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

12Ers Believe Majority Ahle Bayt Were Misguided?

Rate this topic


Abul_Hassan01

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

We know that the 12ers believe that the majority of the sahaba were misguided.

 

What is interesting is that they also believe the majority of the ahle bayt were misguided too.

 

Here is a list of over 50 figure from ahle bayt who lead revolutions during the Umayyad & Abbasid rule, taken from twelvershia.net. note the following:

 

A- They did not claim to receive orders from any of the 12 Imams permitting them to revolt or encouraging them to carry arms, nor was it reported from any of the 12 Imams that they instructed any of these men to revolt.

 

B- These revolutionaries openly called for themselves and received allegiance for themselves not for the 12 Imams of the Twelver sect. In fact, when these revolutions succeeded these revolutionaries ruled and did not transfer authority to the 11 Imams or the hidden Imam of that sect

.

C- None of the Twelver Imams of that sect have actually risen up to aid and support any of these revolutions. Rather, the Twelver Imams have been quite peaceful as they never declared any armed revolutions with the exception of al-Husayn ibn `Ali.

 

Here's the list:

 

 

-In the reign of Banu Umayyah, the `Alawite revolutions were ignited with the rebellion of al-Husayn ibn `Ali during the time of Yazid, but his revolution failed and turned into the tragedy in Karbala’. Husayn’s martyrdom was followed by a rebellion in `Iraq by a group of his Shia, they wished to repent for not aiding al-Husayn after having called him so they named themselves al-Tawwaboun, then this was followed by the rebellion of al-Harrah in Madinah that led to the death of many of the children of the Sahabah, after that a man called al-Mukhtar rebelled in `Iraq and ruled its lands and said he was ordered to do so by Muhammad bin `Ali (ibn al-Hanafiyyah) who disowned him as soon as he heard his lies.

 

-After this, al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib was falsely accused of calling for himself by `Abdul-Malik bin Marwan. In fact, several `Alawites were falsely accused of this either by their enemies or by some of the extremist Shia, this ended up getting them into trouble so we will not mention their names in the list.

 

-Then Zayd ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn rebelled in Kufa during the time of Hisham bin `Abdul-Malik after he had an argument with him because of Zayd ibn `Ali’s fight with his cousin Ja`far bin al-Hasan. The Koufan Shia then called on him and asked him to rebel but they abandoned him in Kufa after they debated him about the Shaykhayn.

 

-Then his son Yahya bin Zayd bin `Ali rebelled during the time of al-Walid bin Yazid bin `Abdul-Malik in Khurasan but he was defeated and crucified until the time of abu Muslim al-Khurasani.

 

-In the reign of Banu al-`Abbas we witnessed much more but not in the time of their first Caliph al-Saffah, rather after his death when al-Mansour became Caliph he was confronted by Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib. When the government of Banu Umayyah was beginning to shake, the people of Madinah and the heads of Ahlul-Bayt gathered to elect a man from them to lead, and they chose Muhammad al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah secretly but never declared it, and he had the support of many men such as abu Hanifa and Malik. Upon hearing this, the Caliph imprisoned his family members, but al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah freed them and took over Madinah and had the support of the majority of its people but finally the army headed by `Isa bin Musa defeated him.

 

-Ibrahim bin `Abdullah al-Mahd bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, who was sent by his brother Muhammad to Basarah, after his brother’s death he called for himself and was given Imamah by the people but was killed in Ahwaz by al-Mansour’s army.

 

-Then his uncle Ibrahim al-Ghamr bin al-Hasan who was the brother of `Abdullah al-Mahd rose after his two nephews Muhammad and Ibrahim died. Al-Mansour quickly stopped his movement before he had the chance to acquire more power and arrested him and his brothers and household, he died in prison.

 

-Then al-Hasan bin Ibrahim bin `Abdullah bin Hasan al-Muthanna bin Hasan al-Sabt bin `Ali ibn abi Talib also rebelled in the time of al-Mansour. He was hiding in Basarah, then he sent his callers to every corner to call for his Imamah, so al-Mansour sent an agent who claimed to be from his closest Shia, then he lured him out and got him arrested, he later died in prison from poison.

 

-Then `Abdullah al-Ashtar ibn al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, he appeared in al-Sind in Kabul where he had escaped after his father’s death. He gathered the people he converted to Islam there, he later got into many fights with the governor of al-Mansour until he got killed.

 

-Then rose al-Hasan bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in Basarah during the days of al-Mahdi bin al-Mansour, but he was forced to go into hiding because of lack of supporters until he died.

 

-Then rose `Isa bin Zayd ibn Zayn-ul-`Abidin bin Husayn bin `Ali during al-Mahdi’s rule. He received the Bay`ah from the Koufans, the Basrans, the Ahwazies and Hijazies while he was laying low. Al-Mahdi sent him a man who got close to him then killed him with poison.

 

-Then rose `Ali bin `Abbas bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali also in al-Mahdi’s reign, he made a group give him Bay`ah in secret in Baghdad. Al-Mahdi arrested him before he could acquire power but his relative al-Husayn bin `Ali of al-Fakh interceded and got him out of prison, he later died from poison in Madinah.

 

-After this, the martyr of al-Fakh rose, he was al-Husayn bin `Ali bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali during Al-Hadi bin al-Mahdi’s days. He took Bay`ah in Madinah and chased away its governor, then he headed towards Makkah but an army intercepted him and he was killed in Fakh near Makkah.

 

-Then Yahya bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Hadi’s days after he had survived the event of al-Fakh, he finally settled in the mountain of al-Daylam in the days of Haroun al-Rashid who sent al-Fadl al-Barmaki to fight him. They negotiated peace with him and he returned peacefully to Madinah and received a lot of money from the Caliph, later it was proven that he was still calling to himself secretly so he was arrested and they differed on his death.

 

-Then his brother Idris bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali who also survived al-Fakh then headed towards al-Maghrib and received Bay`ah from the tribes and overthrew the `Abbasies.

 

-Then Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il al-Dibaj bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali during al-Rashid’s days. He rebelled alongside abu al-Saraya and they went to Kufa and defeated the `Abbasiyyah and took their gold and received Bay`ah from the Koufans and all Arabs surrounding it, then Muhammad died during that revolution so abu al-Saraya replaced him with a young `Alawite boy called Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Zayd ibn Zayn-ul-`Abidin bin al-Husayn.

 

-As stated above Muhammad bin Muhammad ibn Zayd bin `Ali bin Husayn rebelled and he was no more than a tool for abu al-Saraya who was the leader of the revolution. Abu al-Saraya appointed `Abbas bin Muhammad bin `Isa al-Ja`fari on Basarah and Husayn al-Aftas bin Husayn bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin on Makkah. He also appointed Ibrahim bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq on Yaman. Finally they were both defeated, abu Saraya was beheaded and Muhammad bin Muhammad was imprisoned and it was said poisoned.

 

-Then an army was sent to defeat Zayd al-Nar bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq who was burning the houses of Banu al-`Abbas and their followers. Zayd negotiated a peaceful surrender and was jailed in Baghdad.

 

-Ibrahim al-Jazzar bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq who was previously placed in Yaman by abu al-Saraya was controlling Yaman, and he became famous for his massacres thus his name “al-Jazzar”.

 

-Then his son Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq and he was calling for Muhammad bin Muhammad, he was killed in Khurasan.

 

-Then Muhammad bin Sulayman bin Dawoud bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, but his supporters abandoned him so he hid in Madinah until he died.

 

-Then Idris bin Idris bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Maghrib after his father died and he established the Idrisi dynasty where his children ruled for hundreds of years.

 

-Then the infamous scholar of Ahlul-Bayt al-Qasim al-Rassi bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali also during the days of al-Ma’moun. He remained in hiding while his callers called for his Imamah in the lands, then he moved from Egypt to Hijaz and hid until al-Ma’moun died. After al-Mu`tasim came to power he tried to capture him, but al-Qasim fortified himself in a mountain called al-Ras where he and his children lived.

 

-Then rose Muhammad Sahib al-Taliqan bin al-Qasim bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali and the people called him al-Soufi and they differed on what happened to him after al-Mu`tasim.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Yahya bin `Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali rebelled in Hirat and conquered the southern part where he and his children ruled until 290 AH.

-Then Muhammad bin Salih bin `Abdullah bin Musa bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali who appeared in a village near Madinah. However, abu al-Saj managed to trap him and imprison him in the city of Surra man Ra’a (Samarra), at that time many of the `Alawites refrained from revolting and calling for themselves.

-Then it was the time of al-Hasan bin Zayd bin Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib, he conquered Tabaristan and the areas of Daylam and ruled for forty years until he died in 250 AH.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin `Umar bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali ibn abi Talib, who rebelled in the non-Arab lands but was imprisoned by al-Mutawakkil.

-It was said that more `Alawites rebelled in the time of al-Mutawakkil, some were killed while others were imprisoned.

-Then Yahya bin `Umar bin Yahya bin Husayn bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin who appeared in Kufa and won the people’s hearts during the Caliphate of al-Musta`in.

-Then Husayn bin Muhammad bin Hamzah bin `Abdullah bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin who was imprisoned by al-Musta`in and died in prison.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Hasan during al-Musta`in’s days in Armenia or Kufa, he died in prison in 250 AH.

-Then al-Kawkabi Ahmad bin `Isa bin `Ali bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abdin, he rebelled in al-Kufa in the time of al-Mahdi in 255 AH.

-Then Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Mu`tamid’s time. He had battles with ibn Touloun and was beheaded as a result.

-Then al-Da`i Muhammad bin Zayd bin Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali in 277 AH. He had many battles and was killed in Jurajan in al-Mu`tadid’s time.

-Then al-Nasir al-Utroush al-Hasan bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin in al-Jil and al-Daylam in 284 AH, and he conquered lands and gained much strength until he was killed in 304 AH.

-Then al-Da`i al-Hasan bin Qasim bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali. Fought the children of al-Nasir al-`Abbasi and defeated them then ruled Tabaristan for twelve years.

-After him his son al-Mahdi Muhammad bin Hasan bin Qasim bin Hasan during the reign of al-Muti` al-`Abbasi in 353 AH. He ruled over al-Jil and al-Daylam until he died in 360 AH.

-Then al-Tha’ir Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Husayn bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin and he gained strength and ruled until he died in 367 AH.

-Then his son abu al-Husayn al-Mahdi bin Ja`far al-Tha’ir in the Caliphate of al-Qadir Billah al-`Abbasi and he did not last long as he died from sickness.

-Then his brother Husayn bin Ja`far al-Tha’ir, and he ruled the lands he dominated until he died.

-Then Ahmad bin Husayn bin Haroun bin Husayn bin Muhammad bin Haroun bin Muhammad bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali also in the time of al-Qadir in 380 AH. He had some battles until he finally conquered Tabaristan and died in 411 AH.

-Then his brother al-Natiq bil-Haq Yahya bin Husayn in the time of al-Qa’im al-`Abbasi, and he ruled the lands he dominated until he died in 424 AH.

-Then al-`Aqiqi `Ali bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin `Abdullah bin `Ali bin Ahmad bin `Ali bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin in the time of al-Qa’im in 404 AH.

-Then Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-A`rabi bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali just as those before him did in 417 AH.

-Then al-Nasir al-Husayn bin Ja`far bin Husayn bin Hasan bin `Ali bin al-Nasir al-Utroush near al-Daylam.

-Then al-Muwaffaq Billah Husayn bin Isma`il bin Zayd bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ja`far bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali.

-Then his son al-Murshid Billah Yahya bin Husayn.

-Then abu Talib Yahya bin Ahmad bin al-Aamir abi al-Qasim al-Husayn al-Mu’ayyad Billah Ahmad bin Husayn bin Haroun after 490 AH in the time of al-Mustazhir and he fought against the Batini sect.

Then the author lists the names of `Alawites who did their revolutions but it is not known when and during whose reign they did so:

-Muhammad bin abi al-A`rabi bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-`Ali al-`Iraqi bin Husayn bin `Isa bin Zayd bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-Ahmad bin `Isa bin Zayd bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-Al-Hadi bin al-Mahdi bin Hasan bin `Abdullah bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib.

-Al-Radi Billah Nasir bin Husayn bin Zayd bin Salih bin Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin Muhammad bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib.

-Zayd bin Salih bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Salih bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Salih bin `Umar.

-`Ali bin Muhsin bin Ahmad bin `Ubaydullah bin Hasan bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ja`far bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna.

-Husayn bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Ja`far bin `Ubaydullah.

-His brother Hasan bin Muhammad bin `Ali.

As for those `Alawites whose lineage is not known, they are:

-Ashraf bin Zayd from the progeny of al-Hasan.

-Al-Sayyid al-Azraqi.

-Abu al-Raha al-Kaytami.

And all of these `Alawite revolutions happened in the areas of: Qazwin, Tabristan, al-Jil, al-Daylam, Jurajan, Hijaz, `Iraq and Maghrib.

As for those `Alawites who appeared and called for themselves in Yaman, then the first of them is:

-Al-Hadi ila al-Haq Yahya bin Husayn bin Qasim bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim al-Ghamr bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna in Sa`dah in the year 280 AH. He fought against the Isma`ili Shia `Ali bin al-Fadl al-Qarmati and the state of the Qaramitah in Yaman, he died from poison in 298 AH.

-Then his son al-Murtada Muhammad bin al-Hadi rose instead of his father but he stepped-down from Imamah after one year so the Zaydi scholars tried to get his brother to step-up.

-Then his brother al-Nasir li-Dinillah Ahmad bin Yahya came after the Zaydiyyah called on him from the mountain of al-Ras during the Caliphate of al-Muqtadir in 301 AH.

 

 

Now that's a long list of members of ahle bayt who were misguided according to 12ers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Allah [swt] knows best what's in their hearts and he will judge each person on an individual basis, and we believe in his justice.

 

After reading a few lines in the post above, i couldn't continue as it was really incorrect. No surprise, as it was taken from an anti shia site.

 

I don't know what you are trying to prove from this?

 

Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

Imam Abu Hanifa also supported these 'Anlul Bait' rebels both against the Ummayads and Abbasides. Infact articles say that he openly wanted the 'family of Ali' to take over Khilafat.

 

You will note I said 'family of Ali'. Not Ijma, not family of any Sahaba, not a panel of advisors.

 

Also if you look at history the Abbasides appointed the Chief Ghazi and regional Ghazis. They meddled in the religious institutions for hundreds of years.

 

The 4 Imams became just names on paper, who knows what they really believed.

 

The strongest single evidence for this is that there is no consensus on the most basic of things ie. Salaat. Wholesale meddling that people dnt even remember how to pray and that is what they do 5 times a day  

Sunni bro', 

It's true what you said. Abu Hanifa died after being locked by the usurper of that time after he refused to become his qadi as he didn't wanted to become a puppet scholar.

Then his student Abu Yusuf accepted what his teacher Abu Hanifa refused and then he became the representative of the madhab that beared the name of his teacher. 

So from a truth loving madhab it became a puppet madhab that has nothing to do with Abu Hanifa himself.

As  a Shia I do respect Abu Hanifa very much.

Edited by Skanderbeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Sunni bro', 

It's true what you said. Abu Hanifa died after being locked by the usurper of that time after he refused to become his qadi as he didn't wanted to become a puppet scholar.

Then his student Abu Yusuf accepted what his teacher Abu Hanifa refused and then he became the representative of the madhab that beared the name of his teacher. 

So from a truth loving madhab it became a puppet madhab that has nothing to do with Abu Hanifa himself.

As  a Shia I do respect Abu Hanifa very much.

 

Imam Malik

was beaten up by the Medina governor had his arms broken etc 

Edited by A true Sunni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Sunni bro', 

As  a Shia I do respect Abu Hanifa very much.

But we have Ahadith in our classical books where Imam Ja'far al-Sadiqع curses and rebukes Abu Hanifa for using Qiyas though. Not only are they in our books, but they have been accepted by our scholars from our Salaf up until now and no major scholar ever questioned them. In other words, there is scholarly consensus on it's authenticity. So I'm curious to know, based on what reasoning and justification do you use to reconcile your positive perception on Abu Hanifa with the conflicting one of the Ma'sumع? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Allah [swt] knows best what's in their hearts and he will judge each person on an individual basis, and we believe in his justice.

 

After reading a few lines in the post above, i couldn't continue as it was really incorrect. No surprise, as it was taken from an anti shia site.

 

I don't know what you are trying to prove from this?

 

Ali

 

 

The truth is a bitter pill to swallow, so I can understand its hard to take in...

 

 

I don't know why you keep talking about "ahlulbayt" being misguided. The ahlulbayt consists of the Prophet salallahu w aalahi wasalam, Imam Ali, Sayeda Fatima, her sons Hasan and Hussein, and the remaining nine descendents 3layhum asalam. You need to stop with the misleading comments. It's pretty insulting.

 

As for the companions of the Imams, Imam Jaffar al-Sadiq sums it up pretty clearly. The incident where a companion of his approached him and asked him to begin an uprising, the Imam responded by telling him to sit in the furnace and the companion hesitated and did not comply. Just then Haroon, a faithful companion was walking along and he was ordered to do the same and he immediately complied. Soon after he came out unscathed. The Imam went on to explain that if he had enough faithful people like that, only then could he start an uprising. I hope I wasn't too off with how the story goes.

 

So what's your point exactly? We have 100% unreliable narrators? Let us say your are correct. Cool. Point taken. Now, when you have proper narrators, come criticize and fix ours for us, oh intellectual one.

 

Right so only the 14 were ahle bayt, all the rest such as Zayd ibn Ali & all the sons of Al Hassan were not ahle bayt? 90% are excluded just because you say so? Can you imagine saying to Zayd ibn Ali that he wasn't ahle bayt??!!! He was the righteous son of Ali Zayn Al Abidin. Who are you to say he or anyone else is excluded?

 

Thank for admitting all the members of ahle bayt in the list were not of the 'faithful people'. My point proven:)

 

 

 

That was great research work bro'. We here on SC must be happy that such a scholar and investigator shares his knowledge here on our forum. 

 

Keep avoiding answering the subject.

 

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

Imam Abu Hanifa also supported these 'Anlul Bait' rebels both against the Ummayads and Abbasides. Infact articles say that he openly wanted the 'family of Ali' to take over Khilafat.

 

You will note I said 'family of Ali'. Not Ijma, not family of any Sahaba, not a panel of advisors.

 

Also if you look at history the Abbasides appointed the Chief Ghazi and regional Ghazis. They meddled in the religious institutions for hundreds of years.

 

The 4 Imams became just names on paper, who knows what they really believed.

 

The strongest single evidence for this is that there is no consensus on the most basic of things ie. Salaat. Wholesale meddling that people dnt even remember how to pray and that is what they do 5 times a day  

 

 

Point being?

 

Sunni bro', 

It's true what you said. Abu Hanifa died after being locked by the usurper of that time after he refused to become his qadi as he didn't wanted to become a puppet scholar.

Then his student Abu Yusuf accepted what his teacher Abu Hanifa refused and then he became the representative of the madhab that beared the name of his teacher. 

So from a truth loving madhab it became a puppet madhab that has nothing to do with Abu Hanifa himself.

As  a Shia I do respect Abu Hanifa very much.

 

Well your scholars don't have the same view as you on Abu Hanifa.

 

 

Imam Malik

was beaten up by the Medina governor had his arms broken etc 

 

Yes that is true.

 

But we have Ahadith in our classical books where Imam Ja'far al-Sadiqع curses and rebukes Abu Hanifa for using Qiyas though. Not only are they in our books, but they have been accepted by our scholars from our Salaf up until now and no major scholar ever questioned them. In other words, there is scholarly consensus on it's authenticity. So I'm curious to know, based on what reasoning and justification do you use to reconcile your positive perception on Abu Hanifa with the conflicting one of the Ma'sumع? Thanks.

 

Abu Hanifa kept the company of Zayd Ibn Ali, Mohammad Al Baqir & Jaffar As Saddiq. He supported the rising of Zayd. Unlike the shia 'companions' like Zarara fulaan & co, Abu Hanifa's position as a learned jurist is well known. Historically it is obvious that his company with the Imams of ahle bayt mentioned was of mutual scholarly terms. Something the shia can't fathom.

Edited by Abul_Hassan01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do Sunnis not also consider these people misguided, as they rebelled against the rightful Khalifa of their time?

That is actually the contradiction I never understood. They love both the murdered (rawafid) and their slaughters (usurpers).

They were both good.

But we have Ahadith in our classical books where Imam Ja'far al-Sadiqع curses and rebukes Abu Hanifa for using Qiyas though. Not only are they in our books, but they have been accepted by our scholars from our Salaf up until now and no major scholar ever questioned them. In other words, there is scholarly consensus on it's authenticity. So I'm curious to know, based on what reasoning and justification do you use to reconcile your positive perception on Abu Hanifa with the conflicting one of the Ma'sumع? Thanks.

I do respect him on the political level, not on the theological/judicial one, although I believe it was his honest opinion and not a way to thwart. 

Edited by Skanderbeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do Sunnis not also consider these people misguided, as they rebelled against the rightful Khalifa of their time?

 

Open a thread on a sunni forum & ask, just like I am doing here:)

 

What I do know is Abu Hanifa was close to Zayd ibn Ali, Mohammad Al Baqir & Jaffar Saddiq & that he supported the uprising of Zayd. Also Al Shafi & Malik supported the uprising of Nafs Al Zakiyya (another well known figure of ahle bayt who you all seem to reject!).

 

All 3 of the above, as well as Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (during the trial against the mutazila) were all targets death, torture, prison by the rulers.

That is actually the contradiction I never understood. They love both the murdered (rawafid) and their slaughters (usurpers).

They were both good.

I do respect him on the political level, not on the theological/judicial one, although I believe it was his honest opinion and not a way to thwart. 

 

 

See above^^

 

 

A simple question to anyone who posts on this topic, do you consider the majority of ahle bayt mentioned in the list as being misguided or not? Stop side-tracking, its a simple topic/question.

Edited by Abul_Hassan01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To tell you the truth bro'.

Most on the list are as unknown to me as unknown to you. 

And I do not even feel to react on an issue that was taken from a website and that you didn't even researched and analyzed yourself. 

Why should I then do my best to find out who all those figures were from diffirent sources, angles and positions and after that give a balanced opinion/judgment to you?

And last but not least, our understanding about who are the Ahl al-Bayt and who are not isn't even as extended as the sunni understanding (when it comes to the number of people), same case with Sahaba, same case with who we consider to be the guided progeny of the Ahl al-Bayt so what is exactly your point?

Edited by Skanderbeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To tell you the truth bro'.

Most on the list are as unknown to me as unknown to you. 

And I do not even feel to react on an issue that was taken from a website and that you didn't even researched and analyzed yourself. 

Why should I then do my best to find out who all those figures were from diffirent sources, angles and positions and after that give a balanced opinion/judgment to you?

And last but not least, our understanding about who is the Ahl al-Bayt and who are not isn't even as extended as the sunni understanding, same case with Sahaba, same case with the progeny of the Ahl al-Bayt so what is exactly your point?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

 

Sitting on the fence" is a common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition, or inability to decide due to lack of courage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------

 

I thought you are shia? Followers of ahle bayt? So only 14 out of the household of the Holy Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) are ahle bayt? The rest are unknown to you? How are you a follower of ahle bayt when you don't know anything & don't bother knowing about 90% of them?

 

Right let me get this straight. Majority of the sahaba were misguided or brushed aside, also majority of ahle bayt are misguided/brushed aside in your sect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----------

 

I thought you are shia? Followers of ahle bayt? So only 14 out of the household of the Holy Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) are ahle bayt? The rest are unknown to you? How are you a follower of ahle bayt when you don't know anything & don't bother knowing about 90% of them?

 

Right let me get this straight. Majority of the sahaba were misguided or brushed aside, also majority of ahle bayt are misguided/brushed aside in your sect?

What the hell are you talking about?

I know your posts are coming out of desperation. You are cherrypicking and accusing us of not being on the right path. 

 

Rasulallah(saww), never said to follow and love EVERY single member of his descendents. Neither were all of them ahlul bayt. Through sahih hadiths only 14 individuals are considered to be from Ahlul bayt(AS).

Edited by The Light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The rightly guided are from the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. but not all members of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. are rightly guided.

 

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
 
Edited by Skanderbeg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

A simple question to anyone who posts on this topic, do you consider the majority of ahle bayt mentioned in the list as being misguided or not? Stop side-tracking, its a simple topic/question.

I do not know most of the people you listed there. But as for Zayd ibn Ali we believe he was a righteous person and he was indeed a member of Ahlulbayt much like Muslim ibn Aqeel was a member of Ahlulbayt.

 

 

We know that the 12ers believe that the majority of the sahaba were misguided.

 

That's not true

 

What is interesting is that they also believe the majority of the ahle bayt were misguided too.

 

Let's see...

 

Here is a list of over 50 figure from ahle bayt who lead revolutions during the Umayyad & Abbasid rule, taken from twelvershia.net. note the following:

 

That's an anti-shia website and it's best you don't promote it in a shia website

 

A- They did not claim to receive orders from any of the 12 Imams permitting them to revolt or encouraging them to carry arms, nor was it reported from any of the 12 Imams that they instructed any of these men to revolt.

 

That's not true again. Further comments given below.

 

B- These revolutionaries openly called for themselves and received allegiance for themselves not for the 12 Imams of the Twelver sect. In fact, when these revolutions succeeded these revolutionaries ruled and did not transfer authority to the 11 Imams or the hidden Imam of that sect

 

This is true about some of these individuals yes

 

C- None of the Twelver Imams of that sect have actually risen up to aid and support any of these revolutions. Rather, the Twelver Imams have been quite peaceful as they never declared any armed revolutions with the exception of al-Husayn ibn `Ali.

 

I think Imam Jafar (as) also supported the Abbassid uprising at first but Abbassid later forsook him.

 

Here's the list:

 

-In the reign of Banu Umayyah, the `Alawite revolutions were ignited with the rebellion of al-Husayn ibn `Ali during the time of Yazid, but his revolution failed and turned into the tragedy in Karbala’. Husayn’s martyrdom was followed by a rebellion in `Iraq by a group of his Shia, they wished to repent for not aiding al-Husayn after having called him so they named themselves al-Tawwaboun, then this was followed by the rebellion of al-Harrah in Madinah that led to the death of many of the children of the Sahabah, after that a man called al-Mukhtar rebelled in `Iraq and ruled its lands and said he was ordered to do so by Muhammad bin `Ali (ibn al-Hanafiyyah) who disowned him as soon as he heard his lies.

 

I personally do not hold a high opinion regarding Mukhtar. The reason being (aside from his questionable character) that he never handed his short-lived government over to the Imam of time. Also he himself was not from the family of Prophet.

 

-After this, al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib was falsely accused of calling for himself by `Abdul-Malik bin Marwan. In fact, several `Alawites were falsely accused of this either by their enemies or by some of the extremist Shia, this ended up getting them into trouble so we will not mention their names in the list.

 

I highly doubt extremist Shias would accuse any members of the Prophet's family of uprising. That's forsaking Taqiyyah. But true. Alawites and Hashimites were indeed prosecuted by Quraishi caliphs and their supporters.

 

-Then Zayd ibn `Ali ibn al-Husayn rebelled in Kufa during the time of Hisham bin `Abdul-Malik after he had an argument with him because of Zayd ibn `Ali’s fight with his cousin Ja`far bin al-Hasan. The Koufan Shia then called on him and asked him to rebel but they abandoned him in Kufa after they debated him about the Shaykhayn.

 

Zayd revolted against Umayyads because of their prosecution of the Hashimites. To say that he fought against them because of a cousin is a slander only a Nasibi would make. Kufans abandoned him true. But ultimately it was not the Kufans who severed his head and hung his body at the gate. It was the Nasibi Quraishi Tamimi Najdis.

 

-Then his son Yahya bin Zayd bin `Ali rebelled during the time of al-Walid bin Yazid bin `Abdul-Malik in Khurasan but he was defeated and crucified until the time of abu Muslim al-Khurasani.

 

I do not know about him.

 

-In the reign of Banu al-`Abbas we witnessed much more but not in the time of their first Caliph al-Saffah, rather after his death when al-Mansour became Caliph he was confronted by Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib. When the government of Banu Umayyah was beginning to shake, the people of Madinah and the heads of Ahlul-Bayt gathered to elect a man from them to lead, and they chose Muhammad al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah secretly but never declared it, and he had the support of many men such as abu Hanifa and Malik. Upon hearing this, the Caliph imprisoned his family members, but al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah freed them and took over Madinah and had the support of the majority of its people but finally the army headed by `Isa bin Musa defeated him.

 

People supported Nafs az-Zakiyyah because they believed him to be Mahdi. So in reality there's a lot of controversy surrounding this man. Whether his personal character was good or not is a question to which I don't know the answer. However I believe that in Twelver hadith, there are some ahadith about the appearance of Nafs az-Zakiyyah (someone other than the figure in question) in Medina.

 

-Ibrahim bin `Abdullah al-Mahd bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, who was sent by his brother Muhammad to Basarah, after his brother’s death he called for himself and was given Imamah by the people but was killed in Ahwaz by al-Mansour’s army.

 

Don't know him. And we need more than a quote from a Nasibi on Twelvershia.com to prove that he called for Imamah. Nasibis believe everyone called for Imamah and yet no one called for Imamah. That's the stupid logic of the Nasibis. So we need serious proof here.

 

-Then his uncle Ibrahim al-Ghamr bin al-Hasan who was the brother of `Abdullah al-Mahd rose after his two nephews Muhammad and Ibrahim died. Al-Mansour quickly stopped his movement before he had the chance to acquire more power and arrested him and his brothers and household, he died in prison.

 

Nothing wrong with what he did based on what's written above. So far the only good thing coming out of this list is that it's telling us how much Sunnis and the caliphs they worship hated the Hashimites and the Alawites. HOWEVER so far it's not telling us anything about the stance of twelver Shias on them.

 

-Then al-Hasan bin Ibrahim bin `Abdullah bin Hasan al-Muthanna bin Hasan al-Sabt bin `Ali ibn abi Talib also rebelled in the time of al-Mansour. He was hiding in Basarah, then he sent his callers to every corner to call for his Imamah, so al-Mansour sent an agent who claimed to be from his closest Shia, then he lured him out and got him arrested, he later died in prison from poison.

 

Seriously I do not understand the Nasibi logic. First you tell us that people like Jafar ibn Muhammad, Musa ibn Jafar etc. never claimed to be Imams and yet there are these other people who quite shamelessly claimed Imamah. You seriously got to prove that or else it's slander.

 

-Then `Abdullah al-Ashtar ibn al-Nafs-ul-Zakiyyah bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, he appeared in al-Sind in Kabul where he had escaped after his father’s death. He gathered the people he converted to Islam there, he later got into many fights with the governor of al-Mansour until he got killed.

 

The Sunni god kills yet another Alawite. Why am I not surprised?

 

-Then rose al-Hasan bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in Basarah during the days of al-Mahdi bin al-Mansour, but he was forced to go into hiding because of lack of supporters until he died.

 

So the false Quraishi Sunni Mahdi killed a descendant of Ali?

 

-Then rose `Isa bin Zayd ibn Zayn-ul-`Abidin bin Husayn bin `Ali during al-Mahdi’s rule. He received the Bay`ah from the Koufans, the Basrans, the Ahwazies and Hijazies while he was laying low. Al-Mahdi sent him a man who got close to him then killed him with poison.

 

The false Mahdi strikes again. So many good things came out of choosing Khilafa of Quraish instead of Imamah of Banu Hashim I see.

 

-Then rose `Ali bin `Abbas bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali also in al-Mahdi’s reign, he made a group give him Bay`ah in secret in Baghdad. Al-Mahdi arrested him before he could acquire power but his relative al-Husayn bin `Ali of al-Fakh interceded and got him out of prison, he later died from poison in Madinah.

 

So far not a single one of these alawites had died a natural dead. Khilafa of Quraish was the best thing to ever happen to Sunnis. It helped them kill a lot of Shias and Alawites.

 

-After this, the martyr of al-Fakh rose, he was al-Husayn bin `Ali bin Hasan bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali during Al-Hadi bin al-Mahdi’s days. He took Bay`ah in Madinah and chased away its governor, then he headed towards Makkah but an army intercepted him and he was killed in Fakh near Makkah.

 

As it always should be in the Sunni creed. The true inheritors of the Prophet should die at the hands of the false Quraishi Caliphs. And all because a bunch of people fabricated pro-Quraishi pro-Caliphacy ahadith in their books.

 

-Then Yahya bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Hadi’s days after he had survived the event of al-Fakh, he finally settled in the mountain of al-Daylam in the days of Haroun al-Rashid who sent al-Fadl al-Barmaki to fight him. They negotiated peace with him and he returned peacefully to Madinah and received a lot of money from the Caliph, later it was proven that he was still calling to himself secretly so he was arrested and they differed on his death.

 

I'm not surprised. Haroun al-Rashid did have a split personality.

 

-Then his brother Idris bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali who also survived al-Fakh then headed towards al-Maghrib and received Bay`ah from the tribes and overthrew the `Abbasies.

 

Good for him and good for the Shias. If I remember correctly Maghribis at one point were Zaidis. Maybe it was thanks to this guy.

 

-Then Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il al-Dibaj bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali during al-Rashid’s days. He rebelled alongside abu al-Saraya and they went to Kufa and defeated the `Abbasiyyah and took their gold and received Bay`ah from the Koufans and all Arabs surrounding it, then Muhammad died during that revolution so abu al-Saraya replaced him with a young `Alawite boy called Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Zayd ibn Zayn-ul-`Abidin bin al-Husayn.

 

So in other words they didn't succeed in completely overthrowing the Caliphacy. Which means there was no point to drag any of our Imams into the conflict for no reason.

 

-As stated above Muhammad bin Muhammad ibn Zayd bin `Ali bin Husayn rebelled and he was no more than a tool for abu al-Saraya who was the leader of the revolution. Abu al-Saraya appointed `Abbas bin Muhammad bin `Isa al-Ja`fari on Basarah and Husayn al-Aftas bin Husayn bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin on Makkah. He also appointed Ibrahim bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq on Yaman. Finally they were both defeated, abu Saraya was beheaded and Muhammad bin Muhammad was imprisoned and it was said poisoned.

 

So I can see that the guy appointed on of the sons of our 7th Imam as the governor of Yemen. If only he had succeeded in his rebellion he might have handed the entire matter to one of our Imams. Who knows? Clearly what's written above isn't telling us much about their belief regarding our Imams.

 

-Then an army was sent to defeat Zayd al-Nar bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq who was burning the houses of Banu al-`Abbas and their followers. Zayd negotiated a peaceful surrender and was jailed in Baghdad.

 

Your Quraishi caliphs strike again.

 

-Ibrahim al-Jazzar bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq who was previously placed in Yaman by abu al-Saraya was controlling Yaman, and he became famous for his massacres thus his name “al-Jazzar”.

 

Which made me wonder. What are the sources that Nasibi is using? I always wanted to get my hands on a good book on Alawites revolutions. I got a book on Zaidi revolutions in Iran but I haven't gotten around reading it. Which reminds me. Many of these so-called Shia revolutions were actually Zaidi revolutions and had little to do with twelver sect. And basically twelver sect believes in taqiyyah.

 

-Then his son Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Musa bin Ja`far al-Sadiq and he was calling for Muhammad bin Muhammad, he was killed in Khurasan.

 

-Then Muhammad bin Sulayman bin Dawoud bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali, but his supporters abandoned him so he hid in Madinah until he died.

 

-Then Idris bin Idris bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Maghrib after his father died and he established the Idrisi dynasty where his children ruled for hundreds of years.

 

Pretty sure we're talking Zaidi Shia now...

 

-Then the infamous scholar of Ahlul-Bayt al-Qasim al-Rassi bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali also during the days of al-Ma’moun. He remained in hiding while his callers called for his Imamah in the lands, then he moved from Egypt to Hijaz and hid until al-Ma’moun died. After al-Mu`tasim came to power he tried to capture him, but al-Qasim fortified himself in a mountain called al-Ras where he and his children lived.

 

-Then rose Muhammad Sahib al-Taliqan bin al-Qasim bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali and the people called him al-Soufi and they differed on what happened to him after al-Mu`tasim.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Yahya bin `Abdullah bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin `Ali rebelled in Hirat and conquered the southern part where he and his children ruled until 290 AH.

-Then Muhammad bin Salih bin `Abdullah bin Musa bin `Abdullah bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali who appeared in a village near Madinah. However, abu al-Saj managed to trap him and imprison him in the city of Surra man Ra’a (Samarra), at that time many of the `Alawites refrained from revolting and calling for themselves.

-Then it was the time of al-Hasan bin Zayd bin Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib, he conquered Tabaristan and the areas of Daylam and ruled for forty years until he died in 250 AH.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin `Umar bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali ibn abi Talib, who rebelled in the non-Arab lands but was imprisoned by al-Mutawakkil.

-It was said that more `Alawites rebelled in the time of al-Mutawakkil, some were killed while others were imprisoned.

-Then Yahya bin `Umar bin Yahya bin Husayn bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin who appeared in Kufa and won the people’s hearts during the Caliphate of al-Musta`in.

-Then Husayn bin Muhammad bin Hamzah bin `Abdullah bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin who was imprisoned by al-Musta`in and died in prison.

-Then Muhammad bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Hasan during al-Musta`in’s days in Armenia or Kufa, he died in prison in 250 AH.

-Then al-Kawkabi Ahmad bin `Isa bin `Ali bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abdin, he rebelled in al-Kufa in the time of al-Mahdi in 255 AH.

-Then Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan bin `Ali in al-Mu`tamid’s time. He had battles with ibn Touloun and was beheaded as a result.

-Then al-Da`i Muhammad bin Zayd bin Muhammad bin Isma`il bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali in 277 AH. He had many battles and was killed in Jurajan in al-Mu`tadid’s time.

-Then al-Nasir al-Utroush al-Hasan bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali Zayn-ul-`Abidin in al-Jil and al-Daylam in 284 AH, and he conquered lands and gained much strength until he was killed in 304 AH.

-Then al-Da`i al-Hasan bin Qasim bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali. Fought the children of al-Nasir al-`Abbasi and defeated them then ruled Tabaristan for twelve years.

-After him his son al-Mahdi Muhammad bin Hasan bin Qasim bin Hasan during the reign of al-Muti` al-`Abbasi in 353 AH. He ruled over al-Jil and al-Daylam until he died in 360 AH.

-Then al-Tha’ir Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Husayn bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin and he gained strength and ruled until he died in 367 AH.

-Then his son abu al-Husayn al-Mahdi bin Ja`far al-Tha’ir in the Caliphate of al-Qadir Billah al-`Abbasi and he did not last long as he died from sickness.

-Then his brother Husayn bin Ja`far al-Tha’ir, and he ruled the lands he dominated until he died.

-Then Ahmad bin Husayn bin Haroun bin Husayn bin Muhammad bin Haroun bin Muhammad bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali also in the time of al-Qadir in 380 AH. He had some battles until he finally conquered Tabaristan and died in 411 AH.

-Then his brother al-Natiq bil-Haq Yahya bin Husayn in the time of al-Qa’im al-`Abbasi, and he ruled the lands he dominated until he died in 424 AH.

-Then al-`Aqiqi `Ali bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin `Abdullah bin `Ali bin Ahmad bin `Ali bin Husayn bin Zayn-ul-`Abidin in the time of al-Qa’im in 404 AH.

-Then Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-A`rabi bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar al-Ashraf bin `Ali bin Husayn bin `Ali just as those before him did in 417 AH.

-Then al-Nasir al-Husayn bin Ja`far bin Husayn bin Hasan bin `Ali bin al-Nasir al-Utroush near al-Daylam.

-Then al-Muwaffaq Billah Husayn bin Isma`il bin Zayd bin Ja`far bin Hasan bin Muhammad bin Ja`far bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali.

-Then his son al-Murshid Billah Yahya bin Husayn.

-Then abu Talib Yahya bin Ahmad bin al-Aamir abi al-Qasim al-Husayn al-Mu’ayyad Billah Ahmad bin Husayn bin Haroun after 490 AH in the time of al-Mustazhir and he fought against the Batini sect.

Then the author lists the names of `Alawites who did their revolutions but it is not known when and during whose reign they did so:

-Muhammad bin abi al-A`rabi bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin `Ali bin `Umar bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-`Ali al-`Iraqi bin Husayn bin `Isa bin Zayd bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-Ahmad bin `Isa bin Zayd bin Zayn-`Abidin.

-Al-Hadi bin al-Mahdi bin Hasan bin `Abdullah bin `Ali bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib.

-Al-Radi Billah Nasir bin Husayn bin Zayd bin Salih bin Muhammad bin `Abdullah bin Muhammad bin `Abdul-Rahman bin Qasim bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan bin `Ali ibn abi Talib.

-Zayd bin Salih bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Salih bin Hasan bin Zayd bin Salih bin `Umar.

-`Ali bin Muhsin bin Ahmad bin `Ubaydullah bin Hasan bin `Ali bin Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ja`far bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna.

-Husayn bin Muhammad bin `Ali bin Ja`far bin `Ubaydullah.

-His brother Hasan bin Muhammad bin `Ali.

As for those `Alawites whose lineage is not known, they are:

-Ashraf bin Zayd from the progeny of al-Hasan.

-Al-Sayyid al-Azraqi.

-Abu al-Raha al-Kaytami.

And all of these `Alawite revolutions happened in the areas of: Qazwin, Tabristan, al-Jil, al-Daylam, Jurajan, Hijaz, `Iraq and Maghrib.

As for those `Alawites who appeared and called for themselves in Yaman, then the first of them is:

-Al-Hadi ila al-Haq Yahya bin Husayn bin Qasim bin Ibrahim Tabataba bin Isma`il bin Ibrahim al-Ghamr bin al-Hasan al-Muthanna in Sa`dah in the year 280 AH. He fought against the Isma`ili Shia `Ali bin al-Fadl al-Qarmati and the state of the Qaramitah in Yaman, he died from poison in 298 AH.

-Then his son al-Murtada Muhammad bin al-Hadi rose instead of his father but he stepped-down from Imamah after one year so the Zaydi scholars tried to get his brother to step-up.

-Then his brother al-Nasir li-Dinillah Ahmad bin Yahya came after the Zaydiyyah called on him from the mountain of al-Ras during the Caliphate of al-Muqtadir in 301 AH.

 

The rest of these fall under the "post-occultation revolutions" category. That means we won't be able to show you any evidence from our Imams whether these revolutions were rightful or not.

 

And Allah knows best.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

 

 

Point being?

 

 

 

 

The moment you accept that the Khalifa over a period of several hundred years meddled in the teachings of Islam. The moment you accept that the Khalifa of the time held greater power then a religious authority. Then any thing you say and know is suspect.

 

I illustrated the point that if 4 individuals as reported in classical books cannot decide on how Salaat was performed then either all 4 were wrong or at least 3.

 

Even after taking the Shia adherents out of the equation. Historically the strongest evidence is that Salaat was originally performed open armed.  

 

If we accept that then it is obvious that a malign frce was at work that subverted the teaching f the 4 Imams.

Edited by A true Sunni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_on_the_fence

 

Sitting on the fence" is a common idiom used in English to describe one's neutrality or hesitance to choose between two sides in an argument or a competition, or inability to decide due to lack of courage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is exactly the stance of sunni muslims towards those who terrorized and put the Ahl al-Bayt economocially and politically on the sideline to grab power for themselves. 

Besides that honouring all members of the Ahl al-Bayt unconditionally just because they're Ahl al-Bayt is also an attitude that is well-known when it comes to all Sahaba in sunni circles. 

Use your logic. Don't Idolize people while you accuse others of it. And then you wrote:

 

-----------

 

I thought you are shia? Followers of ahle bayt? So only 14 out of the household of the Holy Prophet (peace & blessings be upon him) are ahle bayt? The rest are unknown to you? How are you a follower of ahle bayt when you don't know anything & don't bother knowing about 90% of them?

 

Right let me get this straight. Majority of the sahaba were misguided or brushed aside, also majority of ahle bayt are misguided/brushed aside in your sect?

 

First the claim that we're not critical and neutral and immediately after that you show the opposite. 

I think you became a little desperate in refuting Shia Islam, so desperate that the truth doesn't even matter no more.

Edited by Iskandarovich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What the hell are you talking about?

I know your posts are coming out of desperation. You are cherrypicking and accusing us of not being on the right path. 

 

Rasulallah(saww), never said to follow and love EVERY single member of his descendents. Neither were all of them ahlul bayt. Through sahih hadiths only 14 individuals are considered to be from Ahlul bayt(AS).

 

 

 

The rightly guided are from the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. but not all members of the Ahl al-Bayt a.s. are rightly guided.

 

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
 

 

 

 

I do not know most of the people you listed there. But as for Zayd ibn Ali we believe he was a righteous person and he was indeed a member of Ahlulbayt much like Muslim ibn Aqeel was a member of Ahlulbayt.

 

 

 

Can you 3 make your mind up? One says only 14 were ahle bayt, another says others were ahle bayt too. Will the real 12er please stand up?

 

 

The moment you accept that the Khalifa over a period of several hundred years meddled in the teachings of Islam. The moment you accept that the Khalifa of the time held greater power then a religious authority. Then any thing you say and know is suspect.

 

I illustrated the point that if 4 individuals as reported in classical books cannot decide on how Salaat was performed then either all 4 were wrong or at least 3.

 

Even after taking the Shia adherents out of the equation. Historically the strongest evidence is that Salaat was originally performed open armed.  

 

If we accept that then it is obvious that a malign frce was at work that subverted the teaching f the 4 Imams.

 

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

 

That is exactly the stance of sunni muslims towards those who terrorized and put the Ahl al-Bayt economocially and politically on the sideline to grab power for themselves. 

Besides that honouring all members of the Ahl al-Bayt unconditionally just because they're Ahl al-Bayt is also an attitude that is well-known when it comes to all Sahaba in sunni circles. 

Use your logic. Don't Idolize people while you accuse others of it. And then you wrote:

 

First the claim that we're not critical and neutral and immediately after that you show the opposite. 

I think you became a little desperate in refuting Shia Islam, so desperate that the truth doesn't even matter no more.

 

My post was in response to Skanderbeg. Spec savers maybe before you comment again?

 

Btw I never said all ahle bayt were one or all correct or not.

 

I'm simply pointing out that according to 12ers majority of ahle bayt were misguided. You obviously agree with this as none of you have said they weren't misguided. Has even one shia poster on here said no Abul_Hassan01 you are wrong, we do not believe that majority of ahle bayt were misguided? Not a single one of you. You all agree they were misguided but too scared to explicitally say it. Why not just say it instead of beating round the bush?

Edited by Abul_Hassan01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

 

  as none of you have said they weren't misguided. Has even one shia poster on here said no Abul_Hassan01 you are wrong, we do not believe that majority of ahle bayt were misguided? Not a single one of you. You all agree they were misguided but too scared to explicitally say it. Why not just say it instead of beating round the bush?

 

I agree with this point. However, you must take into consideration, at the time of the Imams (as) there appeared other movements who try to affiliate themselves with the Imams of Ahlul bayt (as) And yes, these so-called companions wanted the Imams to revolt against the tyrants. And when the Umyyadds dynasty was finally overthrown by the Baniy Abbass regime who were relatives of the Imams (as) This regime was just as  bad as the Ummyads! 

 

Then  same scenario was  repeated again, the companions wanted to revolt against the Abbassi regime, and Imams were not interested Hence those companions made there own sect and try to discredit the Imams .

 

And those other sect has no association with the 12vers what so ever. As matter of fact they where probably more associated with Sunnism

Edited by power
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

No why should they all be misguided? The guided are not only those who receive guidance from Allah directly but also those who follow that guidance when they come to know it. 

This can be me, you or someone from the progeny of Muhammad s.a.w. as well.

And we do not differ with the Imams a.s. regarding those from the progeny of Muhammad s.a.w. who opposed the Twelve Imams a.s. and whose opposition is confirmed by them a.s. a heresy. 

It is nothing but right to use just one measure no matter who is involved.

BTW: I prefer Hans Anders

 

Edited by Iskandarovich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Can you 3 make your mind up? One says only 14 were ahle bayt, another says others were ahle bayt too. Will the real 12er please stand up?

 

 

 

 

What on earth are you on about?

 

 

 

My post was in response to Skanderbeg. Spec savers maybe before you comment again?

 

Btw I never said all ahle bayt were one or all correct or not.

 

I'm simply pointing out that according to 12ers majority of ahle bayt were misguided. You obviously agree with this as none of you have said they weren't misguided. Has even one shia poster on here said no Abul_Hassan01 you are wrong, we do not believe that majority of ahle bayt were misguided? Not a single one of you. You all agree they were misguided but too scared to explicitally say it. Why not just say it instead of beating round the bush?

I think this sahih hadith might help:

 

 

محمد بن يعقوب، عن على بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن عيص بن القاسم قال سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: عليكم بتقوى الله وحده لا شريك له وانظروا لانفسكم، فوالله إن الرجل ليكون له الغنم فيها الراعى، فإذا وجد رجلا هو أعلم بغنيمه من الذى هو فيها يخرجه ويجئ بذلك الرجل الذي هو أعلم بغنمه من الذي كان فيها، والله لو كانت لاحدكم نفسان يقاتل بواحدة يجرب بها ثم كانت الاخرى
باقية يعمل على ما قد استبان لها، ولكن له نفس واحدة إذا ذهبت فقد والله ذهبت التوبة فأنتم أحق أن تختاروا لانفسكم، إن أتاكم آت منا فانظروا على اي شئ تخرجون، ولا تقولوا خرج زيد، فان زيدا كان عالما وكان صدوقا ولم يدعكم إلى نفسه، وإنما دعاكم إلى الرضا من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله ولو ظهر لوفى بما دعاكم إليه إنما خرج إلى سلطان مجتمع لينقضه، فالخارج منا اليوم إلى اي شئ يدعوكم إلى الرضا من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فنحن نشهدكم انا لسنا نرضى به وهو يعصينا اليوم وليس معه أحد، وهو إذا كانت الرايات والالوية أجدر أن لا يسمع منا إلا من اجتمعت بنو فاطمة معه، فوالله ما صاحبكم إلا من اجتمعوا عليه إذا كان رجب فاقبلوا على اسم الله، وإن أحببتم أن تتأخروا إلى شعبان فلا ضير، وإن أحببتم أن تصوموا في أهاليكم فلعل ذلك يكون أقوى لكم، وكفاكم بالسفياني علامة 

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Safwan b. Yahya from `Ays b. al-Qasim. 

He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: The taqwa (fear of) Allah is upon you, the One and without any partners, and watch over yourselves. By Allah, if someone has chosen a shepherd to care for his sheep, but afterward finds someone else who is wiser than the first one for the task, he will leave the first one and employ the services of the wiser one. By Allah, if you had two life-times, and you experimented with the first one, and were left with the second lifetime, then there would be no difficulty in utilizing the experience of the first lifetime. But the reality is other than this. Every person has no more than one self, for which, if it falls into peril, there is no possibility for repentance or return. Therefore, it is necessary for you to carefully evaluate and select the best way for your selves. Hence, if one among us came to you and called upon you to revolt, think carefully and find out for what purpose he has revolted. Do not simply say [to justify his revolt by saying something like:] “Well, Zayd b. `Ali also had arisen before!” The reason is that Zayd was a learned and truthful person and had not called upon you to acknowledge his own leadership; rather, he was calling towards a person who would be accepted from Muhammad’s Household (Rida min Aal Muhammad) صلى الله عليه وآله. Had he succeeded, he would have acted upon his promise and would have handed over the power to its owner. Zayd revolted against the government so that he could overthrow it.1 But what is the one who has emerged today calling you? Is he calling you towards a person who is accepted from Muhammad’s Household (Rida min Aal Muhammad) صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم? I am calling you to bear witness that we are not pleased with this person’s revolt. This man has not even reached power and he has already started opposing us. And when he does seize power and raises his flag, he would certainly not submit to us in obedience. Hence, accept the call of the one about whom all the descendants of Fatima are in agreement. That person is your Imam and your leader. When the month of Rajab dawns, come to the help of Allah. There is no problem if you wish to delay it until the month of Sha`ban. And, it is even better for you, if you wished to keep the fast of Ramadan with your family. If you need any signs, it is sufficient to remind yourselves about the rise of Sufyani. (al-Kafi)

(sahih) (صحيح)

 

[1] According to this narration, the revolution of Zayd was a legitimate fight against the Umayyad dynasty that would allow the Imam to assume power over the Umma. Not all revolutions against oppressors are legitimate, even if the rebels are the lesser of the two evils. Revolutions may lead to chaos, and so the Imams after al-Husayn refrained from partaking in these fights so that they may work to preserve the religion of Islam.

 

http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/qiyam/the-sufyani

Edited by Abu Nasr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Just a few things I could not resist.

 

Abu Hamid Ghazali in his book Manqul fi Ilmi'l-Usul says: "In fact Abu Hanifa distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed its arrangement, and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet was totally disfigured. One who does so deliberately and considers it lawful is an infidel. One who does it knowing it to be unlawful is a sinner."

Imam Ghazali says in his Mutahawwal, "There are many mistakes in Abu Hanifa's work. He had no knowledge of etymology, grammar, or hadith." He also writes, "Since he had no knowledge of hadith, he relied on his own conjecture. The first being who acted on conjecture was Satan."

Imam Ghazali is one of the most prestigious figures in the Muslim world. He is generally considered the greatest theologian of Sunni Islam. Some Sunni scholars have gone so far as to claim that if any man could be a Prophet after Muhammad Mustafa, he would be Imam Ghazali

Hanafi, Shaafi, Hanbali and Maliki have called each other KAFFIRS!
Al-Mundhiri’s Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim, 3rd ed. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1977, p. 548) deemed Fiqh Hanafi to be on par with the Gospels I should point out that such is the dishonesty of the Salafi Nasibis, this phrase was has been mysteriously expunged from later editions.
The greatest fitnah in Baghdad was between Shaafi's and Hanbalis, because of which many people died. The Deputy of Baghdad tried to intervene, and the Shaafi representatives cried 'on what basis should we negotiate, and with who? A Resolution is when there is a difference between two parties over power. These people (Hanbalis) deem us kaffirs and we deem anyone that does not ascribe to our view to be a kaffir, hence peace between us is impossible". (Taken from Tabaqat al Janabal la bin Rajab Volume 1 page 20 - 21 & Wafay' at thu Ayan Volume 1 page 308).

Edited by power
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I agree with this point. However, you must take into consideration, at the time of the Imams (as) there appeared other movements who try to affiliate themselves with the Imams of Ahlul bayt (as) And yes, these so-called companions wanted the Imams to revolt against the tyrants. And when the Umyyadds dynasty was finally overthrown by the Baniy Abbass regime who were relatives of the Imams (as) This regime was just as  bad as the Ummyads! 

 

Then  same scenario was  repeated again, the companions wanted to revolt against the Abbassi regime, and Imams were not interested Hence those companions made there own sect and try to discredit the Imams .

 

And those other sect has no association with the 12vers what so ever. As matter of fact they where probably more associated with Sunnism

 

At least you are honest & admit that the majority of ahle bayt went astray.

 

 

No why should they all be misguided? The guided are not only those who receive guidance from Allah directly but also those who follow that guidance when they come to know it. 

This can be me, you or someone from the progeny of Muhammad s.a.w. as well.

And we do not differ with the Imams a.s. regarding those from the progeny of Muhammad s.a.w. who opposed the Twelve Imams a.s. and whose opposition is confirmed by them a.s. a heresy. 

It is nothing but right to use just one measure no matter who is involved.

BTW: I prefer Hans Anders

 

 

But majority of ahle bayt didn't recognise the imamate of the 12.

 

 

I think this sahih hadith might help:

 

 

محمد بن يعقوب، عن على بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن عيص بن القاسم قال سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: عليكم بتقوى الله وحده لا شريك له وانظروا لانفسكم، فوالله إن الرجل ليكون له الغنم فيها الراعى، فإذا وجد رجلا هو أعلم بغنيمه من الذى هو فيها يخرجه ويجئ بذلك الرجل الذي هو أعلم بغنمه من الذي كان فيها، والله لو كانت لاحدكم نفسان يقاتل بواحدة يجرب بها ثم كانت الاخرى
باقية يعمل على ما قد استبان لها، ولكن له نفس واحدة إذا ذهبت فقد والله ذهبت التوبة فأنتم أحق أن تختاروا لانفسكم، إن أتاكم آت منا فانظروا على اي شئ تخرجون، ولا تقولوا خرج زيد، فان زيدا كان عالما وكان صدوقا ولم يدعكم إلى نفسه، وإنما دعاكم إلى الرضا من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله ولو ظهر لوفى بما دعاكم إليه إنما خرج إلى سلطان مجتمع لينقضه، فالخارج منا اليوم إلى اي شئ يدعوكم إلى الرضا من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فنحن نشهدكم انا لسنا نرضى به وهو يعصينا اليوم وليس معه أحد، وهو إذا كانت الرايات والالوية أجدر أن لا يسمع منا إلا من اجتمعت بنو فاطمة معه، فوالله ما صاحبكم إلا من اجتمعوا عليه إذا كان رجب فاقبلوا على اسم الله، وإن أحببتم أن تتأخروا إلى شعبان فلا ضير، وإن أحببتم أن تصوموا في أهاليكم فلعل ذلك يكون أقوى لكم، وكفاكم بالسفياني علامة 

Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from Safwan b. Yahya from `Ays b. al-Qasim. 

He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام saying: The taqwa (fear of) Allah is upon you, the One and without any partners, and watch over yourselves. By Allah, if someone has chosen a shepherd to care for his sheep, but afterward finds someone else who is wiser than the first one for the task, he will leave the first one and employ the services of the wiser one. By Allah, if you had two life-times, and you experimented with the first one, and were left with the second lifetime, then there would be no difficulty in utilizing the experience of the first lifetime. But the reality is other than this. Every person has no more than one self, for which, if it falls into peril, there is no possibility for repentance or return. Therefore, it is necessary for you to carefully evaluate and select the best way for your selves. Hence, if one among us came to you and called upon you to revolt, think carefully and find out for what purpose he has revolted. Do not simply say [to justify his revolt by saying something like:] “Well, Zayd b. `Ali also had arisen before!” The reason is that Zayd was a learned and truthful person and had not called upon you to acknowledge his own leadership; rather, he was calling towards a person who would be accepted from Muhammad’s Household (Rida min Aal Muhammad) صلى الله عليه وآله. Had he succeeded, he would have acted upon his promise and would have handed over the power to its owner. Zayd revolted against the government so that he could overthrow it.1 But what is the one who has emerged today calling you? Is he calling you towards a person who is accepted from Muhammad’s Household (Rida min Aal Muhammad) صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم? I am calling you to bear witness that we are not pleased with this person’s revolt. This man has not even reached power and he has already started opposing us. And when he does seize power and raises his flag, he would certainly not submit to us in obedience. Hence, accept the call of the one about whom all the descendants of Fatima are in agreement. That person is your Imam and your leader. When the month of Rajab dawns, come to the help of Allah. There is no problem if you wish to delay it until the month of Sha`ban. And, it is even better for you, if you wished to keep the fast of Ramadan with your family. If you need any signs, it is sufficient to remind yourselves about the rise of Sufyani. (al-Kafi)

(sahih) (صحيح)

 

[1] According to this narration, the revolution of Zayd was a legitimate fight against the Umayyad dynasty that would allow the Imam to assume power over the Umma. Not all revolutions against oppressors are legitimate, even if the rebels are the lesser of the two evils. Revolutions may lead to chaos, and so the Imams after al-Husayn refrained from partaking in these fights so that they may work to preserve the religion of Islam.

 

http://www.imamiyya.com/hadith/qiyam/the-sufyani

 

There is no proof Zayd fought for the Imamate of his nephew. Are you telling me all the 50 odd members of ahle bayt in the list all fought for the 12 imams? If they did then they would be amongst their most important followers. Oh but wait, according to 12er source they weren't. So its obvious they never fought for the 12 Imams.

 

 

Just a few things I could not resist.

 

Abu Hamid Ghazali in his book Manqul fi Ilmi'l-Usul says: "In fact Abu Hanifa distorted the religious code, made its way doubtful, changed its arrangement, and intermingled the laws in such a way that the code prescribed by the Holy Prophet was totally disfigured. One who does so deliberately and considers it lawful is an infidel. One who does it knowing it to be unlawful is a sinner."

Imam Ghazali says in his Mutahawwal, "There are many mistakes in Abu Hanifa's work. He had no knowledge of etymology, grammar, or hadith." He also writes, "Since he had no knowledge of hadith, he relied on his own conjecture. The first being who acted on conjecture was Satan."

Imam Ghazali is one of the most prestigious figures in the Muslim world. He is generally considered the greatest theologian of Sunni Islam. Some Sunni scholars have gone so far as to claim that if any man could be a Prophet after Muhammad Mustafa, he would be Imam Ghazali

Hanafi, Shaafi, Hanbali and Maliki have called each other KAFFIRS!

Al-Mundhiri’s Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim, 3rd ed. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1977, p. 548) deemed Fiqh Hanafi to be on par with the Gospels I should point out that such is the dishonesty of the Salafi Nasibis, this phrase was has been mysteriously expunged from later editions.

The greatest fitnah in Baghdad was between Shaafi's and Hanbalis, because of which many people died. The Deputy of Baghdad tried to intervene, and the Shaafi representatives cried 'on what basis should we negotiate, and with who? A Resolution is when there is a difference between two parties over power. These people (Hanbalis) deem us kaffirs and we deem anyone that does not ascribe to our view to be a kaffir, hence peace between us is impossible". (Taken from Tabaqat al Janabal la bin Rajab Volume 1 page 20 - 21 & Wafay' at thu Ayan Volume 1 page 308).

 

 

Neither Al Ghazali nor Abu Hanifa were from the 12er sect. Off topic.

Edited by Abul_Hassan01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

But majority of ahle bayt didn't recognise the imamate of the 12.

 

 

I don't know what the total number of the Ahl al-Bayt was at that time compared to the numbers you gave us IF they are true. 

But even if so then what? 

They started with only four followers and look at what their number is today. 

 

Edited by Iskandarovich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Can you 3 make your mind up? One says only 14 were ahle bayt, another says others were ahle bayt too. Will the real 12er please stand up?

 

 

 

I think my wording was a bit off. 

We 12ers all hold the same view regarding the Ahlul bayt(AS). 

We can say all descendants of RasulAllah(saww) were Ahlul bayt, BUT only 14 of them are the guided, purified and to be followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Is this thread honestly some sort of joke? I made this account for the sole purpose of answering this thread. If you guys don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from posting because you only misrepresent your own religion. When I say this I speak for sunnis, and ESPECIALLY the shias.

 

To the OP, the reason you're not getting any decent replies is because you haven't done your homework on the topic and you've simply decided to copy/paste. Why should anyone take time out of their day to reply to someone whose attacking other sects when he doesn't even know the basics of his own? The reason I'm posting here is because I'm more surprised at the shias. Ahlulbayt means people of the house. Do you know who the prophet's ahlulbayt/people of the house were according to sunnis? They were his wives, Imam Ali (a.s), Bibi Fatima (a.s), Imam Hasan (a.s), and Imam Hussain (a.s). Do you know who the Prophets ahlulbayt are according to shias? They were Imam Ali (a.s), Imam Hasan (a.s), Imam Hussan (a.s), Bibi Fatima (a.s), and the remaining 9 Imams. These are also known as the 14 mas'um. 

 

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you with a perfect purification". (Qur’an, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)

 

 

You are the first muslim to tell me that ahlulbayt refers to everyone from the Prophet's lineage. I think the group you are referring to is 'Sayed'. 

 

Narrated Aisha:

One day the Prophet (S) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husayn came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then ‘Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sunni reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (S), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

Hope we can lock this thread and stop arguing on matters we're ignorant on (especially the shias).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What 5 members were doing under the sheet when Ayat-e-Tatheer revealed ? Ahle Bait were under the sheet or outside the sheet ? If they were under the sheet then who are all wives of Prophet Muhammad (saw) and brothers and sisters of rest members. And if they too were Ahle Bait then what is the purpose of revealing Ayat-e-Tatheer on sheet instead of House ?

 

If things were so easy to get understand by every single brain, then what is the use of competition ? Non-Muslims are doing much better work then Muslims. But if they start following Islam the difficult part will start automatic .. Bcoz then the rules boundaries will applied and the competition for Akhirat starts.

 

I dont know why small things are so hard to digest by Majority ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

There is no proof Zayd fought for the Imamate of his nephew. Are you telling me all the 50 odd members of ahle bayt in the list all fought for the 12 imams? If they did then they would be amongst their most important followers. Oh but wait, according to 12er source they weren't. So its obvious they never fought for the 12 Imams.

 

I think now you're just talking without giving any proof. I gave you authentic Shia hadith that says Zayd was pious and a follower of the Imams. And as for the rest of the Alawites and Hashimites, Imam makes it clear to us whom to follow and and whom to reject should he choose to rise against tyranny.

 

So clearly we do consider some other Alawites and Hashimites as pious too and the mere act of uprising doesn't lower their status as Sayyids and members of the Prophet's family in our eyes.

 

Now it's your turn to give us clear proof from whatever source you're using that people like Zayd and the others in your long list didn't follow our Imams. Because as I explained it's not so far-fetched to consider many of these uprisings as genuine Twelver Shia uprisings.

 

As for the reason many of them are not listed in our books, that's because most of our books deal with hadith and fiqh and not history. So the companions you see listed in our books have mostly been hadith narrators not warriors who wanted to rise against tyranny. They've been mostly the students of our Imams through whom their ahadith have reached us. If we wanted to list all of the companions of the Imams surely the list would become much longer than what you see in our books.

 

So in short I ask you to give us two proofs: First that none of the people you listed accepted the Imamah of our Imams or at least didn't care about them. Second that all of these people you listed claimed Imamah for themselves and called people to themselves by claiming to be Imams.

 

Wasalam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

I don't know what the total number of the Ahl al-Bayt was at that time compared to the numbers you gave us IF they are true. 

But even if so then what? 

They started with only four followers and look at what their number is today. 

 

 

 

 

Ah so you admit that its possible that majority of ahle bayt went astray. At least a half admission is better than none at all...

 

 

I think my wording was a bit off. 

We 12ers all hold the same view regarding the Ahlul bayt(AS). 

We can say all descendants of RasulAllah(saww) were Ahlul bayt, BUT only 14 of them are the guided, purified and to be followed.

 

 

Is this thread honestly some sort of joke? I made this account for the sole purpose of answering this thread. If you guys don't know what you're talking about, please refrain from posting because you only misrepresent your own religion. When I say this I speak for sunnis, and ESPECIALLY the shias.

 

To the OP, the reason you're not getting any decent replies is because you haven't done your homework on the topic and you've simply decided to copy/paste. Why should anyone take time out of their day to reply to someone whose attacking other sects when he doesn't even know the basics of his own? The reason I'm posting here is because I'm more surprised at the shias. Ahlulbayt means people of the house. Do you know who the prophet's ahlulbayt/people of the house were according to sunnis? They were his wives, Imam Ali (a.s), Bibi Fatima (a.s), Imam Hasan (a.s), and Imam Hussain (a.s). Do you know who the Prophets ahlulbayt are according to shias? They were Imam Ali (a.s), Imam Hasan (a.s), Imam Hussan (a.s), Bibi Fatima (a.s), and the remaining 9 Imams. These are also known as the 14 mas'um. 

 

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you with a perfect purification". (Qur’an, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)

 

 

You are the first muslim to tell me that ahlulbayt refers to everyone from the Prophet's lineage. I think the group you are referring to is 'Sayed'. 

 

Narrated Aisha:

One day the Prophet (S) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husayn came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then ‘Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."

Sunni reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (S), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

Hope we can lock this thread and stop arguing on matters we're ignorant on (especially the shias).

 

 

The OP made it pretty clear with his last few posts especially that he doesn't care for our definition of Ahlulbayt (as).

 

 

Agains its 12ers vs 12ers here. One person says ahle bayt is 14 only, other say the rest are ahle bayt too. You all seem very confused.

 

I think now you're just talking without giving any proof. I gave you authentic Shia hadith that says Zayd was pious and a follower of the Imams. And as for the rest of the Alawites and Hashimites, Imam makes it clear to us whom to follow and and whom to reject should he choose to rise against tyranny.

 

So clearly we do consider some other Alawites and Hashimites as pious too and the mere act of uprising doesn't lower their status as Sayyids and members of the Prophet's family in our eyes.

 

Now it's your turn to give us clear proof from whatever source you're using that people like Zayd and the others in your long list didn't follow our Imams. Because as I explained it's not so far-fetched to consider many of these uprisings as genuine Twelver Shia uprisings.

 

As for the reason many of them are not listed in our books, that's because most of our books deal with hadith and fiqh and not history. So the companions you see listed in our books have mostly been hadith narrators not warriors who wanted to rise against tyranny. They've been mostly the students of our Imams through whom their ahadith have reached us. If we wanted to list all of the companions of the Imams surely the list would become much longer than what you see in our books.

 

So in short I ask you to give us two proofs: First that none of the people you listed accepted the Imamah of our Imams or at least didn't care about them. Second that all of these people you listed claimed Imamah for themselves and called people to themselves by claiming to be Imams.

 

Wasalam.

 

 

See the bold part I have highlighted in your quote. You admit at least that your books don't deal much with history. I wonder why that is?

 

You wrote:

 

So in short I ask you to give us two proofs: First that none of the people you listed accepted the Imamah of our Imams or at least didn't care about them.

 

 

That is a logical fallacy. That's like asking someone to prove the Queen of England doesn't accept the superiority of the leader of Fiji Islands. The onus is on one to prove that she does accept it. Likewise the onus is on you to prove authentically that those Imams did accept the Imamate of your list of 12.

When there is the absence of an event/incident/belief then it holds true unless an alternative existence is proven. I can't prove the existence of something that is absent in human terms. You have to prove it did exist.

 

 

Second that all of these people you listed claimed Imamah for themselves and called people to themselves by claiming to be Imams

 

Ditto for the above:)

Edited by Abul_Hassan01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Ah so you admit that its possible that majority of ahle bayt went astray. At least a half admission is better than none at all...

 

Hello! Did you have coffee yet?

The entire Ahl-al-Bayt a.s. at that time consisted of four people, Lady Fatima a.s., Imam Ali a.s., Imam Hassan a.s. and Imam Hussayn a.s.

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...