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

Saiyidina Hasan Ibn Ali Radiyallahu Anhu

Rate this topic


Sonador

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

People centuries later are not as much relevant to him as people of his own time. People of his own time different because of the murder of the 3rd khalifah and so 5 years of Saiyidina Ali ra passed with Muslims fighting each other sparked by the conspiracies of munafiqeen.

There were people like Kharijites who did takfir on Saiyidina Ali ra.

People of Syria didn't submit to him either.

But Ahl-as-Sunnah consider him the 4th khalifah. Because whatever happened during his rule was not his fault. It was the fault of the enemies of Islam from Persia and Egypt.

(bismillah)

(salam)

dont forget the rightly guided calipha

and i am sure you are aware of the hadith that only a momin will love ali(as) and only a munafiq will hate him(as)

It's sighting Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhe wasallam. To you it may not mean anything.

like the son and the wife of nuh(as) were sighting him

(wasalam)

Edited by haideriam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@ Sonador

You must understand that just because there were partisians, this doesn't mean that the message of Al-Ali's a.s successorship was not delivered to the Muslimeen. The majority didn't follow him, this doesn't mean it wasn't established through the Prophet (S) in essence. For verily establishment doesn't mean that the majority follow it, otherwise it is then arguable that Islam has never been established seen as the majority of mankind are not Muslims.

It's sighting Rasoolullah sallallahu alayhe wasallam. To you it may not mean anything.

You have no idea what it means to me.

If this is the case, then even all those who fought in war against him and died in the process will be in jannah and are considered sahaba - do you guys use reason at all? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

dont forget the rightly guided calipha

and i am sure you are aware of the hadith that only a momin will love ali(as) and only a munafiq will hate him(as)

Another hadith of Bukhari says only a munafiq will hate Ansaar. [Edited]

like the son and the wife of nuh(as) were sighting him

Quran testifies they were kafirs.

Testimony of shias about someone's kufr is not accepted at all.

@ Sonador

You must understand that just because there were partisians, this doesn't mean that the message of Al-Ali's a.s successorship was not delivered to the Muslimeen. The majority didn't follow him, this doesn't mean it wasn't established through the Prophet (S) in essence. For verily establishment doesn't mean that the majority follow it, otherwise it is then arguable that Islam has never been established seen as the majority of mankind are not Muslims.

Quran already tells about majority that they don't believe.

Ali's successorship is not mentioned in the Book of Allah. Shias only use allegorical verses to prove that. Isma'ilis and Bohra can also use those verses to make their own point.

If this is the case, then even all those who fought in war against him and died in the process will be in jannah and are considered sahaba - do you guys use reason at all? :wacko:

You didn't read what I said. A companion is the person who's on Islam. Those who fought our Nabi s.a.w were not Muslims.

Edited by inshaAllah
Member warned. Racist comments/fitna mongering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Our Ulama have a consensus that he's a companion of Muhammad s.a.w and a righteous believer. Many believe he was a wise and just king of Muslims. Though people under his rule considered him their Khalifah.

May Allah save us from "Sufyani Islam" where a Kalb like Muawvia (l.a) is considered a rightful ruler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Mu'awiya was the ruler of Shaam, he got the people to hate Imam Ali.

Wait...Mu'awiya the cruel tyrant got the ppl to hate our beloved almighty Ali? Cool story bro...you keep contradiciting yourself.

My misinformed idiot (no offense) I gave you a clear reference, it is clear history, it is amazing, beyond amazing, that someone can be this willingly ignorant, moronic, and idiotic (no offense).

Another lol moment. This my friend: "If there were a Prophet after me verily it would be Umar." is "clear" reference/history aswell, so why aren't you taking it as clear *cough* Hypocrite *cough*? Yea.... You can remove "no offense" by now (great sarcasm i'll give you that :D).

Firstly, your Qur'an Ayat is in reference to Badr, not Uhud, read it from beginning to end, 11-19, all about Badr, and the main one to focus on is 17, it's telling the Muslims not to act so proud, it was through Allah's strength they won. Khalid saw the archers come down off the mountain, and then he saw a chance to do his attack, and did it, Allah was not acting as all through him.

I know it is a reference to badr, doesn't matter. God uses same references on many different occasions to make his point clear, so did I.

It's like a rapist going in objection because the victim had different color hair lol...(bad example I know..)

Secondly, I'm not denying Allah's control on everything,

You sure?

I'm telling you it wasn't Allah who got the horses to move, and then the soldiers to come and attack the Muslims in their behind while they chased the other Kafirs around the mountain.

Thought so...props for contradicting yourself in 1 sentence.

And I find it again hilarious how you're making fun of me, while you call true narrated history "fairy tales" it is just extremely laughable your blatant ignorance, nonetheless, it happened, whether you want to believe it or no, it happened, your belief in it doesn't change that. Imam Ali (as) was seen as an authority to those who he still had control over, but the constant propaganda of Aisha and Mu'awiya turned a lot of people against him.

Define "true narrated history"(Scroll up for hypocrisy). My words my friend, my words...

Do you have any idea what the hell you're saying, you were the one who brought it up, why we Shi'as "hate" and curse the Sahaba. And it's not a fairy tale, clear, recorded, black and white history, what on earth will it take to get that through your thick skull, and processed in that nut you call a brain (no offense)

Lol wise guy. Pot calling the kettle black. You couldn't get "true narrated history" from your fellow sunni's in your nut and your expecting a neutral guy to take yours? Logic meter: below zero.

Bottom line. Your "true narrated histories" have more contradictions than veins in our body.

Summary: With all the contradictions since post 1, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about :/ For logic(again) read my prev posts x6, make x 10. Ok x 50 to be safe.

P.S You actually removed that sentence about Ali from wiki? How sad :( 3rd time, ask the old fairy to read the proof for ya

I'm out ~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Our definition of companion of Muhammad s.a.w is different from that of shias. The companion of Prophet s.a.w is a person who's blessed with the comapny of the Prophet or at least he's sighted Rasoolullah s.a.w in the state of Iman and whose death upon Iman is also established.

We don't accept all stupid narrations or hadiths that don't make any sense, because they were fabricated by extremists.

We don't care what definition you accept or not accept. We follow what Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì the Almighty says in the holy Quran that there were some hypocrites among the companions - A whole chapter is dedicated to them. "(al-Munafiqun - chapter 63)

Allah also says about some of the companions in the Quran :

"O ye who believe! What is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the Cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; But Him ye would not harm in the least, For Allah hath power over all things." (Holy Qur'an 9:38-39)

This is a clear indication that some of Sahaba, companions were lazy during the call to Jihad and other activities, and, thus, deserved the above reprimand by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. This is not the only instance where Allah (SWT) threatened to replace them:

"... If you turn back (from the path), He will substitute in your stead another people; then they would not be like you!" (Holy Qur'an 47:38)

Allah also said:

"O you who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of prophet ... lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive." (Holy Qur'an 49:2)

Authentic sunni traditions confirm that there have been some Sahaba, companions who used to oppose Prophet Muhammad's (saw) order and quarrel with him in several occasions.

Shia have a great respect for real Sahaba (Companions of Prophet Muhammad (saw)) who closely followed Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Ahlul Bayt (as) before and after the death of Prophet Muhammad (saw).

Among these great companions, are the following few individuals in the light of sayings of Prophet Muhammad (saw):

Hazrat Abu Zar Ghaffari (Radhiallahu Anhu)

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said concerning Hazrat Abu Zar Ghaffari (Radhiallahu Anhu) that: "Heaven has not shaded, nor has the earth carried a person more straight forward than Abu Zar. He walks on earth with the immaterialistic attitude of Jesus, the son of Mary."

Hazrat Ammar Yasir / Ammar ibn Yasir (Radhiallahu Anhu)

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said concerning Hazrat Ammar Yasir (Radhiallahu Anhu) along with his parents (Yasir ibn Amir and Sumayyah bint Khabbab) that: "Family of Yasir, be patient, for your destination is paradise."

Prophet Muhammad (saw) also said that: "Ammar be cheerful, the aggressor party shall kill you."

Note: Hazrat Ammar Yasir (Radhiallahu Anhu) got martyred in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the camp of Imam Ali (as) against Muawiyah.

Hazrat Miqdad ibn al-Aswad al-Kindi (Radhiallahu Anhu)

Hazrat Miqdad ibn al-Aswad al-Kindi (Radhiallahu Anhu) is among the four men whom Prophet Muhammad (saw) was commanded to love, as Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

"God commanded me to love four, and He informed me that he loves them. People asked him: Messenger of God who are they? Prophet Muhammad (saw) said: Ali is from them (repeating that three times). And Abu Zar and Salman and al-Miqdad."

Hazrat Salman al-Farsi (Radhiallahu Anhu)

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said concerning Hazrat Salman al-Farsi (Radhiallahu Anhu) that: "Paradise longs for three men, Ali, Ammar and Salman."

Hazrat Ibn Abbas (Radhiallahu Anhu)

Prophet Muhammad (saw) said concerning Hazrat Ibn Abbas (Radhiallahu Anhu) that: "God I ask Thee to teach him the interpretation and make him knowledgeable in religion and make him from the people of belief."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Khilafah of Ali radiyallahu anhu couldn't be established because of the civil war. People were divided into partisans.

The case of Ali ra is quite different from that of the first 3 khalifahs. The khilafah of the first 3 khalifahs was established perfectly.

who caused fitna/civil war ??? - ayesha - jamal

muawiya - siffin

khawjir - nahrawan

then why on earth you call him a rashidun caliph ???

you call him a rashidun caliph but your real opinion is this?? - is it not insulting him (as)

and where did you guys get this concept of rashidun caliphs? and that there are 4 rashidun caliphs ?

wasnt it the later innovation and saying ?

did you forget that for over 80 years imam ali ibn abu thalib (as) was cursed from your mosques ??

what explanation do you give for that - you curse him for 80 years

later on develop a false theory of rashidun and include him (as) in that list along with those incomparable to him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Another hadith of Bukhari says only a munafiq will hate Ansaar. It's possible the Persian School of Hadith Industries cooked this hadith about Ali ra.

(bismillah)

(salam)

the apple and his religious understanding and knowledge does not fall far from the his masters voice tree.

have you read the aya that Allah(swt) increases the perverseness of certain people.

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Wait...Mu'awiya the cruel tyrant got the ppl to hate our beloved almighty Ali? Cool story bro...you keep contradiciting yourself.

Mu'awiya lived like a tyrant, as in he was self extravagant, made the Shi'as suffer, he never followed Islam, but, and understand this point carefully, he got the hate of Imam Ali (as) instilled in the people of Shaam. He was the one who introduced the Bid'ah of cursing Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) on the Mimbar. Lol, I invite you to pick up a book and read the political situation in there at that time

Another lol moment. This my friend: "If there were a Prophet after me verily it would be Umar." is "clear" reference/history aswell, so why aren't you taking it as clear *cough* Hypocrite *cough*? Yea.... You can remove "no offense" by now (great sarcasm i'll give you that :D).

Hadith not verified. I'm using verified history. Also thanks for calling me a hypocrite :)

I know it is a reference to badr, doesn't matter. God uses same references on many different occasions to make his point clear, so did I.

It's like a rapist going in objection because the victim had different color hair lol...(bad example I know..)

Allah is a rapist, or in the likeness of a rapist now? And if it's referencing something completely different, you cannot apply it to something else. At most it tells us we do nothing out of our own strength, it's through God.

You sure?

He has the power of control, and can control all, he is the all powerful.

Thought so...props for contradicting yourself in 1 sentence.

So you are basically under the assumption Allah led the horsemen to kill about 70 Muslims, injure God knows how many, and this was just to punish a few archers from running off the mountain, and you justify this all by bringing an Ayat, telling the people at Badr not to get arrogant from their victory, and continue in mocking me. God help you.

Define "true narrated history"(Scroll up for hypocrisy). My words my friend, my words...

Something that happened, no dispute it happened (In the history books at least, there'll always be some whinny person who still denies it when the scholars didn't though).

Lol wise guy. Pot calling the kettle black. You couldn't get "true narrated history" from your fellow sunni's in your nut and your expecting a neutral guy to take yours? Logic meter: below zero.

Bottom line. Your "true narrated histories" have more contradictions than veins in our body.

Summary: With all the contradictions since post 1, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about :/ For logic(again) read my prev posts x6, make x 10. Ok x 50 to be safe.

Neutral guy isn't to strong in his political history I must say, so he believes everything is a contradiction. No contradictions again, you just don't understand the political situation. And I just love how you're trying to demean my intelligence in your post, like probably 70% is just Ad Hominem.

P.S You actually removed that sentence about Ali from wiki? How sad :( 3rd time, ask the old fairy to read the proof for ya

I'm out ~

LOOOOL I have not been on wiki, and my point exactly, anyone can edit the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Quran already tells about majority that they don't believe.

Ali's successorship is not mentioned in the Book of Allah. Shias only use allegorical verses to prove that. Isma'ilis and Bohra can also use those verses to make their own point.

That being the case, "Ahla Sunnah" are the majority.

When we bring you proof of his successorship, you twist it and try to find a way out, therefore what's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Mu'awiya lived like a tyrant, as in he was self extravagant, made the Shi'as suffer, he never followed Islam, but, and understand this point carefully, he got the hate of Imam Ali (as) instilled in the people of Shaam. He was the one who introduced the Bid'ah of cursing Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) on the Mimbar. Lol, I invite you to pick up a book and read the political situation in there at that time

Your definition of tyrant is more like a racist than a tyrant. I know he got his ppl in syria to "hate" Ali, using the death of Uthman as the key. I only disagreed because a tyrant(what you said) can't make ppl to hate someone else while almost everyone hates him(a contradiction).

Do you see now why satisfying your ppl is the main priority? You can't(or barely) have their true support otherwise. To make it simple, they'll stand in the way of your ambition.

Hadith not verified. I'm using verified history. Also thanks for calling me a hypocrite :)

The opposite faction is using the exact same line(for 1300y). Let's face it, hypocrites >.>

Allah is a rapist, or in the likeness of a rapist now? And if it's referencing something completely different, you cannot apply it to something else. At most it tells us we do nothing out of our own strength, it's through God.

That line was nothing more than an example, figure of speech. It was referring to you denying that verse because we were talking about Uhud, despite it being the same thing. If you didn't get my example, here goes: a rapist denying his crime because the victim had different color hair is not the point. His crime is the SAME THING, rape. (it's nothing more than a figure of speech, don't take it as me calling you a rapist...)

While those verses were concentrating on Badr, verse 8:15 makes it a general description of battle. it can be implied to uhud, siffin, Nikiou, constantinople, finally..ANY battle.

He has the power of control, and can control all, he is the all powerful.

Yes, yes....

So you are basically under the assumption Allah led the horsemen to kill about 70 Muslims, injure God knows how many, and this was just to punish a few archers from running off the mountain, and you justify this all by bringing an Ayat, telling the people at Badr not to get arrogant from their victory, and continue in mocking me. God help you.

You're just not accepting what you said above -__-

I'll bring my prev example again: When God sends an earthquake to punish some ppl, why are innocent ppl dying aswell? So yes, it was by Allah. Those archers represented the muslim army. Making a mistake - whether inner or physical - (can) resulted on the entire army. This is common sense tbh.

Neutral guy isn't to strong in his political history I must say, so he believes everything is a contradiction. No contradictions again, you just don't understand the political situation. And I just love how you're trying to demean my intelligence in your post, like probably 70% is just Ad Hominem.

Ironic, I can say the same about you :/

While the neutral guy sees stuff from the neutral point of view(tons of POV's to choose from), you are influenced by your faction. In other words, you can't possibly understand nor judge the political situation while being influenced HARD by one side. It will(and did) CERTAINLY cloud your judgement while stubbornly defending one side with little logic.

The Ad Hominem was there because your assertion did not match the subject.

LOOOOL I have not been on wiki, and my point exactly, anyone can edit the site.

Oh well...let this be an example to you :)

Wiki is like hadiths, lines can be added or disappear over time. Or a total new hadith can *poof* outta nowhere. Take it with a grain of salt, most are nowhere near logic unless you grew up with them.

I'm out and I mean it this time e.e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Our Ulama have a consensus that he's a companion of Muhammad s.a.w and a righteous believer. Many believe he was a wise and just king of Muslims. Though people under his rule considered him their Khalifah.

How can he be a righteous believer when he rebelled against the fourth rightly guided Khalif of the Muslims and went against Allah's command to obey those who are in authority amongst you??? A wise and just....??? You call rebellion wise and just??? He was a king but not a rightly guided Khalif. Get it, he wasn't a RIGHTLY GUIDED KHALIF! Just try and separate yourself from arrogance and ignorance, then shake off this confrontational stance and you will see light [Noor] in the face of reality and facts.

You can't make people believe as you like.

Our definition of companion of Muhammad s.a.w is different from that of shias. The companion of Prophet s.a.w is a person who's blessed with the comapny of the Prophet or at least he's sighted Rasoolullah s.a.w in the state of Iman and whose death upon Iman is also established.

We don't accept all stupid narrations or hadiths that don't make any sense, because they were fabricated by extremists.

Never mind about the Shias, your definition of companions of Muhammd [pbuh] is different from and against the Qur'an and Sunnah. You don't accept certain narrations and Hadiths because you believe they were fabricated??? Ok! Which do you believe were fabricated??? What is your procedure to verify these fabricated narrations and Hadiths???? This is your stance and procedure, you believe in something at random, just out of the blue and what ever goes against it is obviously fabricated.

If some narrations and Hadiths were fabricated by extremists, then at least be just and fair, with yourself if not anybody else, by balancing the equation in also believing that some narrations and hadiths were exagurated by loyalists!

Do you curse the shias of Imam Hasan too?

And do you curse the cousin of Imam Hasan who betrayed him and joined Ameer Muawiyah?

If one said " That we curse everybody who betrayed, let down, and abandoned Hazrath Imaam Hassan [as] ", then would this satisfy you???? In the Qur'an Allah claims that he curses, the Malaikah curse and also humans curse. So what seems to be the problem when it comes to cursing??? If somebody is wrongly accused and cursed, then there is an issue but there is no issue about cursing, unless you feel that you want to protect the guilty and defend the wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

So Imam Ali didn't appoint Imam Hasan as his successor and the Next Khalifah?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[Then he made his testamentary bequests to his family and his children. (He gave him) his heirlooms and the things which the Commander of the faithful, peace be on him, had bequeathed to him when he had made him his successor, had declared him worthy to occupy his position, and had indicated to his Shia that he was his successor, and set him up as their sign-post after himself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complete ref:

Kitab al Irshad (The Book of Guidance)

Pages 279 - 289

By Sheikh al Mufid

Translated by I.K.A Howard

Published by Tahrike Tarsile Quran

Paper back, I.S.B.N 0-940368-11-0

http://www.shia.org/hasan.html

Comment:

So the tradition to keep the khilafah within the family was founded by Imam Ali and NOT Ameer Muawiyah?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan learnt of the death of the Commander of the faithful, peace be on him, and the people's pledge of allegiance to his son, al-Hasan, peace be on him, he sent a man of secretly to Kufa and a man from Banu al-Qayn to Basra. They were to write reports to him to undermine affairs for al-Hasan, peace be on him. Al-Hasan, peace be on him, learned of that. He ordered the Himyari to be brought out from among (the tribe) of Lakhm in Kufa. He had him brought out and executed. (Al-Hasan) wrote to al-Basra, ordering the Qayni to be brought out from among the Banu Sulaym. He was brought out and executed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment:

I was told that shia imams didn't kill for their right. Here people were getting killed because of spying on them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then al-Hasan, peace be on him, wrote to Muawiya:

You sent men to use deception and to carry out assassinations

and

you sent out spies as if you want to meet (in battle). That is

something which will soon happen so wait for it, if God wills.

I have learnt that you have become haughty in a way that no wise

man would become haughty...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment:

Here the 2nd Imam of shias is threatening Ameer Muawiyah to go to war against him. Strange, isn't it?

http://www.shia.org/hasan.html

P.S: The above are not the views of Ahl-as-Sunnah about Saiyidina Hasan radiyallahu anhu.

Character of the People on the side of Shias' 2nd Imam

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muawiya set off towards Iraq. When he reached the bridge of Manbij, al-Hasan, peace be on him, reacted. He sent Hujr b. Adi to order the leaders of Amman to set out and to call the people together for war.

They were slow to (answer) him and then they came forward. (Al- Hasan) had a mixed band of men: some of them belonged to his Sh'ia and to his father's: some of them were members of the Muhakimma (i.e. Kharijites) who were influenced by (the desire of) fighting Muawiya with every means (possible); some of them were men who loved discords and were anxious for booty; some of them were doubters; others were tribal supporters who followed the leaders of their tribes without reference to religion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment

No comment.

Your first comment that the tradition to keep Khilaafath in the family was founded by Hazrath Ali [as]. Lets accept this for arguemental reasons, is this against the Qur'an and Sunnah??? Is this a violation of Allah's command????

Your second comment that you were told that Shia Imaams didn't kill for their right. You have been told the truth but since when did killing someone, who is proven to be a threat to you, your family, friends, supporters, followers, community and administration fall into this category that you did it for yourself.Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] waged war and killed a tribe of Muslims and companions of the Prophet [pbuh], in the desire of taking control over the distribution of their Zaka'ath money. Here you seem to deny this arrogantly and ignorantly.

Your third comment that the second Shia Imaam is threatening Ameer Muavia with war and this seem strange to you. WHY??? Hazrath Aisha [ra] and Ameer Muavia not only threatend the fourth RIGHTLY GUIDED KHALIF of the Muslims but went ahead with war and this doesn't seem a little strange to you. Infact what worse is you start raising suspicion and doubt regarding the fourth Khalif, who strangely you also claim is RIGHTLY GUIDED. Now how strange is this people???

You haven't made the fourth comment so let me make it for you. You don't accept certain narrations and hadiths because you believe that they are fabricated by extremists, then what makes you sure the ones you have mentioned are not fabricated???????????????????????????????

You want to stick to your belief??? Well that's fine but at least get some justice and fairness in your life! BALANCE BOTH SIDES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your definition of tyrant is more like a racist than a tyrant. I know he got his ppl in syria to "hate" Ali, using the death of Uthman as the key. I only disagreed because a tyrant(what you said) can't make ppl to hate someone else while almost everyone hates him(a contradiction).

Do you see now why satisfying your ppl is the main priority? You can't(or barely) have their true support otherwise. To make it simple, they'll stand in the way of your ambition.

Fair enough point, he was a tyrant on the Shi'as, however in his own right, he was an open sinner, and he used to blow the public's money on his own self, and his own family. Though he was very shrewd to get the people:

1. To hate Imam Ali (as) and his family.

2. Make them the most confused Muslims, but when you have Bani Umayya in charge of Islam, it's something inevitable.

3. He basically created his own Khilafat, until Suhl Hasan, when he actually got the Khilafat.

Again, read the Tarikh of Tabari, or other history books about this event, state that it was more personal reasons than the revenge of Uthman. Again political history and situation, which again unfortunately you have not fully read up on, yet are debating about it, and acting as if you have a PhD in it.

The opposite faction is using the exact same line(for 1300y). Let's face it, hypocrites >.>

Ilm Rijaal, or verifying the Hadith. History again needs to be verified, and what I'm saying and using is.

That line was nothing more than an example, figure of speech. It was referring to you denying that verse because we were talking about Uhud, despite it being the same thing. If you didn't get my example, here goes: a rapist denying his crime because the victim had different color hair is not the point. His crime is the SAME THING, rape. (it's nothing more than a figure of speech, don't take it as me calling you a rapist...)

While those verses were concentrating on Badr, verse 8:15 makes it a general description of battle. it can be implied to uhud, siffin, Nikiou, constantinople, finally..ANY battle.

Try to get this, 8:15 is about not turning your backs, this has nothing to do with what we're debating about. You're saying God slays people, and you use 8:17 to back it up, 8:17 is not about being arrogant since strength comes from God, and therefor "x" cannot be used about "y" 8:15 has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with anything we're talking about. So it's nothing wise to bring it up at all, I'm not denying the verse, don't run out of a Jihad.

Yes, yes....

You're just not accepting what you said above -__-

I'll bring my prev example again: When God sends an earthquake to punish some ppl, why are innocent ppl dying aswell? So yes, it was by Allah. Those archers represented the muslim army. Making a mistake - whether inner or physical - (can) resulted on the entire army. This is common sense tbh.

First point, I'm saying having the power to do something, and doing it are two different things.

Okay I can see this is clearly getting to predestination vs. freewill debate. Sunnis believe in complete predestination, while Shi'a believe in a middle point, this is reflected by a debate Imam Sadiq (as) had when a man came to him. He asked the Imam how's there predestination and free will, Imam (as) replied, "Lift your left leg" which he does, Imam then says "Lift your right leg" he said he can't because he'll fall down. Similarly God lets us do some things, and others are predestined. So under Shi'a belief humans can choose whether to do right or wrong. This is not the main point of the debate, so watch

if you want to understand it better.

Ironic, I can say the same about you :/

While the neutral guy sees stuff from the neutral point of view(tons of POV's to choose from), you are influenced by your faction. In other words, you can't possibly understand nor judge the political situation while being influenced HARD by one side. It will(and did) CERTAINLY cloud your judgement while stubbornly defending one side with little logic.

The Ad Hominem was there because your assertion did not match the subject.

I have read books on top of books about these things, Sunni referenced a lot too. I examine things from every single angle, to see if it makes sense. I look at the past and present of a person to identify his character. You read a wiki article, and are now the master of politics, then say I have bad judgement and reasoning, you how no idea how dumb that sounds. Another thing, Ad Hominem, a lot of the time is a psychological tool people use when they're afraid of losing an argument/debate, other times it's just to belittle the opponent. Shows your true strength here doesn't it..

Oh well...let this be an example to you :)

Wiki is like hadiths, lines can be added or disappear over time. Or a total new hadith can *poof* outta nowhere. Take it with a grain of salt, most are nowhere near logic unless you grew up with them.

I'm out and I mean it this time e.e

That's why you don't act like an idiot, and you verify, you check authenticity, and you make sure you're not using useless stuff. And okay then bye bye :)

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...