army, there is a party that decides to disobey Ali RA and stop fighting?

Don't you find it odd at sefin that there is another party within Ali's RA people, that decides to directly aid Moawiyah by fighting against Ali RA for eventually ending the war? Remember these people were the rebels who assassinated Osman RA and now are joining Moawiyah, someone who supposedly supported him.

Im sorry, but I dont quite get your point.

Guest EndlessEndeavor
Posted

Let me ask you something first.

Don't you find it odd at sefin that as Ali RA is about defeat Moawiyah's army, there is a party that decides to disobey Ali RA and stop fighting?

Don't you find it odd at sefin that there is another party within Ali's RA people, that decides to directly aid Moawiyah by fighting against Ali RA for eventually ending the war? Remember these people were the rebels who assassinated Osman RA and now are joining Moawiyah, someone who supposedly supported him.

Yes quite odd, particular when the Prophet SAW has said:

"No one loves Ali except one who is a believer, and no one is hostile to him except one who is an infidel."

"O Ali! It is only the believer who loves you, and it is only the hypocrite who hates you."

Judge for yourself.

Posted (edited)

(salam)

(bismillah)

1. ayah 6 “Keep us on the straight path (siratul mustaqeem)”

Imam Sadiq (as) narrates, “Siratul Mustaqeem is Ameerul Momineen Ali (asws) ibn Abi Talib (as).”

(Maani ul Akbar pg 32)

http://www.akhbari.org/urdu/pop7.htm

here sirat e mustaqeem means islam not amir ul momineen hazrat ali (ra).

Edited by wikipedia
  • Veteran Member
Posted

http://www.akhbari.org/urdu/pop7.htm

here sirat e mustaqeem means islam not amir ul momineen hazrat ali (ra).

Each verse of holy Quran has 70 apparent meanings and 70 hidden meanings. Imam Jafar Sadiq a.s have also said that "We (ahl ul bayt a.s) are Sirat e Mustaqeem". Sirat e Mustaqeem is Islam, Quran, Ali a.s and Haq. But what can i say when Prophet (pbuh) said

1. Ali a.s is with Haq (right) and Haq (right) is with Ali a.s. O Allah turn the right (Haq) where Ali a.s turns.

2. Ali a.s is with Quran and Quran is with Ali a.s

3. At the time of Khadaq prophet (pbuh) said

"Today complete Islam is going against complete Kufar"

"Today complete faith is going against hypocracy (Munafiqat)"

Can we find such hadiths about Abu Bakar, Umer, Uthman or Aysha or Muawvia (Laeen)?

No then we have to decide right where Ali a.s stands.

75.jpg

  • Advanced Member
Posted

In the start of certain Quranic Suras, there are some difficult alphabets i.e. Alif Laam Meem, etc.

They are called as Huroof-e-Muqattiaat.

By writing all of them in one line by omitting the repeated alphabets, only 14 alphabets remain.

They make only one Arabic sentence:

“Sirat-o-Ali-un-Haqq-o-Numassic Hu”

English: The path of Ali is right/haq, follow it.

Urdu: Ali ka raasta Haq hey, is ki pairvi karo.

(Saad, Rae, Alif, Toyae --- Aen, Laam, Yae ---Hae (Haqq starts with this Hae), Qaaf ( Haqq ends on this Qaaf) ---- Noon, Meem, Seen, Kaaf (Kitaab starts with this Kaaf), Hae (Haza "this" starts with this Hae)

  • Veteran Member
Posted

In the start of certain Quranic Suras, there are some difficult alphabets i.e. Alif Laam Meem, etc.

They are called as Huroof-e-Muqattiaat.

By writing all of them in one line by omitting the repeated alphabets, only 14 alphabets remain.

They make only one Arabic sentence:

“Sirat-o-Ali-un-Haqq-o-Numassic Hu”

English: The path of Ali is right/haq, follow it.

Urdu: Ali ka raasta Haq hey, is ki pairvi karo.

(Saad, Rae, Alif, Toyae --- Aen, Laam, Yae ---Hae (Haqq starts with this Hae), Qaaf ( Haqq ends on this Qaaf) ---- Noon, Meem, Seen, Kaaf (Kitaab starts with this Kaaf), Hae (Haza "this" starts with this Hae)

  • Advanced Member
Posted

Im sorry, but I dont quite get your point.

These people that I talked about in my last post were supposedly the fiercest Ali RA supporters. They were not however. They were opportunists and regicides who were against Islam. Another odd thing is that before the jamal batte, Ali RA and his messengers successfully reached an agreement/accord, and then later in the morning suddenly there are "surprise attacks" claimed by both sides. odd? Yeah. It's important not to dismiss this in Jamal, it's very clear. There is a plot for the separation of the ummah.

Was Moawiyah perhaps taking advantage of this? Perhaps. His actions of Sefin and the battle with Hassan RA, and then his appointment are strong evidence.

  • Advanced Member
Posted

These people that I talked about in my last post were supposedly the fiercest Ali RA supporters. They were not however. They were opportunists and regicides who were against Islam. Another odd thing is that before the jamal batte, Ali RA and his messengers successfully reached an agreement/accord, and then later in the morning suddenly there are "surprise attacks" claimed by both sides. odd? Yeah. It's important not to dismiss this in Jamal, it's very clear. There is a plot for the separation of the ummah.

Was Moawiyah perhaps taking advantage of this? Perhaps. His actions of Sefin and the battle with Hassan RA, and then his appointment are strong evidence.

I still dont quite understand? Are you saying Imam Ali [as] was correct, and Imam Hassan [as] was correct, or are you trying to say something else ... ?

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I still dont quite understand? Are you saying Imam Ali [as] was correct, and Imam Hassan [as] was correct, or are you trying to say something else ... ?

Okay, but I said that the regicides were against Islam.

1. Ali RA is the path of truth. (This is fact accepted by Sunnis despite what others may propagate)

2. Hassan RA is the path of truth. (This is fact accepted by Sunnis despite what others may propagate)

3. The regicides are the rebels who assassinated Osman RA. Seeing the opportunity, quickly proclaimed Ali's RA authority. However, in their interests, in their own way (disobeying or fighting) betrayed Ali RA.

4. The party at Jamal wanted to fight the rebels. When Ali RA and his Party came, an accord was reached. However realizing that it's in their interest to have Ali RA 's party actually fighting, the regicides initiated the battle

5. Realizing their opportunity for Ali RA to loose and have the ummah split, they either disobeyed Ali RA or fought him (khawaraj)

Edited by Merdan
  • 11 years later...
Posted
On 1/5/2012 at 10:00 PM, Merdan said:

Let me ask you something first.

Don't you find it odd at sefin that as Ali RA is about defeat Moawiyah's army, there is a party that decides to disobey Ali RA and stop fighting?

Don't you find it odd at sefin that there is another party within Ali's RA people, that decides to directly aid Moawiyah by fighting against Ali RA for eventually ending the war? Remember these people were the rebels who assassinated Osman RA and now are joining Moawiyah, someone who supposedly supported him.

Do you remember what happened in battle of uhud. Do you remember how so called SAHABA ran away leaving Prophet s.a behind to be killed. History narrates so many times a few SAHABA disbelieved Prophet s decisions. If you want more proof please consult Quran park where  Prophet a.a s companions had to be told off and rethink about their Imam

  • Advanced Member
Posted

Mu'awiya

On 1/7/2012 at 11:45 PM, Merdan said:

4. The party at Jamal wanted to fight the rebels. When Ali RA and his Party came, an accord was reached. However realizing that it's in their interest to have Ali RA 's party actually fighting, the regicides initiated the battle

Salam it's too funny because all of party against Amir Al muminin Imam Ali(عليه السلام) have been rebels but you have claimed that they have wanted to fight with rebels :blabla::hahaha:

which you have claimed that  Amir Al muminin Imam Ali(عليه السلام) has been one of rebels while he has been legitimate caliph. :einstein::book:

On 1/7/2012 at 11:45 PM, Merdan said:

3. The regicides are the rebels who assassinated Osman RA. Seeing the opportunity, quickly proclaimed Ali's RA authority. However, in their interests, in their own way (disobeying or fighting) betrayed Ali RA.

They have not been rebels which according to Sunni viewpoint about Sahab all of them have been Sahabas which you by calling them have insulted to your Sahabas  & denied Idalat (justice & integrity)  of them .

On 1/7/2012 at 11:45 PM, Merdan said:

5. Realizing their opportunity for Ali RA to loose and have the ummah split, they either disobeyed Ali RA or fought him (khawaraj)

Khawaraj have been product of cursed Mu'awiya & cursed Amr ibn al-As & stupidity of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari .

Quote

ʿAbd Allāh b. Qays (Arabic:عبدالله بن قيس) known as Abū Musā al-Ashʿarī (أبوموسی الأشعري) was a companion of Prophet Muhammad (s). He is famous in historical sources primarily because of the role he played in the Arbitration, which took place after the Battle of Siffin. He was chosen as the arbitrator of Imam Ali's side. Imam (a) was not pleased with selecting Abu Musa as the arbitrator, but he had to accept it as his soldiers forced him. Consequently, Abu Musa was tricked and deceived by 'Amr b. al-'As who was the arbitrator of Mu'awiya.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Musa_al-Ash'ari

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 1/6/2012 at 10:34 PM, Merdan said:

Was Moawiyah perhaps taking advantage of this? Perhaps. His actions of Sefin and the battle with Hassan RA, and then his appointment are strong evidence.

^^^Exactly...we agree here

On 1/7/2012 at 3:15 PM, Merdan said:

The regicides are the rebels who assassinated Osman RA.

Uthman ruled for 12 years...the first 6 years were pretty good...the last 6 years of his rule were characterized by incompetency and were considered somewhat a disaster for the fledgling Islamic civilization...both secular and sincere Sunni historians readily admit this...toward the end of his reign, Uthman practiced nepotism...he favored his kinsmen in key political positions and public opposition to certain policies abroad were being voiced (particularly) from the Egyptian quarter/province/district...Uthman was becoming older and his mental capabilities were being compromised more-and-more (perhaps suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease) and Bani Umayyah were taking unfair advantage of his condition (including extracting funds from Bayt al-mal for their own benefit)

On 1/6/2012 at 10:34 PM, Merdan said:

They were opportunists and regicides who were against Islam.

Blaming the Jews or Abdullah ibn Saba for disunity among Muslims is nonsense talk

Edited by Eddie Mecca
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Not sure whether or not he's still around (i.e. active member on ShiaChat)...not sure whether he's Sunni or Shi'i (neither do I care)...@Vigilare sums it up quite perfectly (in my opinion)...he states...

"This is quite an interesting area, and there are probably at least three views on Uthman:

First, the standard sunni view that he was one of the rightly guided caliphs, and did nothing wrong to justify the rebels killing him.

Second, the standard shia view that while not as bad as Abu Bakr or Umar, he still usurped the right of Ali (عليه السلام) by accepting the Caliphate, and was responsible for his death due to his nepotism, corruption and leading a lifestyle that was at odds with that of the early Muslims and the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Third, and this goes against sunni and shia views somewhat but is probably the most realistic, is that Uthman had started off in a strong position as Caliph, but as the Islamic empire grew the wealth of Muslims also grew. He subsequently began to live in a way that was at variance with that of earlier Caliphs, but not necessarily un-Islamic. Arguably he probably was influenced by some of the Ummayads who wanted their old prestige back, or those who never truly accepted Islam in the first place, and were waiting for the right time to do something. Given that he was a Caliph for 12 years, it’s reasonable to assume that the majority of Muslims were pleased with him initially, but this changed in the latter part of his caliphate. Abu Bakr’s time was occupied with the Ridda Wars, and Umar ruled with what you could say was an Iron Fist, whereas it’s noted that Uthman was a soft and gentle hearted.

There are of course certain issues that need to be looked into –

Many of the narrations about Uthman and the rebels have been fabricated to support a particular sectarian view. It’s no coincidence that shias accept all narrations that are negative and critical of Uthman and other sahabis, while sunnis reject most of them and blame it on other factors, including some pro-Alid personalities.

The role of Waqidi in the narrations and his reliability.

Uthman’s alleged treatment of some high ranking sahabis, including Abu Dharr (رضي الله عنه)

The role of the Sahaba when Uthman was attacked

Unfortunately, this is clearly one of those events where the truth takes a back seat to those wishing to promote their sect’s stance."

Edited by Eddie Mecca

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.

×
×
  • Create New...