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

Which Sahaba Are Respected By Shi'a

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Which companions of the Prophet peace be upon him are respected by the Shi'a? Can we make list? Sunnis always accuse us of believing that all but 3 companions are kafir, but surely this can't be right?

Also is this hadith about all but 3 companions becoming kafir acceppted by any Shi'a? Since its historically inaccurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As a shia of Ali (as), I believe Sahaba (ra) as only those muslims who accepted Islam during the life of our Prophet (SAAWS), saw Prophet (SAAWS) as muslim and died as believers in the state of Eimaan.

There were people who saw our Prophet (SAAWS) but if they died either munafiq or kafir are not considered as sahaba.

There are certain tests to be applied to see whether someone can be considered as sahabi.

Anybody who denies Prophet (SAAWS) teachings or sayings is considered as kafir.

There were people who denied Prophet (SAAWS) before his death.

There were people who hurt Bibi Fatima (SA) and thus hurt Prophet (SAAWS)

There were people, who were against Imam Ali (as) and denied Prophet (SAAWS) hadith about Haqq & Imam (as).

These kind of people might be muslim during life of Prophet (SAAWS) but their actions removed them from category of sahaba.

Instead of list of people who are sahaba or not, just apply the above criteria.

Thus, all sahabas (ra) are to be respected.

Edited by Sipahi110
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a shia of Ali (as), I believe Sahaba (ra) as only those muslims who accepted Islam during the life of our Prophet (SAAWS), saw Prophet (SAAWS) as muslim and died as believers in the state of Eimaan.

There were people who saw our Prophet (SAAWS) but if they died either munafiq or kafir are not considered as sahaba.

There are certain tests to be applied to see whether someone can be considered as sahabi.

Anybody who denies Prophet (SAAWS) teachings or sayings is considered as kafir.

There were people who denied Prophet (SAAWS) before his death.

There were people who hurt Bibi Fatima (SA) and thus hurt Prophet (SAAWS)

There were people, who were against Imam Ali (as) and denied Prophet (SAAWS) hadith about Haqq & Imam (as).

These kind of people might be muslim during life of Prophet (SAAWS) but their actions removed them from category of sahaba.

Instead of list of people who are sahaba or not, just apply the above criteria.

Thus, all sahabas (ra) are to be respected.

Sunnis believe that a sahabi can never lose that status. They do not believe in judging the sahaba individually based on their adalah, and they wouldn't be able to do so anyway because the majority of the sahaba are unknown, to my knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Courtesy of wikipedia

Edited by south-lebanon
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sunnis believe that a sahabi can never lose that status. They do not believe in judging the sahaba individually based on their adalah, and they wouldn't be able to do so anyway because the majority of the sahaba are unknown, to my knowledge.

I would be interested to know, for Sunnis, in which category Manafaqeen fall.

Definitely, Holy Quran has declared in both Sura Baqra & Sura Munafaqoon that there were people during the life of Holy Prophet, who saw him, accepted Islam by reciting Kalima but they are not to be considered even muslim. Do Sunnis, consider that Munafaqeen are also God Forbid, Sahaba.

Edited by Sipahi110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Out of curiosity, why is he in that list? Does being killed by Khalid ibn Waleed, or rejecting Abu Bakr automatically make one a friend of the shia? He didn't actually support Ali, did he...

He did support imam Ali (as), he was present at Ghadir khum, and as far as he was concerned, imam Ali (as) was the successor to the prophet (pbuhp), not Abu Bakar.

Edited by south-lebanon
Link to post
Share on other sites

He did support imam Ali (as), he was present at Ghadir khum, and as far as he was concerned, imam Ali (as) was the successor to the prophet (pbuhp), not Abu Bakar.

Being present at Ghadir doesn't prove anything, as there were many many more people there. And how did he accept Imam Ali as the successor? Do you have any proof for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Being present at Ghadir doesn't prove anything, as there were many many more people there. And how did he accept Imam Ali as the successor? Do you have any proof for that?

This is a clearer assessment on the shia view of malik, right here.

-it may not have been from ghadir after all, not that, being present at ghadir wasn't clear enough for someone to know who was the rightful person to succeed the prophet anyway.

Plus i'm positive this has been discussed on shiachat before, so its somewhere in the archives.

A short account of Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) from a Shia source

It would be relevant to mention the Shi’a view of Malik bin Nuwayrah, so that after reading the entire article, all knowledge seekers (amongst both Sunni and Shi’a) can make a more informed conclusion. Ibn Shazan records in Al-Fadael, page 75:

Al-Bara bin Azeb said: When we were sitting with Allah’s Messenger (s) a delegation from Bani Tammim (tribe) came to Him (s). Malik bin Nuwayra said: ‘Oh Allah’s Messenger, teach me faith (Iman). Allah’s Messenger said: ‘To testify that there is no god but Allah only, and I’m the messenger of Allah, pray the five prayers, fast during the month of Ramdhan, pay Zakat, perform pilgrimage to (Allah’s) house, and follow my Wasi after me, and he (prophet) pointed his hand to Ali. And don’t shed blood, don’t steal, don’t betray, don’t eat orphan’s money, don’t drink alcohol and follow my laws, permit what is lawful and forbid what is unlawful, give the rights from your own self to the poor and strong, to the old and young. Till (the prophet) mentioned to him the Islamic laws. (Malik) said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, I’m a man who quickly forgets, please repeat again’. Then He (s) repeated, then he (Malik) left pulling his cloth and saying: ‘By the God of the house, I learnt faith (Iman).’

When he (Malik) went far away from Allah’s messenger, He (s) said: ‘Who ever wants to see a man of heaven, he should look at this man.’ Abu Bakr and Umar said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, who are you referring to?’ He (s) looked down to the earth, then they (Abu Bakr & Umar) followed him (Malik) and said to him: ‘Good news from Allah and His messenger to you to have been promised Paradise.’ He (Malik) replied: ‘May Allah bless you if you are testifying by what I testify, because you learnt what Prophet Muhammad taught me. But if you don’t, then may Allah not bless you.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘Don’t say that, I’m the father of Ayesha, the wife of the prophet.’ He (Malik) said: ‘What do you want ?’ They (Abu Bakr & Umar) said: ‘You are from the people of Paradise, so ask for forgiveness for us’. He (Malik) said: ‘May Allah never forgive you, you leave the Messenger of Allah who owns intercession and ask me for forgiveness!’ Then they returned back and signs of sadness appeared on their faces, when Allah’s Messenger saw them, He smiled and said: ‘Is their sadness because of truth?’

When Allah’s Messenger died and Bani Tamim (tribe) returned to Madina with Malik bin Nuwaira being with them, he went to see as to who became the successor after Allah’s messenger, he entered the mosque on Friday and Abu Bakr was giving an address on the pulpit. He (Malik) looked at him and said: ‘Oh brother of Taim’. (Abu Bakr) said: ‘Yes’. He (Malik) said: ‘Where is the Wasi of Allah’s messenger, who ordered I was ordered to follow?’ They (people) said: ‘Oh you desert Arab, things have changed.’ (Malik) said: ‘By Allah, nothing has changed, but you betrayed Allah and His messenger.’ Then he (Malik) got closer to Abu Bakr and said: ‘Who allowed you to climb onto the pulpit while the Wasi of Allah’s Messenger is here?’. Abu Bakr said: ‘Throw out this desert Arabian who urinates on his heels from Allah’s Messenger mosque.’ Qunfud and Khalid bin al-Walid went to him and kept pushing him until they removed him from the mosque.

Then he (Malik) rode on his camel and said (poem): ‘We obeyed Allah’s messenger as long he was amongst us, Oh people, what I have to do with Abu Bakr….’ When every thing was under Abu Bakr’s control, he sent Khalid bin al-Walid and said to him: ‘You heard what Malik said in front of the people, I’m worried that he would cause a crack we wont be able to fix. Kill him.’ When Khalid arrived (to Malik’s land) he (Malik) rode on his horse and he was a knight equal to thousand knights, hence Khalid was scared of him, therefore he (Khalid) gave him oath, and then when (Malik) dropped his weapon, Khalid betrayed him he killed him, placed his head in a cooking pot, and married his wife the same night, raping her like a donkey.’

Also according to the Shia source al-Estighatha by Abu al-Qasim al-Kufi (d. 352 H), Volume 1 page 7, Malik’s tribe refused to submit Zakat to Abu Bakr because they believed that they were supposed to submit it to Ali bin Abi Talib (as)

Edited by south-lebanon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some narrations support the view that he was a just companion of the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional Sunni story is that he apostatized after the death of the Prophet back to the religion of the jahiliyya, and he was trying to unite the tribes against the Caliph when he was killed by Khalid b. Walid. We don't endorse everyone killed by the Caliphs, after all, we do believe that Musaylama and his wife were kufar. In the case of Malik, it would seem that even `Umar was upset with how Khalid had dealt with him, saying that he was a Muslim. Khalid "married" his wife - how could a Muslima be married to a non-Muslim? Khalid married her on the same day he killed her husband, without waiting for an `idda, and you can see why we would have considered this to be rape.

What's more likely to me is that he simply opposed Abu Bakr and he was killed for it. After all, Abu Bakr declared all of those who refrained from paying zakat to him to be apostates. Convenient?

I would dislike to 'hijack' the thread but have a few points on this.

Malik being a just sahabi doesn't automatically make him pro-shia, as we could argue that most sahabis were just and pious but according to shias became lost once they rejected Imam Ali. I'm well aware of Umar's view on what should have been done, yet when he came into power less than two years later he didn't bring this up again - although he did remove Khalid from the leadership of the army this wasn't one of his reasons.

And it would be interesting to know what exactly would have been the stance of the Imams if they had indeed become Caliphs and Muslims had withheld their zakat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas _Why is he on the list of Sahaba, when he supported Mu'awiya by being his governor and allowing the policy of cursing 1st Imam (as). He died a rich man and surely, other than not cursing Imam (as), he was no friend of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Which companions of the Prophet peace be upon him are respected by the Shi'a? Can we make list? Sunnis always accuse us of believing that all but 3 companions are kafir, but surely this can't be right?

Also is this hadith about all but 3 companions becoming kafir acceppted by any Shi'a? Since its historically inaccurate?

All Momin Sahaba(rz) are respected . .

Remember . .

But the sunnis disrespect Sahaba by including the likes of Hind , Abusufyan , Muawiah and even Wahshi ibn Harb into the list of Pious Sahaba !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

All Momin Sahaba(rz) are respected . .

Remember . .

But the sunnis disrespect Sahaba by including the likes of Hind , Abusufyan , Muawiah and even Wahshi ibn Harb into the list of Pious Sahaba !!

What's wrong with Wahshi? By all accounts he was forgiven for what he did before accepting Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
Malik being a just sahabi doesn't automatically make him pro-shia, as we could argue that most sahabis were just and pious but according to shias became lost once they rejected Imam Ali.

In this scenario, we have a sahabi who was pious in the Prophet's time, and - if the narrations are correct - he recognized the right of `Ali and was martyred for it, along with the rape of his wife. As I said in the original post, some companions were on a higher level than others. But this man did his duty and was one of the first to be unjustly killed in the fitna.

And it would be interesting to know what exactly would have been the stance of the Imams if they had indeed become Caliphs and Muslims had withheld their zakat...

They too would be punished, but zakaat can be paid at any point in the year, and it does not need to be given to the Imam like khums. On the other hand, Abu Bakr went to war with the zakat-withholders right after he became in charge of the Caliphate. For all we know, maybe the people had already paid zakat earlier that year, or were planning to pay it later in the year. When the Mahdi returns, he will punish the zakat-withholders - but the alleged rejection of zakat in my opinion is not the reason for the ridda war.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

What's wrong with Wahshi? By all accounts he was forgiven for what he did before accepting Islam.

Thats another of the Sunni stories - defending yet another savage !!

If he was forgiven . . Why did he avoid the Prophet(s) . .??

Wahshi says: "So long as Muhammad was alive I kept myself hidden from him. After his death the battle with Musaylimah took place. I joined the army of Islam and used the same weapon against Musaylimah and succeeded in killing him with the help of one of the Ansar. If I killed the best of men (Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib) with this weapon, the worst man, too, did not escape its terror."

Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah: Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham; Cairo, Mustafà al-Bābī al-Halabī

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

As per my personal opinion, only the Caliphate of Hazrath Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radhiy-Allahu Anho) is rightly guided, we are not bothered about rest of the 3 caliph's Caliphate.

Who is "we" ?

I'd love to hear your opinion on why only Abu Bakr is rightly guided and not Umar. Uthman I can see someone having that opinion on and I'm assuming you are Sunni so the caliphate of Imam Ali (as) wouldn't matter to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Getting back to the topic, I was listening to one of Ammar Nakshawani's lectures and learned something I did not know before, that there were two unique individuals who were given the status of "Sahaba of the Prophet S.A.W" even though they never saw him in their lifetime.

One was Awais Al-Qurani (already mentioned by someone earlier) and the other was Malik Ashtar

Edited by Kirmani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas _Why is he on the list of Sahaba, when he supported Mu'awiya by being his governor and allowing the policy of cursing 1st Imam (as). He died a rich man and surely, other than not cursing Imam (as), he was no friend of Ahlul Bayt (as).

really ? when did he support muawiyah ? he narrated the attributes of ALi and extolled him when mauwiyah wanted him to curse Ali

and where does it say he was a governer of muaiwyah ?

Getting back to the topic, I was listening to one of Ammar Nakshawani's lectures and learned something I did not know before, that there were two unique individuals who were given the status of "Sahaba of the Prophet S.A.W" even though they never saw him in their lifetime.

One was Awais Al-Qurani (already mentioned by someone earlier) and the other was Malik Ashtar

What is the source of this ? they are Mukhadram and Awais maybe a sahabi as Prophet refered to him corresponded with him but Ashtar nakhai never met the Prophet or corresponded with him

Some narrations support the view that he was a just companion of the Prophet (pbuh). The traditional Sunni story is that he apostatized after the death of the Prophet back to the religion of the jahiliyya, and he was trying to unite the tribes against the Caliph when he was killed by Khalid b. Walid. We don't endorse everyone killed by the Caliphs, after all, we do believe that Musaylama and his wife were kufar. In the case of Malik, it would seem that even `Umar was upset with how Khalid had dealt with him, saying that he was a Muslim. Khalid "married" his wife - how could a Muslima be married to a non-Muslim? Khalid married her on the same day he killed her husband, without waiting for an `idda, and you can see why we would have considered this to be rape.

What's more likely to me is that he simply opposed Abu Bakr and he was killed for it. After all, Abu Bakr declared all of those who refrained from paying zakat to him to be apostates. Convenient?

There is no denying that killing ibn Nuwaira was a warcrime but the fact that many sahaba condemned it and that ABubakr paid the blood money proves that disagreement with ibn Nuawiara was not his alleged loyalty to Ali as you can see Ashtar nakhai , bara b azib ( who narrates the shia version of this hadith) adi b hatm, hujr b adi, ammar b yasir , abu Qatada and other sahaba who were loyal supporters of ALi all participated in the Riddah wars

This proves that there was no official policy of abu bakr to butcher supporters of Ali infact quite the oppositte ALi says in Nahjul Balagah he gave bayat to close ranks of muslims in the apostasy wars and to his supporters backed abubakr in these wars ( see their biographies in Istiab or Usdul Ghaba )

Ibn Nuawira killing by Khalid represents an isolated incident of warcrime which is why it was so condemned in medina even by Umar Abubakr 's staunchest supporter who wud have had no sympathy for any insubordination by an alleged supporter of ALi.

Another thing if ABubakr paid blood money for ibn nuawiara isnt that an implicit recognition that ibn Nuawira was muslim ??? otherwise why would he pay the blood money

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

really ? when did he support muawiyah ? he narrated the attributes of ALi and extolled him when mauwiyah wanted him to curse Ali

and where does it say he was a governer of muaiwyah ?

What is the source of this ? they are Mukhadram and Awais maybe a sahabi as Prophet refered to him corresponded with him but Ashtar nakhai never met the Prophet or corresponded with him

There is no denying that killing ibn Nuwaira was a warcrime but the fact that many sahaba condemned it and that ABubakr paid the blood money proves that disagreement with ibn Nuawiara was not his alleged loyalty to Ali as you can see Ashtar nakhai , bara b azib ( who narrates the shia version of this hadith) adi b hatm, hujr b adi, ammar b yasir , abu Qatada and other sahaba who were loyal supporters of ALi all participated in the Riddah wars

This proves that there was no official policy of abu bakr to butcher supporters of Ali infact quite the oppositte ALi says in Nahjul Balagah he gave bayat to close ranks of muslims in the apostasy wars and to his supporters backed abubakr in these wars ( see their biographies in Istiab or Usdul Ghaba )

Ibn Nuawira killing by Khalid represents an isolated incident of warcrime which is why it was so condemned in medina even by Umar Abubakr 's staunchest supporter who wud have had no sympathy for any insubordination by an alleged supporter of ALi.

Another thing if ABubakr paid blood money for ibn nuawiara isnt that an implicit recognition that ibn Nuawira was muslim ??? otherwise why would he pay the blood money

Salaamun-aleykum,

Please read about Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas

http://www.al-islam.org/real/33.htm#t6

Extracts:

Among many things, how could Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas know all facts about position of Imam Ali (as) yet refuse to swear the oath of allegiance to him ?

Imam Ali had clarified the motives which prohibited Sa`d from siding with him when he said in his shaqshaqi sermon, "... so a man among them listened to his hidden grudge."

Commenting on the above statement, Shaykh Muhammad Abdoh says, Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas used to conceal something against Ali, may Allah glorify his countenance, something which originated from his uncles on the mother's side: his mother is Hamna daughter of Sufyan ibn Umayyah ibn Abd Shams, and Ali's killing of their most courageous men is a well known fact.

<a href="http://www.al-islam.org/real/33.htm#FN178">[178]Deeply rooted grudge and envy blinded Sa`d, so much so that he could not see Ali's virtues as he could those of Ali's opponents. It is stated that when Uthman installed him governor of Kufa, he delivered a sermon in which he said, "Obey the best of all people: Uthman, the commander of the faithful."

Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas was inclined towards Uthman during the latter's lifetime and even after his assassination. Thus do we understand the reason why he accused Ali of participating in the assassination of Uthman when he wrote Amr ibn al-As saying, "Uthman was killed by a sword unsheathed by Ayesha, poisoned by the son of Abu Talib..., etc." It is a false accusation to whose falsehood history testifies. In fact, nobody offered more counsel nor more solace to Uthman during his calamity than Ali, if only his views were heeded.

Did Sa'ad stop Mu`awiyah from cursing and condemning the Commander of the Faithful after having come to know thathadith from Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas and verified its authenticity with Ummu Salamah whom he asked about it? No, indeed; rather, he went to extremes in his misguidance and was overcome with insistence on being wrong to the extent that he started cursing Ali and all his Ahl al-Bayt and forced people to do likewise till the youngsters grew up doing the same, and the youth grew old doing likewise, for eighty years or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Salaamun-aleykum,

Please read about Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas

http://www.al-islam.org/real/33.htm#t6

Extracts:

Among many things, how could Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas know all facts about position of Imam Ali (as) yet refuse to swear the oath of allegiance to him ?

Imam Ali had clarified the motives which prohibited Sa`d from siding with him when he said in his shaqshaqi sermon, "... so a man among them listened to his hidden grudge."

Commenting on the above statement, Shaykh Muhammad Abdoh says, Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas used to conceal something against Ali, may Allah glorify his countenance, something which originated from his uncles on the mother's side: his mother is Hamna daughter of Sufyan ibn Umayyah ibn Abd Shams, and Ali's killing of their most courageous men is a well known fact.

<a href="http://www.al-islam.org/real/33.htm#FN178">[178]Deeply rooted grudge and envy blinded Sa`d, so much so that he could not see Ali's virtues as he could those of Ali's opponents. It is stated that when Uthman installed him governor of Kufa, he delivered a sermon in which he said, "Obey the best of all people: Uthman, the commander of the faithful."

Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas was inclined towards Uthman during the latter's lifetime and even after his assassination. Thus do we understand the reason why he accused Ali of participating in the assassination of Uthman when he wrote Amr ibn al-As saying, "Uthman was killed by a sword unsheathed by Ayesha, poisoned by the son of Abu Talib..., etc." It is a false accusation to whose falsehood history testifies. In fact, nobody offered more counsel nor more solace to Uthman during his calamity than Ali, if only his views were heeded.

Did Sa'ad stop Mu`awiyah from cursing and condemning the Commander of the Faithful after having come to know thathadith from Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas and verified its authenticity with Ummu Salamah whom he asked about it? No, indeed; rather, he went to extremes in his misguidance and was overcome with insistence on being wrong to the extent that he started cursing Ali and all his Ahl al-Bayt and forced people to do likewise till the youngsters grew up doing the same, and the youth grew old doing likewise, for eighty years or more.

so he didnt pledge allegience to ALi , did Usama b Zayd ? who was beloved of the Prophet

There were people involved in killing of uthman who were in ALi's camp so his assessment is not far off the mark.Yet he also blames Aisha and Talha equally and did not join them either.

Sa'd was mistaken in his neutrality as uthman was rightfully killed , however its also proven that Sa'd was genuinely neutral in the conflict.Sa'd was dismissed later by uthman and replaced by Walid b Utbah as governer of Kufa.

Sa'd attitude towards civil war was one of indifference even though his subclan banu zuhra was involved in agitation against Uthman, his nephew Hashim was a general of Ali and killed in Siffin.

Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas used to conceal something against Ali, may Allah glorify his countenance, something which originated from his uncles on the mother's side: his mother is Hamna daughter of Sufyan ibn Umayyah ibn Abd Shams, and Ali's killing of their most courageous men is a well known fact.

That could be the cause of his indifference to ALi but to cause it outright hostility is an exaggeration he could have easily joined Talha and Aisha seriously weakening the camp of ALi but he did not

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

so he didnt pledge allegience to ALi , did Usama b Zayd ? who was beloved of the Prophet

There were people involved in killing of uthman who were in ALi's camp so his assessment is not far off the mark.Yet he also blames Aisha and Talha equally and did not join them either.

Sa'd was mistaken in his neutrality as uthman was rightfully killed , however its also proven that Sa'd was genuinely neutral in the conflict.Sa'd was dismissed later by uthman and replaced by Walid b Utbah as governer of Kufa.

Sa'd attitude towards civil war was one of indifference even though his subclan banu zuhra was involved in agitation against Uthman, his nephew Hashim was a general of Ali and killed in Siffin.

Sa`d ibn Abu Waqqas used to conceal something against Ali, may Allah glorify his countenance, something which originated from his uncles on the mother's side: his mother is Hamna daughter of Sufyan ibn Umayyah ibn Abd Shams, and Ali's killing of their most courageous men is a well known fact.

That could be the cause of his indifference to ALi but to cause it outright hostility is an exaggeration he could have easily joined Talha and Aisha seriously weakening the camp of ALi but he did not

There you go, always causing trouble by putting forward crazy ideas.

There's only two interpretations of history you know!

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 years later...
  • Basic Members
On 2/3/2013 at 7:05 PM, Sipahi110 said:

Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas _Why is he on the list of Sahaba, when he supported Mu'awiya by being his governor and allowing the policy of cursing 1st Imam (as). He died a rich man and surely, other than not cursing Imam (as), he was no friend of Ahlul Bayt (as).

He then came to right path and supported imam hassan a.s. as shown in imam hassan movie a.s. fil "The lone commander" and was then martyred by ruler for supporting imam hassan a.s. and visiting the jail

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member (With Brothers Forum Membership)
On ۱۳۹۱/۱۱/۱۳ at 4:26 AM, Qa'im said:

Malik b. Nuwayra

Malik b .Nuwayra at Sunni books 

https://youtu.be/ssY7KDe49W4

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.

×
×
  • Create New...