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

Why Did Imam Ali Name His Sons Abu Bakr, Umar؟؟؟

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

"Doubt"

Shia Claim that Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman Killed Fatima (Ali’s Wife). So if it is true Why Did Imam Ali name his sons Abu Bakr, Umar , Usman???

1.      Abu Bakr is a konia( means cognomen or nickname). Konia dosen’t choose by father. The real name of Abu Bakr was “Atiq”. Abu al-Faraj Isfahani Said:

قتل عبد الله بن علي بن أبي طالب، وهو ابن خمس وعشرين سنة ولا عقب له.

 “ Abdullah Ibn Ali was killed when he was 25 in Karbala”  [Maqatelo at-Talibin vol.1 page 22]

So his name was Abdullah and it’s the name of Muhammad’s father.

 

2.      Umar used to change the name of children.

Bilazari Said:

وكان عمر بن الخطاب سمّى عمر بن عليّ بإسمه.

Umar ibn Khattab chose his own name for Umar Ibn Ali

[Ansab al-Ashraf vol 1 page 297]

And Ibn Hajar named 21 persons of Sahabi ( friends of the prophet) who their names was Umar

[ Al-Asabat Fi Tameez as-Sahabi  vol.1 page 186]

3.       

Imam Ali Said:

إنّما سمّيته بإسم أخي عثمان بن مظعون.

I named my son Uthman because of my servant Uthman ibn Math'un.

[ Maqatelo at-Talibin vol.1 page 22]

 

Now I ask you if you name your son “George” means you love “George W Bush”????

And Why Usman, Umar and Abu Bakr didn’t name their son “Ali”???

 

Now read this if you think Ali like Abu Bakr

He said: When the Messenger of Allah passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah." Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a """"liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest""".

 

[ Reference: Sahih Muslim 1757 c;In-book reference : Book 32,Hadith 58;USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 19, Hadith 4349]

 

So Ali believed that Abu Bakr was liar, sinful, treacherous.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Thank you brother/Sister For Raising this issue with References.

What is Really Interesting, Is Why would people use the Excuse of names of people as
the main Argument to prove Who should be in Authority. It makes no sense that one Refers to

Labels of the people, and not their actions.

May Allay Reward you for your Efforts.

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

um i didnt know that Ali (as) had children named Umar, Abu bakr and uthman..  :mellow:

Are you sure!!???

 

 

(1) Abu bakr is "Kunya" meaning it is only a term used to Identity people.

(2) No, he had a Son who Imam Ali (as) adopted by the name of Muhammad.

(3) He named one of His Sons Uthman but According to narrations he named him after his Brother Uthman.

(4) His Other Son is Amr and not Umar ( In some narrations ) and yes it some narrations its Umar but Umar had a "thing" in changing peoples names.

(5) He never named his Sons after the three Khalfias.

(6) there are many Uthmans and Umars. Its a very common name during the time of the prophet (s).

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Yes, he even named one of his daughter Ayesha. -->Click for Proof<--

 

Its very sad we Shia never read about his favorite sons Uthman and Umar. The scholars were rafidhi and never mentioned them, being biased. During Jamal there is no record of them because they were hiking a mountain. During Siffeen they were swimming in the river. During Karbala they were ill.

Edited by Darth Vader
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, he even named one of his daughter Ayesha. -->Click for Proof<--

 

Its very sad we Shia never read about his favorite sons Uthman and Umar. The scholars were rafidhi and never mentioned them, being biased. During Jamal there is no record of them because they were hiking a mountain. During Siffeen they were swimming in the river. During Karbala they were ill.

 

Do names matter? I don't see how our scholar are Bias? There names are not even Named after the three Khalifas. So what is the particular Reason our Scholars Would be Bias and not mention them?

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I don't think there was enmity between ali(as) and sheikhain and othman. yes there was great disagreements but no real hatred. sheikhain never hated ali(as)(refer to the view of sayed alkhoei ) , sheikhain harmed ahlbait but without the intention to do so. they took khilafat because they thought they could do better because of their age and experience (as they thought) 

 

but there's one point that is true : zahra (as) didn't like omar ibn alkhattab or abu bakr because of them usurping fadak and taking the khilafat of ali(as) wallahu alam 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there was enmity between ali(as) and sheikhain and othman. yes there was great disagreements but no real hatred. sheikhain never hated ali(as)(refer to the view of sayed alkhoei ) , sheikhain harmed ahlbait but without the intention to do so. they took khilafat because they thought they could do better because of their age and experience (as they thought) 

 

but there's one point that is true : zahra (as) didn't like omar ibn alkhattab or abu bakr because of them usurping fadak and taking the khilafat of ali(as) wallahu alam 

Therefore Angered the prophet (pbuh).

But are you sure about Sayed aL khoeis view?

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Do names matter? I don't see how our scholar are Bias? There names are not even Named after the three Khalifas. So what is the particular Reason our Scholars Would be Bias and not mention them?

(salam)

Obviously, you didn't read the proof I linked. How typical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, you didn't read the proof I linked. How typical.

I actually read it, My objection, is that he only mentioned a Few Ulama, and Secondly how such a judgement be Absolute on the School of though of Ahlulbayt (s), but this book you gave is A Refutation to "For God and then History", Which is Well known. But thanks For the Information.

(salam) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

 

but there's one point that is true : zahra (as) didn't like omar ibn alkhattab or abu bakr because of them usurping fadak and taking the khilafat of ali(as) wallahu alam 

 

Our anger is the anger of al-Zahra عليه السلام and her anger is the anger of Allah عزوجل

 

في أمان الله

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Bringing you shi'ism without taqiyya

 

Photocopy of the original fatwa (religious verdict) encouraging the Shi'ite masses to curse the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar. signed by six of the contemporary Shi'ite scholars and clergy among them Khomeini and Shariat Madari The trustworthy scholar Muhammad `Ali Sa'oodi, chief consultant to the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, and one of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh's special students, managed to examine an Iranian manuscript copy of the Qur'an owned by the orientalist Brown. He was able to make a photocopy of Surat-ul-Wilaayah with its Persian translation. Its existence was affirmed by At-Tabarsi in his book faslul-Khitaab, and by Muhsin Faani Al-ashmeeri in his book Dabisan Madhaahib. This book, written in Persian, was printed several times in Iran. The chapter (Surat-ul-Wilaayah) which is falsely attributed to Allah's revelation, was also quoted by the famous orientalist Noeldeke in his book History of the Copies of the Qur'an1. It also appeared in the Asian-French Newspaper in 1842 C.E.

At-Tabarsi also quoted a tradition from Al-Kaafi, which is to the Shi'ites what Sahih-ul-Bukhari is to the Sunni Muslims. It reads:

 

A number of our associates narrated by way of Sahl bin Ziyaad through Muhammad bin Sulaiman that some of his friends reported Abul-Hasan Ath-Thaani `Ali bin Mioosa Ar-Rida as saying `May I be your ransom! We hear verses of the Qur'an different from those we have with us and we are not capable of reading them according to your reading which has reached us. Do we commit a sin thereby He replied, "No, read the Qur'an as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you."

Without a doubt, this conversation is fabricated by the Shi'ites and is falsely attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida; however, the statement is taken by the Shi'ites as a legal ruling in this matter. Its implication is that while one of them commits no sin by reciting the Qur'an the way Muslims have learned according to `Uthman's unanimously accepted text, the privileged class of Shi'ite clergy and scholars will teach each other a version other than the accepted one, a version which they claim came to their Imams from AhlulBait.

It was the urge to strike a comparison between the Shi'ite "Qur'an" (which they secretly confide to one another, while hiding it from the general public as an act of taqiyyah") and the known and officially accepted `Uthmani Edition of the Qur'an, which motivated At-Tabarsi to write his book faslul-Khitaab.

Although the Shi'ites pretended to disown At-Tabarsi's book, as an act of taqiyyah, the glaring fact that it includes hundreds of quotations from the recognized works of their scholars clearly confirms their adherence to the tenet of alteration of the Qur'an. Of course, they do not want a clamor to be raised over this perverse article of faith of theirs

The intended result of their claim is to leave us with the impression that there are two Qur'ans: one, the `Uthmani version accepted by the Sunni Muslims; the other, the allegedly hidden version of the Shi'ites, part of which is Surat-ul-Wilaayah. They are well aware that they fabricated the statement they attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida: "... read [the Qur'an] as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you." The Shi'ites also claim that a verse was deleted from the Qur'an from Surat-ul-lnshiraah. The alleged deletion is "and we made `Ali your son-in-law." Have they no shame in making such an allegation, when it is a well-known fact that this particular surah was revealed in Mecca at a time when `Ali was not yet the son-in-law of the Prophet, Allah's blessing and peace be upon him. His only son-in-law a that time was Al-'Ass Ibnur-Rabee'al-Ummawi. As for the fact that `Ali was a son-in-law of the Prophet, it should be pointed out that Allah also made `Uthman bin `Affaan the son-in-law of the Prophet through his marriage to two of the Prophet's daughters. Upon the death of the second of `Uthman's wives (the second of the two daughters), the Prophet said to him, "If we had a third one, we would have given her to you in marriage."

Another of the Shi'ite scholars, Abu Mansoor Ahmad bin `Ali At-Tabarsi, in his book Al-lhtijaaj `ala Ahlil-Lajaaj (Argumentation with the Contentious Folk) claimed that `Ali said to one of the zanaadiqah,2 whose name At-Tabarsi neglected to mention, "As for your belligerent disagreement with me3, it shows your feigned ignorance of Allah's statement, `And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry of the women who seem good to you..."' At-Tabarsi then went on to say, by way of explanation as to why this verse was quoted by `Ali in his argumentation with his opponents:

Now doing justice to orphans does not resemble the marrying of women, and not all women are orphans; thus, this verse is an example of what I have presented earlier in the book Al-Ihtijaaj; regarding the deletion of parts of the Qur'an by the hypocrites',4 that deletion being between the statement about justice to orphans, and that which follows it, about the marrying of women. This deletion consists of addresses and stories, and amounts to more than a third of the Qur'an.

 

References:

 

1. Noeldeke, History of Copies of the Qur'an, Vol. 2, p. 102.

 

2. Zanaadiq is the plural of zindeeq. a Persian word meaning one who speaks heresy, or who has deviated from the truth. It is also applied to disbelievers or atheists or free-thinkers. (cf., Lisanul-Arab Vol. 10. p. 147).

 

3. The meaning of this statement, allegedly made by 'Ali in the course of an argument with an unnamed zindeeq. is obscure, to say the least. We may surmise from the context that a discussion or dispute had been taking place between them, 'Ali having been attacked in repudiation of his supposed insistence that he possessed that missing one third of the Qur'an, which according to Shi'ite belief was deleted by the Companions of the Prophet. This is a concoction of the Shi'ites, falsely attributed to 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), in order to bolster their attempt to prove the alteration of the Qur'an. As for the verse cited as proof of deletion from the Qur'an, there is unanimous agreement among the Sunni commentators on the Qur'an that, after a careful analysis of the structure of the verse and its context, it may be paraphrased as follows: "If any of you has an orphan girl under his guardianship and he fears that he may not do her justice by granting her an appropriate dowry if he were to marry her, then let him marry other women of his choice." For further details see Ibn Katheer Tafseerul Qur'an al-'Adheem. Vol. 1, p. 449.

 

4. By the 'hypocrites", Abu Mansoor At-Tabarsi means the Companions of Allah's Messenger (Allah's blessing and peace be upon him), for it was they who collected the Qur'an, the 'Uthmani version which was adhered to and applied by 'Ali during the period of his caliphate. If the statement attributed to 'Ali in At-Tabarsi's Al-lhtijaaj had really come from him, it would have been treachery against Islam on his part, to possess and conceal some missing portion of the Qur'an and not make it public, nor apply its principles, nor, circulate it amongst his subjects during the period of his caliphate. Clearly At-Tabarsi has insulted and defamed 'Ali, since what he has written actually implies treachery and deception on 'Ali's part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Bringing you shi'ism without taqiyya

 

Photocopy of the original fatwa (religious verdict) encouraging the Shi'ite masses to curse the two Caliphs Abu Bakr and `Umar. signed by six of the contemporary Shi'ite scholars and clergy among them Khomeini and Shariat Madari The trustworthy scholar Muhammad `Ali Sa'oodi, chief consultant to the Egyptian Ministry of Justice, and one of Sheikh Muhammad Abduh's special students, managed to examine an Iranian manuscript copy of the Qur'an owned by the orientalist Brown. He was able to make a photocopy of Surat-ul-Wilaayah with its Persian translation. Its existence was affirmed by At-Tabarsi in his book faslul-Khitaab, and by Muhsin Faani Al-ashmeeri in his book Dabisan Madhaahib. This book, written in Persian, was printed several times in Iran. The chapter (Surat-ul-Wilaayah) which is falsely attributed to Allah's revelation, was also quoted by the famous orientalist Noeldeke in his book History of the Copies of the Qur'an1. It also appeared in the Asian-French Newspaper in 1842 C.E.

At-Tabarsi also quoted a tradition from Al-Kaafi, which is to the Shi'ites what Sahih-ul-Bukhari is to the Sunni Muslims. It reads:

 

A number of our associates narrated by way of Sahl bin Ziyaad through Muhammad bin Sulaiman that some of his friends reported Abul-Hasan Ath-Thaani `Ali bin Mioosa Ar-Rida as saying `May I be your ransom! We hear verses of the Qur'an different from those we have with us and we are not capable of reading them according to your reading which has reached us. Do we commit a sin thereby He replied, "No, read the Qur'an as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you."

Without a doubt, this conversation is fabricated by the Shi'ites and is falsely attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida; however, the statement is taken by the Shi'ites as a legal ruling in this matter. Its implication is that while one of them commits no sin by reciting the Qur'an the way Muslims have learned according to `Uthman's unanimously accepted text, the privileged class of Shi'ite clergy and scholars will teach each other a version other than the accepted one, a version which they claim came to their Imams from AhlulBait.

It was the urge to strike a comparison between the Shi'ite "Qur'an" (which they secretly confide to one another, while hiding it from the general public as an act of taqiyyah") and the known and officially accepted `Uthmani Edition of the Qur'an, which motivated At-Tabarsi to write his book faslul-Khitaab.

Although the Shi'ites pretended to disown At-Tabarsi's book, as an act of taqiyyah, the glaring fact that it includes hundreds of quotations from the recognized works of their scholars clearly confirms their adherence to the tenet of alteration of the Qur'an. Of course, they do not want a clamor to be raised over this perverse article of faith of theirs

The intended result of their claim is to leave us with the impression that there are two Qur'ans: one, the `Uthmani version accepted by the Sunni Muslims; the other, the allegedly hidden version of the Shi'ites, part of which is Surat-ul-Wilaayah. They are well aware that they fabricated the statement they attributed to the Imam `Ali bin Moosa Ar-Rida: "... read [the Qur'an] as you have learned it; someone will come to you to teach you." The Shi'ites also claim that a verse was deleted from the Qur'an from Surat-ul-lnshiraah. The alleged deletion is "and we made `Ali your son-in-law." Have they no shame in making such an allegation, when it is a well-known fact that this particular surah was revealed in Mecca at a time when `Ali was not yet the son-in-law of the Prophet, Allah's blessing and peace be upon him. His only son-in-law a that time was Al-'Ass Ibnur-Rabee'al-Ummawi. As for the fact that `Ali was a son-in-law of the Prophet, it should be pointed out that Allah also made `Uthman bin `Affaan the son-in-law of the Prophet through his marriage to two of the Prophet's daughters. Upon the death of the second of `Uthman's wives (the second of the two daughters), the Prophet said to him, "If we had a third one, we would have given her to you in marriage."

Another of the Shi'ite scholars, Abu Mansoor Ahmad bin `Ali At-Tabarsi, in his book Al-lhtijaaj `ala Ahlil-Lajaaj (Argumentation with the Contentious Folk) claimed that `Ali said to one of the zanaadiqah,2 whose name At-Tabarsi neglected to mention, "As for your belligerent disagreement with me3, it shows your feigned ignorance of Allah's statement, `And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry of the women who seem good to you..."' At-Tabarsi then went on to say, by way of explanation as to why this verse was quoted by `Ali in his argumentation with his opponents:

Now doing justice to orphans does not resemble the marrying of women, and not all women are orphans; thus, this verse is an example of what I have presented earlier in the book Al-Ihtijaaj; regarding the deletion of parts of the Qur'an by the hypocrites',4 that deletion being between the statement about justice to orphans, and that which follows it, about the marrying of women. This deletion consists of addresses and stories, and amounts to more than a third of the Qur'an.

 

References:

 

1. Noeldeke, History of Copies of the Qur'an, Vol. 2, p. 102.

 

2. Zanaadiq is the plural of zindeeq. a Persian word meaning one who speaks heresy, or who has deviated from the truth. It is also applied to disbelievers or atheists or free-thinkers. (cf., Lisanul-Arab Vol. 10. p. 147).

 

3. The meaning of this statement, allegedly made by 'Ali in the course of an argument with an unnamed zindeeq. is obscure, to say the least. We may surmise from the context that a discussion or dispute had been taking place between them, 'Ali having been attacked in repudiation of his supposed insistence that he possessed that missing one third of the Qur'an, which according to Shi'ite belief was deleted by the Companions of the Prophet. This is a concoction of the Shi'ites, falsely attributed to 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), in order to bolster their attempt to prove the alteration of the Qur'an. As for the verse cited as proof of deletion from the Qur'an, there is unanimous agreement among the Sunni commentators on the Qur'an that, after a careful analysis of the structure of the verse and its context, it may be paraphrased as follows: "If any of you has an orphan girl under his guardianship and he fears that he may not do her justice by granting her an appropriate dowry if he were to marry her, then let him marry other women of his choice." For further details see Ibn Katheer Tafseerul Qur'an al-'Adheem. Vol. 1, p. 449.

 

4. By the 'hypocrites", Abu Mansoor At-Tabarsi means the Companions of Allah's Messenger (Allah's blessing and peace be upon him), for it was they who collected the Qur'an, the 'Uthmani version which was adhered to and applied by 'Ali during the period of his caliphate. If the statement attributed to 'Ali in At-Tabarsi's Al-lhtijaaj had really come from him, it would have been treachery against Islam on his part, to possess and conceal some missing portion of the Qur'an and not make it public, nor apply its principles, nor, circulate it amongst his subjects during the period of his caliphate. Clearly At-Tabarsi has insulted and defamed 'Ali, since what he has written actually implies treachery and deception on 'Ali's part.

check the information you copied online akhi and don't accuse others without proper hujjah.

 

fear Allah and don't get misled by the devil into slandering others even if you think they are kuffar 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

check the information you copied online akhi and don't accuse others without proper hujjah.

 

fear Allah and don't get misled by the devil into slandering others even if you think they are kuffar 

 

They're not accusations... these are facts.. backed up with evidences (references) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Al-Kaafi contains many fabrications. Most Shia believe that the Qur'an is 100% complete in the form in which we have it nowadays.

But if you look at Sunni narrations (in the Sahih compilations) they mention as well missing ayats and missing surats.

 

As you can see, both of these branches of Islam (sunni traditionist and 12er shia) have these fabrications (about missing chapters, verses and other textual distortions) included in their main hadith collections.

We should stop being to self rightous and only because one group has certain sayings transmitted in their books, does not mean that they actually believe in it.

Edited by jasir
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...