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
Sign in to follow this  
sakura1994

What does shia have against abu bakr?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

You know for the life of me I'll never be able to understand why Sunni come to a Shia forum and try to convince us of the "noble qualities" of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and/or Aisha and whomever other Sunni historical figures (i.e. Khalid ibn Waleed, Amr e Aas, etc...)that we don't hold in high regard. :confused:

I mean seriously do you actually think that posting a bunch of links to Sunni website(s) is actually going to make Shia change their opinion of those guys? :einstein:

Grow a brain and realize that you're better off posting about anything else.

How stupid can you really by? :angry:

 

Are these sunni sources?

http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/Nahjul-Balagha-Sermons/nahjul-balagha-sermon-226.html

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/2196_شرح-نهج-البلاغة-ابن-أبي-الحديد-ج-١٢/الصفحة_3

 

And I would love to quote and share from most authentic twelver sources (kutb e arba) in order to prove my point but sadly none of them is available for research purposes. None of them is being translated into english and available in searchable form like ahlul sunnah saha sitta are available for everyone (sunnah.com). Nothing is hidden.

I think the only reason behind why twelvers are not doing the same for their kutb e arba is "BECAUSE TRUTH HURTS".

Edited by Fahad Sani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

None from the above is bidah. Some of them are Sunnahs of Prophet s.a.w.w, Hz Umar just revived those (there are strong evidences on this) and rest are mubah.

Then what should I call you?

So now, Prophet left the reviving of the sunnahs of Prophets to Umar l.a.? Why prophet didn't do it himself in the first place? Man are you here to drive us crazy and have a laugh behind the monitor?

Umar may have revived the sunnahs of baal, memphisto, lucifer, lat, uzza, odin, but certainly not the sunnah of prophets of God.

Ignore above part.

I got it wrong, you were talking about Prophet's sunnah. So tell me, why the sunnah of Prophet vanished among people, when it was only about 10-20 years passed since his departure from this world? And after him, came the Abubakr's rule. Why prophet's sunnah needed to be revived? Why didn't Abubakr do it?

Edited by celestial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, celestial said:

Why doesn't this mysterious comment doesn't appear on Sayed Razi's manuscripts of nahjul balagha today?

Why just Ibn Hadid claims this?

How do I know Ibn Hadid doesn't lie?

How do I know Ibn Hadid had the original copy of Sayed Razi's own manuscript?

Sayed Razi born on 907, died at 1015.

Ibn Hadid born on 1190, died at 1258. There is 175 years between them.

Why should I take Ibn Hadid seriously? Who is he?

Do you expect us to believe this nonsense?

 
   

 

Very simple. Coz publishers and Ayatullah dont digest this. Research on this matter. And try to get original copy of Sayed Razi to confirm this.

Ibn Hadid commentary on nahjul balagha is the most famous one. Al-islam.org have also quoted from such commentary alot.

Same is also mentioned in other sources, much earlier and more authentic than nahjul balagha.

 

11 minutes ago, celestial said:

So now, Prophet left the reviving of the sunnahs of Prophets to Umar l.a.? Why doesn't prophet didn't do it in the first place? Man are you here to drive us crazy and have a laugh behind the monitor?

Umar may have revived the sunnahs of baal, memphisto, lucifer, lat, uzza, odin, but certainly not the sunnah of prophets of God.

I would love to quote and share from most authentic twelver sources (kutb e arba) in order to prove my point with much ease but sadly none of them is available for research purposes. None of them is being translated into english and available in searchable form like ahlul sunnah saha sitta are available for everyone (sunnah.com). Nothing is hidden.

I think the only reason behind this is "BECAUSE TRUTH HURTS".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fahad Sani said:

Very simple. Coz publishers and Ayatullah dont digest this. Research on this matter. And try to get original copy of Sayed Razi to confirm this.

You post here a scan from the original copy of Sayed Razi's Nahjul Balagha, and prove it it's about Umar Ibn Khattab and not about some other Umar, otherwise you are a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an explanation on the footnotes at al-islam.org:

 

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 3-4) that the reference here is to the second Caliph `Umar, and that these sentences have been uttered in his praise as indicated by the word '`Umar' written under the word 'such and such' in as-Sayyid ar-Radi's own hand in the manuscript of Nahjul Balaghah written by him. This is Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's statement, but it is to be seen that if as-Sayyid ar-Radi had written the word '`Umar' by way of explanation it should have existed, as other explanations by him have remained, in those versions which have been copied from his manuscript. Even now there exists in al-Musil (Iraq) university the oldest copy of Nahjul Balaghah written by the famous calligraphist Yaqut al-Musta`simi; but no one has afforded any clue to this explanation of as-Sayyid ar-Radi. Even if the view of Ibn Abi'l-Hadid is accepted it would be deemed to represent the personal opinion of as-Sayyid ar-Radi which may serve as a supplementary argument in support of an original argument but this personal view cannot be assigned any regular importance.
It is strange that two and a half centuries after as-Sayyid ar-Radi namely in the seventh century A.H., Ibn Abi'l Hadid makes the statement that the reference here is to Caliph `Umar and that as-Sayyid ar-Radi himself had so indicated, as a result of which some other annotators also followed the same line, but the contemporaries of as-Sayyid ar-Radi who wrote about Nahjul Balaghah have given no such indication in their writings although as contemporaries they should have had better information about as-Sayyid Ar-Radi's writing. Thus, al-`Allamah `Ali ibn Nasir who was a contemporary of as-Sayyid ar-Radi and wrote an annotation of Nahjul Balaghah under the name of A`lam Nahjul Balaghah writes in connection with this sermon:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised one of his own companions for his good conduct. He had died before the troubles that arose after the death of the Prophet of Allah.
This is supported by the annotations of Nahjul Balaghah written by al-`Allamah Qutbu'd-Din ar-Rawandi (d. 573 A.H.). Ibn Abi'l-Hadid (vol. 14, p. 4) and Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani (in Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 4, p. 97) have quoted his following view.
By this Amir al-mu'minin refers to one of his own companions who died before the mischief and disruption that occurred following the death of the Prophet of Allah.
Al-`Allamah al-Hajj al-Mirza Habibu'llah al-Khu'i is of the opinion that the person is Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar on the ground that after the assassination of Malik the situation of the Muslim community was such as Amir al-mu'minin explains in this sermon.
al-Khu'i adds that:
Amir al-mu'minin has praised Malik repeatedly such as in his letter to the people of Egypt sent through Malik when he was made the governor of that place, and like his utterances when the news of Malik's assassination reached him, he said: "Malik! who is Malik? If Malik was a stone, he was hard and solid; if he was a rock, he was a great rock which had no parallel. Women have become barren to give birth to such as Malik." Amir al-mu'minin had even expressed in some of his utterances that, "Malik was to me as I was to the Holy Prophet." Therefore, one who possesses such a position certainly deserves such attributes and even beyond that. (Sharh Nahjul Balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 374-375)
If these words had been about Caliph `Umar and there was some trustworthiness about it Ibn Abi'l-Hadid would have recorded the authority or tradition and it would have existed in history and been known among the people. But here nothing is found to prove the statement except a few self-concocted events. Thus about the pronouns in the words "khayraha" and "sharraha" he takes them to refer to the caliphate and writes that these words can apply only to one who enjoys power and authority because without authority it is impossible to establish the sunnah or prevent innovation. This is the gist of the argument he has advanced on this occasion; although there is no proof to establish that the antecedent of this pronoun is the caliphate. It can rather refer to the world (when Amir al-mu'minin says, "He achieved good [of this world] and remained safe from its evils.") and that would be in accord with the context. Again, to regard authority as a condition for the safeguarding of people's interest and the propagation of the sunnah means to close the door to prompting others to good and dissuading them from evil, although Allah has assigned this duty to a group of the people without the condition of authority:
And that there should be among you a group who call (mankind) unto virtue and enjoin what is good and forbid wrong; and these are they who shall be successful. (Qur'an, 3:104)
Similarly it is related from the Prophet:
So long as people go on prompting for good and dissuading from evil and assisting each other in virtue and piety they will remain in righteousness.
Again, Amir al-mu'minin, in the course of a will, says in general terms: Establish the pillars of the Unity of Allah and the sunnah, and keep both these lamps aflame.
In these sayings there is no hint that this obligation cannot be discharged without authority. Facts also tell us that (despite army and force, and power and authority) the rulers and kings could not prevent evil or propagate virtue to the extent to which some unknown godly persons were able to inculcate moral values by imprinting their morality on heart and minds, although they were not backed by any army or force and they didn't have any equipment save destitution. No doubt authority and control can bend heads down before it, but it is not necessary that it should also pave the way for virtue in hearts. History shows that most of the rulers destroyed the features of Islam. Islam's existence and progress has been possible by the efforts of those helpless persons who possessed nothing save poverty and discomfiture.
If it is insisted that the reference here should only be to a ruler, then why should it not be taken to mean a companion of Amir al-mu'minin who had been the head of a Province such as Salman al-Farisi for whose burial Amir al-mu'minin went to al-Mada'in; and it is not implausible that Amir al-mu'minin might have uttered these words after his burial by way of comments on his life and way of governance. However, to believe that they are about Caliph `Umar is without any proof. In the end, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has quoted the following statements of (the historian) at-Tabari in proof of his hypothesis:
"It is related from al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah that when Caliph `Umar died Ibnah Abi Hathmah said crying. "Oh `Umar, you were the man who straightened the curve, removed ills, destroyed mischief, revived the sunnah, remained chaste and departed without entangling in evils.' (According to at-Tabari) al-Mughirah related that "When `Umar was buried I came to `Ali and I wanted to hear something from him about `Umar. So, on my arrival Amir al-mu'minin came out in this state that was wrapped in one cloth after bathing and was jerking the hair of his head and beard and he had no doubt that the Caliphate would come to him. On this occasion he said, "May Allah have mercy on `Umar." Ibnah Abi Hathmah has correctly said that he enjoyed the good of the Caliphate and remained safe from its evils. By Allah, she did not say it herself but was made to say so." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2763; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, vol. 12, p. 5; Ibn Kathir, vol. 7, p. 140)
The relater of this event is al-Mughirah ibn Shu`bah whose adultery with Umm Jamil, the Caliph `Umar's saving him from the penalty despite the evidence, and his openly abusing Amir al-mu'minin in Kufah under Mu`awiyah's behest are admitted facts of history. On this ground what weight his statements can carry is quite clear. From the factual point of view also, this story cannot be accepted. Al-Mughirah's statement that Amir al-mu'minin had no doubt about his Caliphate is against the facts. What were the factors from which he made this guess when the actual facts were to the contrary. If the caliphate was certain for any one, it was `Uthman. Thus, at the Consultative Committee `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf said to Amir al-mu'minin: "O' `Ali! do not create a situation against yourself for I have observed and consulted the people and they all want `Uthman." (at-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 2786; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 71; Abu'l-Fida', vol. 1, p. 166)
Consequently, Amir al-mu'minin was sure not to get the caliphate as has already been stated on the authority of at-Tabari's History, under the sermon of the Camel's Foam (ash-Shiqshiqiyyah), namely that on seeing the names of the members of the Consultative Committee, Amir al-mu'minin had said to al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib that the caliphate could not be given to anyone except `Uthman since all the powers had been given to `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf and he was `Uthman's brother-in-law (sister's husband) and Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas was a relative and tribesman of `Abd ar-Rahman. These two would join in giving the caliphate to him.
At this stage, the question arises as to what the reason was that actuated al-Mughirah to prompt Amir al-mu'minin to say something about `Umar. If he knew that Amir al-mu'minin had good ideas about `Umar, he should have also known his impression; but if he thought that Amir al-mu'minin did not entertain good ideas about him then the purpose of his asking Amir al-mu'minin would be none other than that whatever he may say he would, by exposing it, create an atmosphere against him and make the members of the Consultative Committee suspicious of him. The views of the members of the Consultative Committee are well understood from the very fact that by putting the condition of following the conduct of the first two Caliphs in electing the caliph they had shown their adherence to them. In these circumstances when al-Mughirah tried to play this trick Amir al-mu'minin said just by way of relating a fact that `Umar achieved the good (of this world) and remained safe from its evil. This sentence has no connection with praise or eulogy. `Umar did in his days enjoy all kinds of advantages while his period was free from the mischiefs that cropped up later. After recording this statement Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes:
From this event the belief gains strength that in this utterance the allusion is towards `Umar.
If the utterance means the word uttered by Ibnah Abi Hathmah about which Amir al-mu'minin has said that they are not her own heart's voice but she was made to utter them, then doubtlessly the reference is to `Umar, but the view that these words were uttered by Amir al-mu'minin in praise of `Umar is not at all established. Rather, from this tradition it is evidently shown that these words were uttered by Ibnah Abi Hathmah. Allah alone knows on what ground the words of Ibnah Abi Hathmah are quoted and then it is daringly argued that these words were uttered by Amir al-mu'minin about `Umar. It seems Amir al-mu'minin had uttered these words about someone on some occasion, then Ibnah Abi Hathmah used similar words on `Umar's death and then even Amir al-mu'minin's words were taken to be in praise of `Umar. Otherwise, no mind except a mad one can argue that the words uttered by Ibnah Abi Hathmah should be deemed a ground to hold that Amir al-mu'minin said these words in praise of `Umar. Can it be expected, after (a glance at) the sermon of the Camel's Foam, that Amir al-mu'minin might have uttered these words. Again, it is worth consideration that if these words had been uttered by Amir al-mu'minin on `Umar's death, then at the Consultative Committee when he refused to follow the conduct of the (first) two Caliphs it should have been said to him that only the other day he has said that `Umar had established the sunnah and banished innovations, so that when his conduct was in accord with the sunnah what was the sense in accepting the sunnah but refusing to follow his conduct.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-227-may-Allah-reward-such-and-such-man

Edited by The Straight Path

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

I think the only reason behind this is "BECAUSE TRUTH HURTS".

How ironic that a liar, a twister of words, a nasibi, a provocateur mentions truth in a Shia forum.

And thank you all mods, for keeping this lunatic in here despite his utter nonsense.

Edited by celestial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

I would love to quote and share from most authentic twelver sources (kutb e arba) in order to prove my point with much ease but sadly none of them is available for research purposes. None of them is being translated into english and available in searchable form like ahlul sunnah saha sitta are available for everyone (sunnah.com). Nothing is hidden.

I think the only reason behind this is "BECAUSE TRUTH HURTS".

 

 

Feel free to scan / take some pictures of those hadiths and upload them here, I'm sure there are a lot of Arabic speaking people here who could help you out with those.

Who says it must be "hidden" just because everything hasn't been translated into English? If what you're saying is true, then they would've hid them even from the original Arabic books... English isn't the universal or official Islamic "language" which means that everything has to be translated into English. But Alhamdullah much have been translated and Insh'Allah more will be soon.

Edited by The Straight Path

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

What Imam Ali has said about Umar? The sermon No 3 describes it in a clear way.

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A`sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group4 and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-abu-quhafah

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, celestial said:

You post here a scan from the original copy of Sayed Razi's Nahjul Balagha, and prove it it's about Umar Ibn Khattab and not about some other Umar, otherwise you are a liar.

 

It means everyone here on SC is also a liar because no one is posting and sharing original copies of sources. Same is the case with Al-islam.org and others.

 

9 hours ago, celestial said:

How ironic that a liar, a twister of words, a nasibi, a provocateur mentions truth in a Shia forum.

And thank you all mods, for keeping this lunatic in here despite his utter nonsense.

 

There is no value of emotions at all in the field of knowledge and evidences. About 99% of your posts are mere emotions, nothing else.

 

9 hours ago, The Straight Path said:

 

Feel free to scan / take some pictures of those hadiths and upload them here, I'm sure there are a lot of Arabic speaking people here who could help you out with those.

Who says it must be "hidden" just because everything hasn't been translated into English? If what you're saying is true, then they would've hid them even from the original Arabic books... English isn't the universal or official Islamic "language" which means that everything has to be translated into English. But Alhamdullah much have been translated and Insh'Allah more will be soon.

Thats not the solution brother. Those primary books must be available in all common languages esp english, the most common language today. And not in scan format but in edited/digital form so that we can easily find and search anything we want. No one has the time to go through all pages of the books in scan form.

Brother sorry to say but nothing has been translated from those four primary twelver books except one or half volume of kafi (which is in scan format, you cant search from it). 

This is great shii work but sadly not available for majority of world. https://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/vol-2-1976/great-shii-works-man-la-yahduruh-al-faqih-al-saduq

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skamran110 said:

What Imam Ali has said about Umar? The sermon No 3 describes it in a clear way.

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A`sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group4 and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-abu-quhafah

 

This sermon is the most disputed one of all, even the author is also the disputed one. Its also in contradiction to many other sermons from the same book. And Its about caliphate but no words on ghadir which according to twelvers is the biggest evidence for Imam Ali's leadership. Ali a.s himself didnt say anything about this. Why there are no words about ghadir in nahjul balagha.

Here are some sermons which are clearly in contradiction to sermon 3 (most disputed one along with the author himself).

Sermon 146: In this matter, victory or defeat….

Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia.

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

وقد استشاره عمر بن الخطاب في الشخوص لقتال الفرس بنفسه

In this matter, victory or defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilised and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from Allah, and He will fulfil His promise and support His army.

The position of the head of government is that of the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together. If the thread is broken, they will disperse and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.

If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief) of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's support and assistance.

Still today persians are against the Umar a.s.

Sermon 92: Leave me and find someone else ...

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لمّا أراده الناس على البيعة بعد قتل عثمان

Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not listen to the utterance of any speaker or the reproof of any reprover. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.

 

Sermon 164: The people are behind me…

When people went to Amir al-mu'minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لما اجتمع الناس اليه وشكوا ما نقموه على عثمان وسألوه مخاطبته واستعتابه لهم، فدخل(عليه السلام) على عثمان فقال:

The people are behind me and they have made me an ambassador between you and themselves; but by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing (in this matter) which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

 

Sermon 3 is against most of other sermons, almost against half of nahjul balagha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

This sermon is the most disputed one of all, even the author is also the disputed one. Its also in contradiction to many other sermons from the same book. And Its about caliphate but no words on ghadir which according to twelvers is the biggest evidence for Imam Ali's leadership. Ali a.s himself didnt say anything about this. Why there are no words about ghadir in nahjul balagha

1. The sermon no 3 destroys the concept of caliphate of 3 caliphs chosen by people. as no caliphate like this exists in quran. and indeed this is not acceptable by sunnis. 

2. Nehjul bal;agha is not a book of hadith. The sermons and letters collected from sources present in the life of Sated Razi have been shaped in the book.

The bonks of hadith are full of Ghadeer hadith upto the level of mu[Edited Out]er hadith.

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Sermon 146: In this matter, victory or defeat….

Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia.

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

وقد استشاره عمر بن الخطاب في الشخوص لقتال الفرس بنفسه

In this matter, victory or defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilised and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from Allah, and He will fulfil His promise and support His army.

The position of the head of government is that of the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together. If the thread is broken, they will disperse and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.

If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief) of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's support and assistance.

Still today persians are against the Umar a.s.

" When some people advised Caliph `Umar to partake in the battle of al-Qadisiyyah or Nahawand, he finding it against his personal inclination, thought it necessary to consult Amir al-mu'minin, so that if he advised against it he would plead before others that he had stayed back on Amir al-mu'minin's advice, but also if he advised partaking in the battle some other excuse would be found. However, unlike others, Amir al-mu'minin advised him to stay back. The other people had advised him to join in fighting, because the Holy Prophet did not send only others to fight but took part in it himself as well, keeping his close relations also with him. What Amir al-mu'minin had in view was that `Umar's presence in the battle could not be beneficial to Islam, but rather his staying back would save the Muslims from dispersion.
Amir al-mu'minin's view that "the position of the head of government is that of the axis around which the system of the government rotates" is a point of principle and does not concern any particular personality. Whether the ruler is a Muslim or an unbeliever, just or despotic, virtuous or vicious, for the administration of the state his presence is a necessity, as Amir al-mu'minin has explained elsewhere at greater length:
The fact is that there is no escape for men from a ruler good or bad. Faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful enjoys (worldly) benefits in it. During the rule, Allah will carry everything to its end. Through the ruler tax is collected, the enemy is fought, roads are protected and the right of the weak is taken from the strong till the virtuous enjoy peace and are allowed protection from (the oppression of) the wicked. (Sermon 40)
The words which Amir al-mu'minin uttered in his advice are not indicative of any quality of Caliph `Umar except his being the ruler. There is no doubt that he held worldly authority, irrespective of the question of whether it was secured in the right way or wrong way. And where there is authority there is centring of people's affairs. That is why Amir al-mu'minin said that if `Umar would go out the Arabs would follow him in large numbers towards the battlefield, because when the ruler is on the march the people will not like to stay behind. The result of their going would be that city after city would become vacant, while the enemy will infer from their reaching the battlefield that the Islamic cities are lying vacant, and that if these people were repulsed no assistance would reach the Muslims from the centre. Again, if the ruler were killed the army would disperse automatically, because the ruler is as its foundation. When the foundation is shaken the walls cannot remain standing. The word "aslu'l-`Arab" (the root chief) of Arabia has not been used by Amir al-mu'minin as his own but he has taken it from the Persians. Obviously in his capacity as the head of the State, Caliph `Umar was, in their view, the chief of Arabia. Besides, the reference is to the country, not to Islam or Muslims, so that there is no suggestion of any importance for him from the Islamic point of view.
When Amir al-mu'minin pointed out to Caliph `Umar that on his reaching there the Persians would aim at him, and that if he fell into their hands they would not spare him without killing, although such words would have touched the brave to the quick and would have heightened their spirits, `Umar liked the advice to stay back and thought it better to keep himself away from the flames of battle. If this advice had not been in accord with his personal inclination he would not have received it so heartily and would have tried to argue that the administration of the country could be maintained by leaving a deputy. Again when other people had already advised him to go out, what was the need for consulting Amir al-mu'minin except to get an excuse to stay back.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-146-matter-victory-or-defeat

Imam Ali was knowing the bravery of the caliph at the Uhud by running fiercely so he suggested the caliph / Umar to keep himself away from the battle.

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Sermon 92: Leave me and find someone else ...

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لمّا أراده الناس على البيعة بعد قتل عثمان

Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not listen to the utterance of any speaker or the reproof of any reprover. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.

Sermon 92: Leave me and find someone else ...

When people decided to swear allegiance1 at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لمّا أراده الناس على البيعة بعد قتل عثمان

Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not listen to the utterance of any speaker or the reproof of any reprover. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.

دَعُوني وَالْـتَمِسُوا غَيْرِي; فإِنَّا مُسْتَقْبِلُونَ أَمْراً لَهُ وُجُوهٌ وَأَلْوَانٌ; لاَ تَقُومُ لَهُ الْقُلُوبُ، وَلاَ تَثْبُتُ عَلَيْهِ الْعُقُولُ، وَإِنَّ الاْفَاقَ قَدْ أَغَامَتْ، وَالْـمَحَجَّةَ قَدْ تَنَكَّرَتْ. وَاعْلَمُوا أَنِّي إنْ أَجَبْتُكُمْ رَكِبْتُ بِكُمْ مَا أَعْلَمُ، وَلَمْ أُصْغِ إِلَى قَوْلِ الْقَائِلِ وَعَتْبِ الْعَاتِبِ، وَإِنْ تَرَكْتُمُونِي فَأَنَا كَأَحَدِكُمْ; وَلَعَلِّي أَسْمَعُكُمْ وَأَطْوَعُكُمْ لِمنْ وَلَّيْتُمُوهُ أَمْرَكُمْ، وَأَنَا لَكُمْ وَزِيراً، خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ مِنِّي أَمِيراً!

Alternative Sources for Sermon 92

(1) Al-Tabari, Ta'rikh,* VI, 3066 (events of the year 35);

(2) Ibn al-'Athir, al-Nihayah (events of the year 35);

(3) Ibn Miskawayh, Tajarib al-'umam, I, 508.

"When with the murder of `Uthman the seat of Caliphate became vacant, Muslims began to look at `Ali (p.b.u.h.) whose peaceful conduct, adherence to principles, and politia lacumen had been witnessed by them to a great extent during this long period. Consequently, they rushed for swearing allegiance in the same way as a traveller who had lost his way and catches sight of the objective would have rushed towards it, as the historian at-Tabari (in at-Tarikh, vol .I, pp. 3066, 3067, 3076) records:


People thronged on Amir al-mu'minin and said, "We want to swear allegiance to you and you see what troubles are befalling Islam and how we are being tried about the near ones of the Prophet."
But Amir al-mu'minin declined to accede to their request whereupon these people raised a hue and cry and began to shout loudly, "O' Abu'l-Hasan, do you not witness the ruination of Islam or see the advancing flood of unruliness and mischief? Do you have no fear of Allah?" Even then Amir al-mu'minin showed no readiness to consent because he was noticing that the effects of the atmosphere that had come into being after the Prophet had overcome hearts and minds of the people, selfishness and lust for power had become rooted in them, their thinking affected by materialism and they had become habituated to treating government as the means for securing their ends. Now they would like to materialise the Divine Caliphate too and play with it. In these circumstances it would be impossible to change the mentalities or turn the direction of temperaments. In addition to these ideas he had also seen the end in view that these people should get further time to think over so that on frustration of their material ends hereafter they should not say that the allegiance had been sworn by them under a temporary expediency and that thought had not been given to it, just as `Umar's idea was about the first Caliphate, which appears from his statement that:

Abu Bakr's Caliphate came into being without thought but Allah saved us from its mischief. If anyone repeats such an affair you should kill him. (as-Sahih, al-Bukhari, vol 8, pp.210, 211; al-Musnad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol.1, p.55; at-Tabari, vol.1, p.l822; Ibn al-Athir, vol.2, p.327; Ibn Hisham, vol.4, pp.308-309; Ibn Kathir, vol.5, p.246)


In short, when their insistence increased beyond limits, Amir al-mu'minin delivered this sermon wherein he clarified that "If you want me for your worldly ends, then I am not ready to serve as your instrument. Leave me and select someone else who may fulfil your ends. You have seen my past life that I am not prepared to follow anything except the Qur'an and sunnah and would not give up this principle for securing power. If you select someone else I would pay regard to the laws of the state and the constitution as a peaceful citizen should do. I have not at any stage tried to disrupt the collective existence of the Muslims by inciting revolt. The same will happen now. Rather, just as keeping the common good in view I have hitherto been giving correct advice, I would not grudge doing the same. If you let me in the same position it would be better for your worldly ends, because in that case I won't have power in my hands so that I could stand in the way of your worldly affairs, and create an impediment against your hearts' wishes. However, if you are determined on swearing allegiance on my hand, bear in mind that if you frown or speak against me I would force you to tread on the path of right, and in the matter of the right I would not care for anyone. If you want to swear allegiance even at this, you can satisfy your wish." The impression Amir al-mu'minin had formed about these people is fully corroborated by later events. Consequently, when those who had sworn allegiance with worldly motives did not succeed in their objectives they broke away and rose against his government with baseless allegations.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-92-leave-me-and-find-someone-else

The man made caliphate is condemned by Imam Ali.

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

Sermon 164: The people are behind me…

When people went to Amir al-mu'minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said:

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لما اجتمع الناس اليه وشكوا ما نقموه على عثمان وسألوه مخاطبته واستعتابه لهم، فدخل(عليه السلام) على عثمان فقال:

The people are behind me and they have made me an ambassador between you and themselves; but by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing (in this matter) which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

Sermon 164: The people are behind me…

When people went to Amir al-mu'minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said: 1

ومن كلام له (عليه السلام)

لما اجتمع الناس اليه وشكوا ما نقموه على عثمان وسألوه مخاطبته واستعتابه لهم، فدخل(عليه السلام) على عثمان فقال:

The people are behind me and they have made me an ambassador between you and themselves; but by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing (in this matter) which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were no more responsible for acting righteously than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

إِنَّ النَّاسَ وَرَائي، وَقَدِ اسْتَسْفَرُوني بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُمْ، وَوَاللهِ مَا أَدْرِي مَا أَقُولُ لَكَ! مَا أَعْرِفُ شَيْئاً تَجْهَلُهُ، وَلاَ أَدُلُّكَ عَلَى أَمْر لاَ تَعْرِفُهُ، إِنَّكَ لَتَعْلَمُ مَا نَعْلَمُ، مَا سَبَقْنَاكَ إِلَى شَيْء فَنُخْبِرَكَ عَنْهُ، وَلاَ خَلَوْنَا بِشَيْء فَنُبَلِّغَكَهُ، وَقَدْ رَأَيْتَ كَمَا رَأَيْنَا، وَسَمِعْتَ كَمَا سَمِعْنَا، وَصَحِبْتَ رَسُولَ الله(صلى الله عليه وآله) كَمَا صَحِبْنَا. وَمَا ابْنُ أَبِي قُحَافَةَ وَلاَ ابْنُ الْخَطَّابِ بِأَوْلَى بِعَمَلِ الْحَقِّ مِنْكَ، وَأَنْتَ أَقْرَبُ إِلَى رَسُولِ اللهِ(صلى الله عليه وآله) وَشِيجَةَ رَحِم مِنْهُمَا، وَقَدْ نِلْتَ مَنْ صَهْرِهِ مَا لَمْ يَنَالاَ.

Then (fear) Allah, in your own self; for, by Allah, you are not being shown anything as if you are blind or being apprised of anything as if you are ignorant. The ways are clear while the banners of faith are fixed. You should know that among the creatures of Allah, the most distinguished person before Allah is the just Imam who has been guided (by Allah) and guides others. So, he stands by the recognised ways of the Prophet's behaviour and destroys unrecognised innovations.

The (Prophet's) ways are clear and they have signs, while innovations are also clear and they too have signs. Certainly, the worst man before Allah is the oppressive Imam who has gone astray and through whom others go astray. He destroys the the accepted sunnah and revives abandoned innovations. I heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "On the Day of Judgement the oppressive Imam will be brought without anyone to support him or anyone to advance excuses on his behalf, and then he will be thrown into Hell where he will rotate as the hand-mill rotates, then (eventually) he will be confined to its hollow."

فَاللهَ اللهَ فِي نَفْسِكَ! فَإِنَّكَ ـ وَاللهِ ـ مَا تُبَصَّرُ مِنْ عَمىً، وَلاَ تُعَلّمُ مِنْ جَهْل، وَإِنَّ الْطُّرُقَ لَوَاضِحَةٌ، وَإِنَّ أَعْلاَمَ الدِّينِ لَقَائِمَةٌ. فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ أَفْضَلَ عِبَادِاللهِ عِنْدَ اللهِ إِمَامٌ عَادِلٌ، هُدِيَ وَهَدَي، فَأَقَامَ سُنَّةً مَعْلُومَةً، وَأَمَاتَ بِدْعَةً مَجْهُولَةً، وَإِنَّ السُّنَنَ لَنَيِّرَةٌ، لَهَا أَعْلاَمٌ، وَإِنَّ الْبِدَعَ لَظَاهِرَةٌ، لَهَا أَعْلاَمٌ، وَإِنَّ شَرَّ النَّاسِ عِنْدَاللهِ إِمَامٌ جَائِرٌ ضَلَّ وَضُلَّ بِهِ، فَأَمَاتَ سُنَّةً مَأْخُوذَةً، وَأَحْيَا بِدْعَةً مَتْرُوكَةً. وَإِني سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ(صلى الله عليه وآله) يَقُولُ: "يُؤْتَى يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ بِالاْمَامِ الْجَائِرِ وَلَيْسَ مَعَهُ نَصِيرٌ وَلاَ عَاذِرٌ، فَيُلْقَى فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ، فَيَدُورُ فِيهَا كَمَا تَدُورُ الرَّحَى، ثُمَّ يَرْتَبِطُ فِي قَعْرِهَا."

I swear to you by Allah that you should not be that Imam of the people who will be killed because it has been said that, "An Imam of this people will be killed after which killing and fighting will be made open for them till the Day of Judgement, and he will confuse their matters and spread troubles over them. As a result, they will not discern truth from wrong. They will oscillate like waves and would be utterly misled." You should not behave as the carrying beast for Marwan so that he may drag you wherever he likes, despite (your) seniority of age and length of life.

وَإِني أَنْشُدُكَ اللهَ أنْ تَكُونَ إِمَامَ هذِهِ الاْمَّةِ الْمَقْتُولَ، فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ يُقَالُ: يُقْتَلُ فِي هذِهِ الاْمَّةِ إِمَامٌ يَفْتَحُ عَلَيْهَا الْقَتْلَ وَالْقِتَالَ إِلى يَوْمِ الْقُيَامَةِ، وَيَلْبِسُ أُمُورَهَا عَلَيْهَا، وَيَبُثُّ الْفِتَنَ فِيهَا، فَلاَ يُبْصِرُونَ الْحَقَّ مِنَ الْبَاطِلِ، يَمُوجُونَ فِيهَا مَوْجاً، وَيَمْرُجُونَ فِيهَا مَرْجاً. فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ لِمَرْوَانَ سَيِّقَةً يَسُوقُكَ حَيْثُ شَاءَ بَعْدَ جَلاَلَ السِّنِّ وَتَقَضِّي الْعُمُرِ.

Then `Uthman said to Amir al-mu'minin: "Speak to the people to give me time until I redress their grievances." Amir al-mu'minin then said: "So far as Medina is concerned here is no question of time. As for remoter areas you can have the time needed for your order to reach there."

فَقَالَ لَهُ عُثْـمَانُ: كَلِّمِ النَّاسَ فِي أَنْ يُؤَجِّلُونِي، حَتَّى أَخْرُجَ إِلَيْهِمْ مِن مَظَالِمِهِمْ، فَقال(عليه السلام): مَا كَانَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ فَلاَ أَجَلَ فِيهِ، وَمَا غَابَ فَأَجَلُهُ وُصُولُ أَمْرِكَ إِلَيْهِ.

Alternative Sources for Sermon 164

(1) Al-Baladhuri, Ansab, V, 60;

(2) al-Tabari, Ta'rikh, V, 96, events of 34 H.;

(3) Ibn `Abd Rabbih, al-`Iqd, IV, 308, II, 273;

(4) al-Mufid, al-Jamal, 100;

(5) Ibn Miskawayh, Tajarib al-'umam (1909), I, 478.

 During the Caliphate of `Uthman when the Muslims were weary of the oppression of the Government and its officials collected in Medina to complain to the senior companions of the Prophet, they came to Amir al-mu'minin in a peaceful manner and requested him to see `Uthman and advise him not to trample on the Muslims' rights and to put an end to the troubles which were proving the cause of the people's ruin, whereupon Amir al-mu'minin went to him and uttered these words.
In order to make the bitterness of the admonition palatable Amir al-mu'minin adopted that way of speech in the beginning which would create a sense of responsibility in the addressee and direct him towards his obligations. Thus, by mentioning his companionship of the Prophet, his personal position, and his kinship to the Prophet as against the two previous Caliphs, his intention was to make him realise his duties; in any case, this was obviously not an occasion for eulogising him, so that its later portion can be disregarded and the whole speech be regarded as an eulogy of his attainments, because from its very beginning it is evident that whatever `Uthman did, he did it wilfully, that nothing was done without his knowledge or his being informed, and that he could not be held unaccountable for it because of his being unaware of it. If the adoption of a line of action which made the whole Islamic world raise hue and cry in spite of his
having being a companion of the Prophet, having heard his instructions, having seen his behaviour and having been acquainted with the commandments of Islam can be regarded as a distinction, then this taunt may also be regarded as praise. If that is not a distinction then this too cannot be called and eulogy. In fact, the words about which it is argued that they are in praise are enough to prove the seriousness of his crime, because a crime in ignorance and unawareness is not so serious as the weight given to the seriousness of the commission of a crime despite knowledge and awareness. Consequently a person who is unaware of the rise and fall of a road and stumbles in the dark night is excusable but a person who is aware of the rise and fall of the road and stumbled in broad day light is liable to be blamed. If on this occasion he is told that he has eyes and is also aware of the rise and fall of the way, it would not mean that his vastness of knowledge or the brightness of his eye-sight is being praised, but the intention would be that he did not notice the pitfalls despite his eyes, and did not walk properly, and that therefore for him, having or not having eyes is the same, and knowing or not knowing is equal.
In this connection great stress in laid on his being a son-in-law, namely that the Prophet married his two daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum to him one after the other. Before taking this to be a distinction, the real nature of `Uthman's son-in-lawship should be seen. History shows that in this matter `Uthman did not enjoy the distinction of being the first, but before him Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum had been married to two sons of Abu Lahab namely `Utbah and `Utaybah, but despite their being sons-in-law, they have not been included among people of position of pre-prophethood period. How then can this be regarded as a source of position without any personal merit, when there is no authority about the importance of this relationship, nor was any importance attached to this matter in such a way that there might have been some competition between `Uthman and some other important personality in this regard and that his selection for it might have given him prominence, or that these two girls might have been shown to possess an important position in history, tradition or biography as a result of which this relationship could be given special importance and regarded as a distinction for him? If the marriage of these two daughters with `Utbah and `Utaybah in the pre-prophethood period is held as lawful on the ground that marriage with unbelievers had not till then been made unlawful, then in `Uthman's case also the condition for lawfulness was his acceptance of Islam, there is no doubt that he had pronounced the kalimah ash-shahadatayn (there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger) and had accepted Islam outwardly. As such this marriage can be held a proof of his outward Islam, but no other honour can be proved through it. Again, it is also not agreed that these two were the real daughters of the Messenger of Allah, because there is one group which denies them to be his real daughters, and regards them as being the daughters of Khadijah's sister Halah, or the daughters of her own previous husband. Thus, Abu'l-Qasim al-Kufi (d. 352 A.H.) writes:
"When the Messenger of Allah married Khadijah, then some time thereafter Halah died leaving two daughters, one named Zaynab and the other named Ruqayyah and both of them were brought up by the Prophet and Khadijah and they maintained them, and it was the custom before Islam that a child was assigned to whoever brought him up." (al-lstighathah, p. 69)
Ibn Hisham has written about the issues of Hadrat Khadijah as follows:
"Before marriage with the Prophet she was married to Abi Halah ibn Malik. She delivered for him Hind ibn Abi Halah and Zaynab bint Abi Halah. Before marriage with Abi Halah she was married to `Utayyiq ibn `Abid ibn `Abdillah ibn `Amr ibn Makhzum and she delivered for him `Abdullah and a daughter." (as-Sirah an-nabawiyyah, vol. 4, p. 293)
This shows that of Hadrat Khadijah had two daughters before being married to the Prophet and according to all appearance they would be called his daughters and those to whom they were married would be called his sons-in-law, but the position of this relationship would be the same as if those girls were his daughters. Therefore, before putting it forth as a matter for pride the real status of the daughters should be noted and a glance should be cast at `Uthman's conduct. In this connection, al-Bukhari and other narrators (of traditions) and historians record this tradition as follows:
Anas ibn Malik relates that: "We were present on the occasion of the burial of the Prophet's daughter Umm Kulthum, while the Prophet was sitting beside her grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. Then he said, 'Is there any one among you who has not committed a sin last night?' Abu Talhah (Zayd ibn Sahl al-Ansari) said, 'I', then the Prophet said, 'Then you get into the grave,' consequently he got down into the grave."
The commentators said about 'committed sin' that the Holy Prophet meant to say 'one who had not had sexual intercourse.' On this occasion the Holy Prophet unveiled the private life of `Uthman and prevented him from getting down into the grave, although it was a prominent merit of the Prophet's character that he did not disgrace or belittle any one by making public his private life, and despite of knowledge of others' shortcomings, ignored them; but in this case the filth was such that it was deemed necessary to disgrace him before the whole crowd.
Since `Uthman did not show any regard for the demise of his wife (Umm Kulthum) nor was he moved or felt sorry (for this event), and paid no heed to the cutting off his relationship with the Holy Prophet (for being his son-in-law), he (`Uthman) had sexual intercourse on the same night, therefore the Holy Prophet deprived him of this right and honour. (al-Bukhari, as-Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 100-101, 114; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 126, 228, 229, 270; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 47; al-Bayhaqi, as-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 4, p. 53; Ibn Sa`d, at-Tabaqat al-kabir, vol. 8, p. 26; as-Suhayli, ar-Rawd al-unuf, vol. 2, p. 107; Ibn Hajar, al-Isabah, vol. 4, p. 489; Fath al-bari, vol. 3, p. 122; al-`Ayni, `Umdah al-qari, vol. 4,p. 85; Ibn al-Athir, an-Nihayah, vol. 3, p. 276; Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-`Arab, vol. 9, pp. 280-281; az-Zabidi, Taj al-`arus, vol. 6, p. 220).

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-164-people-are-behind-me

The man made caliphate is again condemned by imam Ali.

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Brother @skamran110.

Good copy paste from https://www.al-islam.org. I had a feeling that you will do this :)

Whats more important are the words and views of Imam Ali a.s which I shared from nahjul balagha (although they may not be the words of Imam as no chains are provided by Sayed Razi to verify or may be they are fabrications of Imam's words), not the words and opinions of some scholars etc based on their own assumptions, lame excuses and interpretations of certain narrations. About half of nahjul balagha contain such type of sermons. Which clearly expose many manmade and corrupt concepts of twelvers. And during the time of Imam Ali a.s there were just shias but not twelver shias.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

Salam Brother @skamran110.

Good copy paste from https://www.al-islam.org. I had a feeling that you will do this :)

Whats more important are the words and views of Imam Ali a.s which I shared from nahjul balagha (although they may not be the words of Imam as no chains are provided by Sayed Razi to verify or may be they are fabrications of Imam's words), not the words and opinions of some scholars etc based on their own assumptions, lame excuses and interpretations of certain narrations. About half of nahjul balagha contain such type of sermons. Which clearly expose many manmade and corrupt concepts of twelvers. And during the time of Imam Ali a.s there were just shias but not twelver shias.

Brother - it's a simple question. Did Hz Fatima die angry with Caliph Abu Bakr?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that many of the Arabs worshiped the Jinn. Out of these were people who taught religion in degrees and initiated people into the dark realms of unclean Jinn.

Mohammad no doubt liberated a great portion of these people, and a great portion fought him initially.

I do believe there is a "Pharaoh" and "Haman" who are chosen Avatars of the Shayateen in each age...there is always a top leader of secret jinn worshipping societies and then there is a top adviser under that top leader (2nd in command)....

The difference between a normal King or normal misguiding religious authority, is that Pharaoh claims to be the avatar on earth in the sense he claims he represents the Gods or is the incarnation of the gods.

I do believe our Imams explained who Pharaoh and Haman was in the verse:

"And we wish to bestow favor upon those who are deemed weak in the land, and to make them the Imams and to make them the inheritors, and to show Pharaoh and Haman and their armies what they use to fear".

Secret societies in line with the Jinn has always been how humanity has destroyed the teachings of the Prophets.

I wish it was simply an issue of greed....but it was more then that.....the King who killed Yahya, killed him more then for the law, more then for his lust, he used his lust and greed as a cover up.

The same is true of other leaders.

Abu Lahab was either an instance of the Pharaoh or a Haman or he had high position in this secret society. When the Pharaoh of that time died, someone had to replace him, but they probably decided that it be best, if it is an undercover Muslim. In fact, much of these Jinn Worshippers might of came to Islam early, these people, are good at keep their identity secret. When the Quran talks about them talking to their Shayateen, "we were only with you", it perhaps was being literal for a great amount of them.

As Abu Lahab knew a lot in these old ancient teachings, he came out and lead people against Mohammad and claimed that Mohammad was a sorcerer when Mohammad made miracles, and that he was betraying the family trust and that Mohammad had knowledge from people who narrated these things to him day and night, and taught him the knowledge.....

The truth was Mohammad was taught early on never to read any book before Quran, so that no one can even suspect him.  That when he does miracles, no one can even bring up the issue of magic. But despite that, they brought it up. And despite him never reading books and the Quran being the level it was at....

Shayateen gathered a lot of the people who sought refuge in the Jinn there because it was much needed for when they would be needed to corrupt revelation all over again.

This time however the revelation would remain protected.   And so they wished to destroy it's interpretation, and when Rasool declared in the masses the thaqalain and Ali Mawla,   it was then these dirty people knew, the message, would be passed on no matter what they tried. That Rasool made sure of it, and they knew that they would not be able to destroy it's light and keep people from the truth.

I believe Saudi government, Bahrain government, and much of the middle-east governments, are in line with the Jinn, and don't actually believe in Islam.

The Quran manifests a lot more to the world, if we only pay attention. 

The cycle of a founder, and 12 Captains who sail the blessed arc by the name of God, are always meant by opposition from the devils of humans and Jinn.

You pay attention, and you will see why Imam Hussain was killed. And you will know that his killers who would kill all over again, are still alive on this earth, still leading humanity, still pretending to believe in God and his Messengers....from US to middle-east, to elsewhere.....

May God hasten the victory of his chosen friends. May he remove the dark sorcery on the hearts regarding the Quran from Shayateen of Jinn and humans.

May he heal the dark veil on this umma and save them from their confusion.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fahad Sani

i have highlighted the words of Imam Ali that are explanatory to destroy the sunni concept  of man man made caliphate as this does not exist in quran. 

Your claims are false. The truth has also been responded  in your thread on Nehjul balagah. 

Wasalam

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Brother - it's a simple question. Did Hz Fatima die angry with Caliph Abu Bakr?

 

She became angry with him on fadak issue its a fact but Hz. Abu bakr's intention was not to anger her. Just like Musa a.s had a little unintentional fight with his brother Harun a.s. Both were prophets and this incident is mentioned in Quran. Moreover there is an authentic narration that say, fatima s.a talked to Abu Bakr r.a & also pleased with him.

 

7 hours ago, skamran110 said:

@Fahad Sani

i have highlighted the words of Imam Ali that are explanatory to destroy the sunni concept  of man man made caliphate as this does not exist in quran. 

Your claims are false. The truth has also been responded  in your thread on Nehjul balagah. 

Wasalam

Vast part of nahjul balagha is in favor of ahlul sunnah creed. Destroying the twelver concepts and theories. Sermon 3, the most fvrt one of twelvers is very disputed one and is against the vast part of the same book. Moreover there are no any words from Imam Ali a.s on his divine appointment by Prophet s.a.w.w in the entire book i.e about ghadir. While Imam Ali a.s supported the belief of shoora in his many sermons and letters.

If you understand urdu language then following lectures are worth watching.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

Vast part of nahjul balagha is in favor of ahlul sunnah creed. Destroying the twelver concepts and theories. Sermon 3, the most fvrt one of twelvers is very disputed one and is against the vast part of the same book. Moreover there are no any words from Imam Ali a.s on his divine appointment by Prophet s.a.w.w in the entire book i.e about ghadir. While Imam Ali a.s supported the belief of shoora in his many sermons and letters.

Nehjul balahgha is not a book of collection of hadith of the Prophet saww. The sermons and letters and short sayings of Imam Ali were collected by Syed Razi in the form of Book. The sources of the book are already mentioned in the book. This is only a partial collection to describe the historical facts. 

Shii have collection of hadith in the books which defines clearly the explanation of the religion as per the sayings of the prophet and his pure progeny. 

The quran does not mention in a single verse that people can choose the prophet / imam / caliph or leader after the prophet thus it rejects the man made caliphate.. 

All of the sermons quoted by you have been well responded and you keep your eyes close from the truth.

i do not  intend to waste time on the videos of a sunni scholar 

Wasalam

 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Assalam o Alaikum brother,

 

First one was Umm Khadija s.a, then Imam ALi a.s, then Zaid bin Harith (all family members). First one from outside family who became muslim was Hz. Abu bakr r.a. He became muslim much before than Salman Farsi r.a, Miqdad r.a and Abu zar r.a (top 3 sahabah according to tashayyu). And which one was major achievement for Prophet s.a.w.w for his mission? His family members becoming muslims or one out of family (Abu bakr)?

Both Imam Ali a.s and Hz. Abu bakr a.s followed the orders of prophet s.a.w.w at that night. But sadly people accept one and reject the other.

 

In reality Hz. Abu bakr a.s became the first caliph of muslims, chosen/accepted by muhajirun and ansar. Its ghadir not Qadir. And ghadir has nothing to do with caliphate at all. No one from the muhajirun and ansar understood ghadir in meaning of caliphate.

Women gave allegiance? New theory? All men gave bayah to abu bakr a.s and women gave to Ali a.s.

 

Prophet Harun a.s died before Prophet Musa a.s.

 

 

But,

Abu bakr r.a didnt kill any member of ahlulbayt. And neither made any property/wealth nor corrupted the earth and killed the innocents.

This was first done by Muawiya bin Abu sufiyan and followed by other caliphs who came after him.

 

 

Right. And later the same mongols (turks) became muslims and caliphs after destroying banu abbas's rule.

But no one destroyed the caliphate of abu bakr r.a. If he was realy usurper and cruel etc (according to twelvers) then why not anyone came to stop him.

 

 

On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

First one was Umm Khadija s.a, then Imam ALi a.s, then Zaid bin Harith

In answering you dear brother, first I advise you to read what I wrote once again,

I said Imam Ali(as) was the first man, not the first human, you tried hard to prove what I already mentioned.

On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

In reality Hz. Abu bakr a.s became the first caliph of muslims, chosen/accepted by muhajirun and ansar. Its ghadir not Qadir. And ghadir has nothing to do with caliphate at all. No one from the muhajirun and ansar understood ghadir in meaning of caliphate.

Women gave allegiance? New theory? All men gave bayah to abu bakr a.s and women gave to Ali a.s.

About the caliphat and Ghadir Khum, if it was about the friendship of Imam Ali(as) and a command for muslims to love him why in Ghadir Khum women put their hands in a dish of water and Imam Ali(as) put his hand in the other side to be a sign of handshake? this is my question, it happened in Ghadir not after it and it cannot be defined with anything but allegiance. And one more question? If not making anyone a successor of the previous one is the Sunnah of Rasool Allah, then Abu Bakr had sinned by making Omar his successor, a sinner cannot be ruler and if it is Sunnah of Rasool Allah, then why did he usurped Imam Ali(as)'s right?

On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Prophet Harun a.s died before Prophet Musa a.s.

Correct. OK. Usurping the Aaron's right happened during the life of Mosa(as), when he went to mount Tor to bring Torah, he made Haroun(as) his successor and told his people that I will leave you for 30 days, but he remained 40 days, which means 10 days more, the people told one another the Mosa(as) is dead because he is not lair and his absence for 10 days means one thing and that's his death. In fact they usurped Haroun(as)'s right when Mosa(as) was dead to them, they were sure of it. The same happened to Muslims with a difference, the death of the prophet of Islam was real.

On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Abu bakr r.a didnt kill any member of ahlulbayt. And neither made any property/wealth nor corrupted the earth and killed the innocents.

This was first done by Muawiya bin Abu sufiyan and followed by other caliphs who came after him.

Those who invade Imam Ali(as)'s house did it by the command of the first calip, and it ended with the death of Fatima(sa), which means .... 

On 9/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Right. And later the same mongols (turks) became muslims and caliphs after destroying banu abbas's rule.

But no one destroyed the caliphate of abu bakr r.a. If he was realy usurper and cruel etc (according to twelvers) then why not anyone came to stop him.

Again I say it is exactly what happened to sons of Israel, no one killed their first rulers, no one killed their first king. They were destroyed after centuries.

 

And two more thing that I forgot to add to the list of the things that happened to the Jews and Muslims as well:

The last divine man that Jews had was Jesus(as) and he became prophet while he was a baby.

The last divine man that Muslims had was Imam Mahdi(af) and he became Imam while he was a kid.

The last divine man that Allah(swt) sent for Jews was Jesus(as) and Jews wanted to kill him, Allah(swt) hide him and will send him back in the apocalypse.

The last divine man that Allah(swt) sent for Muslims was Imam Mahdi(af) and Muslims wanted to kill him, Allah(swt) hide him and will send him back in the apocalypse. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2016 at 6:56 AM, Fahad Sani said:

She became angry with him on fadak issue its a fact but Hz. Abu bakr's intention was not to anger her. Just like Musa a.s had a little unintentional fight with his brother Harun a.s. Both were prophets and this incident is mentioned in Quran. Moreover there is an authentic narration that say, fatima s.a talked to Abu Bakr r.a & also pleased with him.

Narrated `Aisha:
(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)."
Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) `Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqa) at Medina to `Ali and `Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs. Now their management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhri said, "They have been managed in this way till today.")
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 57, Hadith 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎-‎9‎-‎2016 at 0:09 PM, sakura1994 said:

I understand that Omar was brutal against the kawarijs so shia don't like him

The Khawarij did not exist during the time of Umar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎-‎9‎-‎2016 at 1:56 PM, Fahad Sani said:

She became angry with him on fadak issue its a fact but Hz. Abu bakr's intention was not to anger her. Just like Musa a.s had a little unintentional fight with his brother Harun a.s. Both were prophets and this incident is mentioned in Quran. Moreover there is an authentic narration that say, fatima s.a talked to Abu Bakr r.a & also pleased with him.

So Bibi Fatima a.s. was lying? Naudhu billah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2016 at 8:09 PM, sakura1994 said:

he was the one of who first people to believed in prophet Mohammed s.a.w a

How does it matter who was first and who was second or third?

On 01/09/2016 at 8:09 PM, sakura1994 said:

immigrated with prophat from mecca to madenia

 Again, what is the big deal there?

 

On 01/09/2016 at 8:09 PM, sakura1994 said:

also can someone give me some online source to read about imam ali biography cuz I can't find authentic one , I brought a book but it's from sunni perspective , I don't know if shia have same story !

Read the Voice of Human Justice.

https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Human-Justice-George-Jordac/dp/1542399211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488755474&sr=8-1&keywords=voice+of+human+justice 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2016 at 11:09 AM, sakura1994 said:

I

Salamunalaykum dear sister,

I think you must refer to Sahih al Bukhari. In it, Umar ibn Al Khattab states that Ali ibn Abi Talib a.s opposed Abu Bakr when he was appointed caliph. This lasted for six months. In Sahih Al Bukhari[or muslim], it states that Fatima a.s, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah [saw] died angry with Abu Bakr and stopped speaking to him.

I think the discussion ought to begin from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2016 at 5:56 PM, Fahad Sani said:

Brother, why are you geting so hyper.

what's wrong in saying a.s with other than ahlulbayt? You can use this phrase for anyone you want. Dont you say th same during salah in tash'had as "assalmu alaina wa ala ibadillahis shalihin"

I am following words and sunnah of my mawla Ali a.s. I dont need certificate from any scholar etc to do so.

Sermon 226. http://www.nahjulbalagha.org/Nahjul-Balagha-Sermons/nahjul-balagha-sermon-226.html

About a companion who passed away from this world before the occurrence of troubles.

May Allah reward such and such man (1) who straightened the curve, cured the disease, abandoned mischief and established the sunnah. He departed (from this world) with untarnished clothes and little shortcomings. He achieved good (of this world) and remained safe from its evils. He offered Allah's obedience and feared Him as He deserved. He went away and left the people in dividing ways wherein the misled cannot obtain guidance and the guided cannot attain certainty.


(1). Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has written (in Sharh Nahj al-balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 3-4) that the reference here is to the second Caliph `Umar, and that these sentences have been uttered in his praise as indicated by the word '`Umar' written under the word 'such and such' in as-Sayyid ar-Radi's own hand in the manuscript of Nahj al-balaghah written by him.

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/2196_شرح-نهج-البلاغة-ابن-أبي-الحديد-ج-١٢/الصفحة_3

 

Same is also in bukhari as narrated by Ibn Abbas r.a

http://www.sunnah.com/bukhari/62/27

 

ALHAMDULILLAH

Chain, grading?

With no chain, or grading, unfortunately, this is not hujjah upon any of us unless corroborated. I don't even know if this narration even applies to Umar ibn Al Khattab.

One thing shia's have got to begin to understand is that anything contained in a hadith book or a famous book is not absolute truth. Common sense must prevail. If someone told you today that a mawlana claimed x, you would ask, who did he hear it from, and who did that person hear it from?

57805c57eaffe_302abdullahibnumarknewhist

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this thread is about Abu Bakr therefore lets start with I hate him for not attending the funeral of the holy Prophet (pbuh).

Is that what "best friends" do in your religion?

He was not being taken along on Hijrah/migration to Madina, the Prophet was leaving alone in the night on foot, he starts running after him shouting his name (to alert the kuffar) the Prophet stops. He offers a camel to the Prophet for three time the price, knowing he had no choice to keep him quiet. Then in the cave again he was moaning loudly (and alerting the search party of the kuffar) allegedly out of "fear" even though the his master was with him and he was supposedly the best disciple and first muslim?. [Ref: Tabari]

We can go on and on with the sad story, citing references to hundreds of his grave sins and villainies, and examining chains of narrations and all. He can not be defended, the best supporters of his have always failed in that task. Not to mention its quite boring.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...