Truth and Lies about attack on Syeda Fatima (sa)

[Fahad Sani]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by starlight
Title

[Talut]

Salam,

I see a lot of video's passing by the last days.

Just want you guys to know that I know how to find YouTube.

I actually came here because I thought this is a video-free area.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Talut

[Fahad Sani]

W.salam.

Videos are also source of knowledge and references. These contain views of current scholars. Esp watch video 1 and 2. Views of Ahmed Katib and of Ayatullah Fadalullah.

[Sindbad05]

hahahahaha, there are hadith in Sahih Bukhari admitting that Abu Bakar snatched fadak from Syeda Fatima Zehra a.s.

[Sindbad05]

Narrated ‘Ayesha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle 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 Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle 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 Apostle.

We read in Musnad Ibn Hanbal:

Ayesha narrates that once Fatima (ra) sent her servant to Abu Bakr to stake her claim to the Khums of the Holy Prophet (s) in Madina, Fadak and Khaiber. Abu Bakr said: ‘Allah’s Apostle said: ‘We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but Muhammad’s progeny can eat from this property’ now I SWEAR THAT this is what I have observed Prophet (s) DOING, I will not abandon it, but will observe WHAT the PROPHET DID’. So it is that Abu Bakr gave Fatima nothing, as a result of which lady Fatima got hurt. Abu Bakr said: ‘I swear by the one who holds my life! I love to show compassion towards the relatives of the Prophet (s) more than to my own relatives but with regards to this difference of opinion that we have in relation to this possession, I cannot divert from the truth; I shall not divert from that which I had saw the prophet doing’.

We read in Kanz ul Ummal:

“Sayyida Fatima became upset at Abu Bakr and continued assuming that attitude until she died” .

Sunan al Kabeer:

“Fatima became angry at Abu Bakr, and never spoke to Abu Bakr until she died”

Wafa al Wafa:

“Abu Bakr denied Fatima her right and she became angry never speaking to Abu Bakr until she died”.

Sahih Ibn Hibban:

“Fatima (ra) approached Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance from what Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì bestowed upon his Prophet (s) and Fatima (ra) sought the alms of Rasulullah (s) in Madinah and also Fadak and remaining khums of Khaibar. Ayesha narrates that Abu Bakr said: ‘The family of Muhammad (s) can only eat from this money nothing else and I shall not divert an iota from the practice of the Porphet (s)’…..Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima any of it so Fatima was angry and disappointed with Abu Bakr and she never spoke to him until she died. Fatima (ra) survived the Prophet (s) by six months, when she died Ali (ra) buried her at night forbade Abu Bakr from attending her burial, When Fatima (ra) passed away people’s views altered about Ali (ra) that disappointed him he hence sought to heal the rift with Abu Bakr and pay allegiance to him and he had not paying allegiance during these months… .”

We read in Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra):

“It is a proven fact that during the final stage of her life, the daughter of Holy Prophet Fatima (ra) died in a state of anger at Abu Bakr (ra). Now was this anger due to her being denied the inheritance of her father by Abu Bakr or was it because she deemed her husband to be more worthy of being the Khalifa than Abu Bakr? There is a difference of opinion on this, but one thing is unequivocally proven that Umar concurred with Abu Bakr that whatever the Poprhet leaves is Sadaqa no one inherits it, and it was without a doubt this advice of Umar that caused the anger of Fatima (ra)” 
 Hadhrat Umar Faruq (ra) by M H Haykal page 101

Muhadith Shah Waliullah Dehalwi writes in his authority work Izalat ul Khifa:

“Fatima (ra) became angry with Abu Bakr and left him and never conversed with him again until she died” 
 Izalat ul Khifa, Volume 2 page 112

[Talut]

15 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

W.salam.

Videos are also source of knowledge and references. These contain views of current scholars. Esp watch video 1 and 2. Views of Ahmed Katib and of Ayatullah Fadalullah.

I know that but we can find them on YouTube. A forum is to discuss what one saw or read after having comprehended and integrated the stuff in our minds.

Second of all, the start of the video is a contradiction.

Those who called themselves Ahlus Sunna were actually those who identified themselves with Muawiya and later on the Umayyads.

So both groups, Shia and Sunni are sects that came from one community.

it was actually the camp of Muawiya that split itself up from Imam Ali a.s. who was rightfully chosen according to the norms and standards of caliphacy.

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Talut

[Sindbad05]

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated ‘Ayesha: (mother of the believers) After the death of Allah ‘s Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah’s Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle 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 Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle 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 Apostle.

[Sindbad05]

While Quran says Suleman inherited David and Zakaria a.s asked for a heir and Abu bakar says Prophets do not have heir ? Is not it contrary to Quran ? 

[Fahad Sani]

1 hour ago, Talut said:

I know that but we can find them on YouTube. A forum is to discuss what one saw or read after having comprehended and integrated the stuff in our minds.

Second of all, the start of the video is a contradiction.

Those who called themselves Ahlus Sunna were actually those who identified themselves with Muawiya and later on the Umayyads.

So both groups, Shia and Sunni are sects that came from one community.

it was actually the camp of Muawiya that split itself up from Imam Ali a.s. who was rightfully chosen according to the norms and standards of caliphacy.

 

These particular videos are primarily based on logic.

No. Ahlul Sunnah dont identify themselves with muawiya. In fact muawiya was the first caliph who abandoned sunnah and never repented. In ahlul sunnah major hadith books you might have seen high criticism on actions of muawiyah from prominent sahabah including from muawiya's only close friends. The only merit of Muawiya is he was sahabi e Rasool but in reality his life is full of errors and crimes. Real manhaj of ahlul sunnah about him (as it is clear from hadith books and criticism on him) is that we neither love him, nor defend him, nor curse him. His matter is with Allah swt. Those from sunnis who defend him on all his wrong doings are in great error. This is perhaps the major issue with sunnis. WHich is also contrary to their original and official manhaj.

Yes, Islam is one community. There are no sects in Islam. Ahlul sunnah is not sect but a manhaj. Those who consider it a sect are in error. This word has nothing to do with muawiyah or ummayds.

Yes, no doubt about that, muawiyah is the root of problems. Not the khilaft e rashiah (from Abu Bakr r.a to Hassan a.s.).

 

[Talut]

20 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

These particular videos are primarily based on logic.

No. Ahlul Sunnah dont identify themselves with muawiya. In fact muawiya was the first caliph who abandoned sunnah and never repented. In ahlul sunnah major hadith books you might have seen high criticism on actions of muawiyah from prominent sahabah including from muawiya's only close friends. The only merit of Muawiya is he was sahabi e Rasool but in reality his life is full of errors and crimes. Real manhaj of ahlul sunnah about him (as it is clear from hadith books and criticism on him) is that we neither love him, nor defend him, nor curse him. His matter is with Allah swt. Those from sunnis who defend him on all his wrong doings are in great error. This is perhaps the major issue with sunnis. WHich is also contrary to their original and official manhaj.

Yes, Islam is one community. There are no sects in Islam. Ahlul sunnah is not sect but a manhaj. Those who consider it a sect are in error. This word has nothing to do with muawiyah or ummayds.

Yes, no doubt about that, muawiyah is the root of problems. Not the khilaft e rashiah (from Abu Bakr r.a to Hassan a.s.).

 

No my dear brother. After the split caused by the tragedy of Karbala, the camp of the supporters of the Imams a.s. were called the Shia of Ali. Those who followed Yazid and the Umayyads called themselves the Ahlus Sunnah.

Later on they became the subjects of the Abbasids and so their view on Imam Ali a.s. changed. The Ahlus Sunnah are actually a mix of doctrines and beliefs of succeeding rulers and dynasties. Their main pillar is to accept those who are in charge. Even when it is a fasiq.

I know that nowadays there are more and more sunni's with a balanced view because at the moment there is no rulership at all and they can critisize and cut ties with those that were not okay.

But still the main pillar is to talk good about all rulers. That is why the Umayyads and Abbasids are Always associated with Sunni Islam and called Sunni caliphs/kings.

If not then who were the sunni's and who were their rulers during the Umayyad dynasty?

It's however not as black and white as we wish it to be as three of the four Fuqaha of sunnism all pledged allegiange to Zaidi Shia Imams. I'm however sure about Malik Ibn Anas and Abu Hanifa. But this is something mainstream sunni laymen don't even know.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Talut

[Talut]

24 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

Yes, no doubt about that, muawiyah is the root of problems. Not the khilaft e rashiah (from Abu Bakr r.a to Hassan a.s.).

I totally agree with you on this one but wit the addition that it started in the last six years of Uthman's rule when Marwan took the handle behind the scenes.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Talut

[Fahad Sani]

23 minutes ago, Talut said:

No my dear brother. After the split caused by the tragedy of Karbala, the camp of the supporters of the Imams a.s. were called the Shia of Ali. Those who followed Yazid and the Umayyads called themselves the Ahlus Sunnah.

Later on they became the subjects of the Abbasids and so their view on Imam Ali a.s. changed. The Ahlus Sunnah are actually a mix of doctrines and beliefs of succeeding rulers and dynasties. Their main pillar is to accept those who are in charge. Even when it is a fasiq.

I know that nowadays there are more and more sunni's with a balanced view because at the moment there is no rulership at all and they can critisize and cut ties with those that were not okay.

But still the main pillar is to talk good about all rulers. That is why the Umayyads and Abbasids are Always associated with Sunni Islam and called Sunni caliphs/kings.

If not then who were the sunni's and who were their rulers during the Umayyad dynasty?

It's however not as black and white as we wish it to be as three of the four Fuqaha of sunnism all pledged allegiange to Zaidi Shia Imams. I'm however sure about Malik Ibn Anas and Abu Hanifa. But this is something mainstream sunni laymen don't even know.

No brother. Term shia e Ali and Shia e Muawiyah were used during caliphate of Imam ALi a.s. Word ahlul sunnah wal jamah has nothing to do with shia sunni matters or with muawiyah. This term was actually used in opposition to Ahlul Biddah wal Dhalah by sahabah.

The word Ahlul Sunnah is reported by Muslim from Muhammad ibn Sirin in the Muqaddima to his Sahih; and al-Darimi in his Musnad from al-Hasan al-Basri.

Imam Al-Lalaka’i mentions in his ‘Sharh Usul I’tiqad Ahl as-Sunnah’ (1/72) that the first person to have actually used the term ‘Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah’ was Ibn ‘Abbas, a member of the Ahl Al-Bayt, when explaining the verse:

{“…on the day when some faces will be brightened, and some faces will be blackened…”} [Al ‘Imran; 106]

He said: “Those whose faces will be brightened are Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah. As for those whose faces will be blackened, then they are the people of innovation and misguidance (Ahl Al-Bida’ wa Al-Dhalalah).”

To accept those who are in charge is conditional. There are separate chapters in hadith books. Refer Kitab ul Imarah from Bukhari and Muslim. There you will also find some narrations from Imam Ali a.s. In musnad Ahmed there is a wellknown narration #18430 which says after rightful caliphate there will be cruel rulers. Everyone know muawiya was the first ruler of this category. And he also proved this by his actions.

Currently we are in 4th period as per hadith #18430 of musnad ahmed. Next period will again be of rightful caliphate i.e of Imam Mahdi a.s.

Actually, whether good or bad they were caliphs (those in authority) of official Islamic state. Many narrations of Prophet s.a.w.w say there will be both good and bad rulers. And others say there will also come a time when their will be no any caliph, like today. While twelver shias only take ahadith about 12 caliphs and reject or ignor others. All are in same chapter i.e kitab ul imarah.

At that time there was nothing like sunni and shia in terms of religion. Shiane Ali and Shiane Muawiya terms were used in political sense only. Centuries later it became sunni Islam and shia Islam. Originally, Islam was one community and all were muslims. Term Ahul Sunnah wal Jamah was used in opposition to Ahlul Biddah wal Dhalalah. Hadith mentioned on my profile page is also talking about this.

You are right. Laymen from both sides normally dont have any idea about those members of ahlebait who revolted against caliphs of their time starting from Zaid bin ALi a.s. Abu Hanifa was his main supporter. Who even issued fatwas in his favor. All such history is also mentioned in Shia book firaq ul Shia of naubakhti, of which majority of shias are also unaware. Sunnis love Abu Hanifa and shias normally criticise him.

Since, you are not a twelver shia and doing research, I would highly recommend you to study these works. 1. Firaq ul shia of Naubakhti http://en.wikishia.net/view/Firaq_al-Shi'a_(book) And Developement of shiite political thought Download Link

18 minutes ago, Talut said:

I totally agree with you on this one but wit the addition that it started in the last six years of Uthman's rule when Marwan took the handle behind the scenes.

Agree. Marwan plus some other governors of Hz. Uthman r.a were corrupt. Same Marwan also killed Talha r.a (when Talha realised his mistake and wanted to leave battle) during Jamal war.

[Sindbad05]

5 minutes ago, Fahad Sani said:

No brother. Term shia e Ali and Shia e Muawiyah were used during caliphate of Imam ALi a.s. Word ahlul sunnah wal jamah has nothing to do with shia sunni matters or with muawiyah. This term was actually used in opposition to Ahlul Biddah wal Dhalah by sahabah.

Shia e Ali and Shia e Uthman were two sides at the time of murderer of Uthman bin Affan. Those who fought Imam Ali a.s in the battle of Jamal and Battle of Siffein called themselves Shian e Uthman and provided their cause of war as taking revenge of Uthman. While Imam Ali a.s asked them if there were witnesses who testify that he a.s killed uthaman bring them forth but they knew that no one can escape Imam Ali's justice and many died before by the wrath of Allah whenever they tried to blame Ali ibn Abu Talib. So, at that Imam Ali a.s called them out and said I know that why you are not providing witnesses because you fear that this will reveal who were true murderers. And you can find it in Nehjul Balagha. 

While Sunnis castigate us for revealing the sins of earlier Caliphs but do not castigate those who fought fourth Caliph and do not say that they sinned. Did not bibi Ayesha fought Imam Ali a.s, Did not Muawiya ibn Abu Sufiyan fought Imam Ali a.s. So, you call us perverts what about them ? 

[ShiaMan14]

@Fahad Sani - you can try to discuss this topic all life long.

As long as the fact remains that Fatima (as) died angry with Abu Bakr, our stance on him DOES NOT change.

You can continue to beg us for his forgiveness but until he gets forgiven by Fatima » Prophet » Allah, our stance stays the same.

Perhaps this is blind love but I take blind love over blind hypocrisy any day.

[Talut]

9 minutes ago, shiaman14 said:

@Fahad Sani - you can try to discuss this topic all life long.

As long as the fact remains that Fatima (as) died angry with Abu Bakr, our stance on him DOES NOT change.

You can continue to beg us for his forgiveness but until he gets forgiven by Fatima » Prophet » Allah, our stance stays the same.

Perhaps this is blind love but I take blind love over blind hypocrisy any day.

Why do you think the fitna really started when Imam Ali a.s. became the caliph?

I don't know why but there was a grudge against the Banu Hasyim especially towards the Ahl al-Bayt a.s.

Fadak, they were neglected during the Saqifah shura, Battle of Jamal, etcetera.

It grieves and irritates me. Until today I still do not understand what was the problem. They are the Ale Muhammad and one's religion is not complete when there is no love for them.

They were the closest to Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. A siege of the House was the last thing they should have done.

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Talut

[Hassan-]

Dear brothers/sisters, @Fahad Sani has been proven wrong and a hypocrite on this topic here: 

This topic proves how abu bakr and umar were oppressors, how umar and abu bakr were cowards during the wars, and much more. 

 

[Hassan-]

and if you really wanna use videos for your arguments, then I will show this video which destroys all these wahabis in the videos you showed:

 

your sunni sect is nothing but lies after lies, brainwashing young kids to believing such false stories of the companions and hiding the ahlulbayt from them. I can't wait till Imam Mehdi (af) shows up and shows you people the real truth and the real islam.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Hassan Y

[ShiaMan14]

1 hour ago, Talut said:

Why do you think the fitna really started when Imam Ali a.s. became the caliph?

I don't know why but there was a grudge against the Banu Hasyim especially towards the Ahl al-Bayt a.s.

Fadak, they were neglected during the Saqifah shura, Battle of Jamal, etcetera.

It grieves and irritates me. Until today I still do not understand what was the problem. They are the Ale Muhammad and one's religion is not complete when there is no love for them.

They were the closest to Rasulullah s.a.w.a.s. A siege of the House was the last thing they should have done.

 

Salaam brother,

The exact people who come out against Imam Ali (as) during his caliphate would have come out against him if he would have become Caliph immediately after the Prophet (saw). But Islam was in such infancy that it could not have survived a civil war with plenty of external enemies such as the Persians and Byzantine. 

So Imam Ali did right by Islam and the Ummah and gave up his right to caliphate. Otherwise, their is no aspect where anyone else could be considered a better leader or option.

Why did this happen?

There is a long answer to this which I will try to post tomorrow IA.

Short answer is - one of the Caliphs and Abu Sufiyan were the last 2 members of the Shura that used to take place during the infancy of Islam to figure out how to destroy it.

[Hassan-]

Bukhari, in his Sahih, vol.II, p. 118; Muslim, in his Sahih (end of his Kitab al-Wasiyya); Hamidi in Jam'i Bainu's-Sahihain, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, vol.I, p. 222, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p. 563; Kirmani, in his Sharh al-Sahih Bukhari; Nuwi in his Sharh al-Muslim; Ibn Hajar, in his Sawa'iq; Qazi Abu ‘Ali; Qazi Ruzbahan; Qazi Ayaz; Imam Ghazali, Qutbu'd-din Shafi'i; Muhammad Ibn Abu'l-Karim Shahrastani, Ibn Athir; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani; Sibt Ibn Jauzi; and others of your ulama’ in general have confirmed this tragic episode.

They have written that the Holy Prophet on returning from his last pilgrimage fell ill. When a group of the companions came to see him, he said: "Bring me ink, and paper, so that I may write for you a will which will not let you go astray after me." Hamid Al-Ghazali has written in his Sirru'l-Alamin, Maqala IV, from which Sibt Ibn Jauzi also quotes in his Tadhkirat, p. 36, and many others of your eminent ulama’ have reported that the Holy Prophet asked the people to bring him ink and paper and according to some reports he said: "Bring me ink and paper so that I may remove from your minds all doubts about the caliphate after me; that is so that I may tell you who deserves the caliphate after me."

At this point they write, ‘Umar said, "Leave this man for he is really talking nonsense (may Allah forgive me!); the Book of Allah is sufficient for us." Some of the companions agreed with ‘Umar, and some agreed with the Holy Prophet. There was so much chaos and confusion that the Holy Prophet said: "Get away from me; it is not proper to become angry near me." This was the first disturbance among the Muslims in the presence of the Holy Prophet in all of his 23 years of his strenuous service. The cause of this trouble was ‘Umar, who sowed the seeds of discord among the Muslims. 
The name of the Holy Prophet should always be pronounced with due respect and deference. He should be called "the Prophet of Allah or the Seal of the Prophets." But ‘Umar showed no regard for the divine ordinance, instead referring to the Holy Prophet as "this man." 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, How do you have the audacity to love a man that disrespects the prophet like this? How do you have the audacity to put '(ra)' after his name? This is who @Fahad Sani thinks he is one who is 'promised jannah'. How can a man with disgusting behavior be allowed to lead the muslim ummah? 

[Talut]

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Salaam brother,

The exact people who come out against Imam Ali (as) during his caliphate would have come out against him if he would have become Caliph immediately after the Prophet (saw). But Islam was in such infancy that it could not have survived a civil war with plenty of external enemies such as the Persians and Byzantine. 

So Imam Ali did right by Islam and the Ummah and gave up his right to caliphate. Otherwise, their is no aspect where anyone else could be considered a better leader or option.

Why did this happen?

There is a long answer to this which I will try to post tomorrow IA.

Short answer is - one of the Caliphs and Abu Sufiyan were the last 2 members of the Shura that used to take place during the infancy of Islam to figure out how to destroy it.

I once read there was a clan feud between the Banu Hasyim and the Banu Umayya which started centuries before Islam.

[ShiaMan14]

17 minutes ago, Talut said:

I once read there was a clan feud between the Banu Hasyim and the Banu Umayya which started centuries before Islam.

Not centuries but 1-2 generation before the Prophet (saw).

[Fahad Sani]

Intention also matters. Moreover, there are also ahadith in praise of Abu bakr from the same Prophet s.a.w.w. We are neither stubborn nor ignorant. We understand matter considering all angels, all narrations which are truly authentic.

Bukhari :: Book 57 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 60

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima sent somebody to Abu Bakr asking him to give her her inheritance from the Prophet from what Allah had given to His Apostle through Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting). She asked for the Sadaqa (i.e. wealth assigned for charitable purposes) of the Prophet at Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus (i.e., one-fifth) of the Khaibar booty. Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘We (Prophets), our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is Sadaqa, but Muhammad’s Family can eat from this property, i.e. Allah’s property, but they have no right to take more than the food they need.’ By Allah! I will not bring any change in dealing with the Sadaqa of the Prophet (and will keep them) as they used to be observed in his (i.e. the Prophet’s) life-time, and I will dispose with it as Allah’s Apostle used to do,” Then ‘Ali said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and that Muhammad is His Apostle,” and added, “O Abu Bakr! We acknowledge your superiority.” Then he (i.e. ‘Ali) mentioned their own relationship to Allah’s Apostle and their right. Abu Bakr then spoke saying, “By Allah in Whose Hands my life is. I love to do good to the relatives of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own relatives” Abu Bark added: Look at Muhammad through his family (i.e. if you are no good to his family you are not good to him).

 

Bukhari :: Book 59 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 368

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.’ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”

 

Sunnan abi dawood; Kitab Al-Kharaj, Wal-Fai’ Wal-Imarah; hadith 2966

Narrated Umar ibn AbdulAziz:  Al-Mughirah (ibn Shu’bah) said: Umar ibn AbdulAziz gathered the family of Marwan when he was made caliph, and he said: Fadak belonged to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he made contributions from it, showing repeated kindness to the poor of the Banu Hashim from it, and supplying from it the cost of marriage for those who were unmarried. Fatimah asked him to give it to her, but he refused. That is how matters stood during the lifetime of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) till he passed on (i.e. died).

[Fahad Sani]

14 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

Bukhari, in his Sahih, vol.II, p. 118; Muslim, in his Sahih (end of his Kitab al-Wasiyya); Hamidi in Jam'i Bainu's-Sahihain, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, in his Musnad, vol.I, p. 222, Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha, vol. II, p. 563; Kirmani, in his Sharh al-Sahih Bukhari; Nuwi in his Sharh al-Muslim; Ibn Hajar, in his Sawa'iq; Qazi Abu ‘Ali; Qazi Ruzbahan; Qazi Ayaz; Imam Ghazali, Qutbu'd-din Shafi'i; Muhammad Ibn Abu'l-Karim Shahrastani, Ibn Athir; Hafiz Abu Nu'aim Ispahani; Sibt Ibn Jauzi; and others of your ulama’ in general have confirmed this tragic episode.

They have written that the Holy Prophet on returning from his last pilgrimage fell ill. When a group of the companions came to see him, he said: "Bring me ink, and paper, so that I may write for you a will which will not let you go astray after me." Hamid Al-Ghazali has written in his Sirru'l-Alamin, Maqala IV, from which Sibt Ibn Jauzi also quotes in his Tadhkirat, p. 36, and many others of your eminent ulama’ have reported that the Holy Prophet asked the people to bring him ink and paper and according to some reports he said: "Bring me ink and paper so that I may remove from your minds all doubts about the caliphate after me; that is so that I may tell you who deserves the caliphate after me."

At this point they write, ‘Umar said, "Leave this man for he is really talking nonsense (may Allah forgive me!); the Book of Allah is sufficient for us." Some of the companions agreed with ‘Umar, and some agreed with the Holy Prophet. There was so much chaos and confusion that the Holy Prophet said: "Get away from me; it is not proper to become angry near me." This was the first disturbance among the Muslims in the presence of the Holy Prophet in all of his 23 years of his strenuous service. The cause of this trouble was ‘Umar, who sowed the seeds of discord among the Muslims. 
The name of the Holy Prophet should always be pronounced with due respect and deference. He should be called "the Prophet of Allah or the Seal of the Prophets." But ‘Umar showed no regard for the divine ordinance, instead referring to the Holy Prophet as "this man." 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, How do you have the audacity to love a man that disrespects the prophet like this? How do you have the audacity to put '(ra)' after his name? This is who @Fahad Sani thinks he is one who is 'promised jannah'. How can a man with disgusting behavior be allowed to lead the muslim ummah? 

In authentic narrations about qirtaas such words are not mentioned. Here you are mixing weak and authentic narrations. So dont play dirty games here just to prove your point. Quran order us to do justice even with our enemies. Maida 8.

Answer to event of pen and paper from Ibn Abbas r.a himself. Link

 

 

 

[The Green Knight]

Does that make -any- sense or logic to you yourself first, why Prophets do not leave inheritance but meanwhile are entitled to own property? Are they an their offspring not human? Lastly, those hadiths imply that the Prophet's daughter was lying.

Although I do not wish to answer but perhaps someone will benefit: http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/fadak/inheritance-previous-prophets.html

[Hassan-]

7 hours ago, Fahad Sani said:

In authentic narrations about qirtaas such words are not mentioned. Here you are mixing weak and authentic narrations. So dont play dirty games here just to prove your point. Quran order us to do justice even with our enemies. Maida 8.

Answer to event of pen and paper from Ibn Abbas r.a himself. Link

 

 

 

I swear nothing is authentic for you, every sunni hadith I put you say 'NOT AUTHENTIC'. If everything is not authentic than it seems to me all these sunni scholars are nothing but liars lol. I will give you a hadith of sahih bukhari than since you consider it to be authentic (even though it's not, it has so many absurd hadiths).

 

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393:

Narrated Said bin Jubair:

that he heard Ibn 'Abbas saying, "Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn 'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn 'Abbas, "What is (about) Thursday?" He said, "When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.'The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, `Umar said, 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.' Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, 'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.' " The sub-narrator added, "The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.'

 

Regardless of the matter, umar prevented the prophet from writing his will, so the prophet told him to get out. Ibn Abbas started to cry because the prophet was prevented from writing his will.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Hassan Y

[ShiaMan14]

3 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

I swear nothing is authentic for you, every sunni hadith I put you say 'NOT AUTHENTIC'. If everything is not authentic than it seems to me all these sunni scholars are nothing but liars lol. I will give you a hadith of sahih bukhari than since you consider it to be authentic (even though it's not, it has so many absurd hadiths).

 

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393:

Narrated Said bin Jubair:

that he heard Ibn 'Abbas saying, "Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn 'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn 'Abbas, "What is (about) Thursday?" He said, "When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.'The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, `Umar said, 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.' Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, 'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.' " The sub-narrator added, "The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.'

 

Regardless of the matter, umar prevented the prophet from writing his will, so the prophet told him to get out. Ibn Abbas started to cry because the prophet was prevented from writing his will.

We always hear the same response to this narration that Ali (as) was present there so why didn't he bring the pen and paper.

Simple reason is that Ali was NOT part of the "I may write something for you after which you will never go astray." The fact that Caliph Umar responded is evidence enough that he was the one for whom the Prophet wanted to write "something" and he was the one who was going to go astray (and those following him). And by denying the pen and paper, his future actions showed that indeed he (Caliph Umar) did go astray. Unless, one accuses the Prophet of delirium - that would be the only way to let Caliph Umar off the hook.

[wmehar2]

I'm of the opinion Abu Bakr, Omar were misguided and perhaps with even good intentions made decisions that were not for the best.  I don't know what truly happened back 1400 years ago, as God only knows....

But Fadak has been returned to the Ahlul Bayt (unfortunately revoked later after then) by Sunni Caliphs both times.  Clearly even within Sunni ranks, there was opinion that Fadak should have been left to the Prophet SAW.

But I won't go to accuse or assume plotting and murder and scheming. 

There has been discussion before on these topics, all of it to me is just conjecture.   Nothing worth getting upset or calling the other liars or whatever.  It is evident at least from where I stand, that Mua'wiyah inherited the Caliphate unjustly, and made gross errors extending well beyond that of what Abu Bakr or Omar or Othman have made. 

I think we wrongly attribute "Rightly Guided" to those three, while I don't question their hearts or intentions in trying to lead the muslim people for the sake of Islam, I do question their judgment and capacity seeing as how they were not the Prophet SAW and there would already be a stark contrast during transitions.  If they were rightly guided, then this split, chaos that ensued would not have happened.

Who determines what's Rightly Guided anyway?

[Hassan-]

20 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

I'm of the opinion Abu Bakr, Omar were misguided and perhaps with even good intentions made decisions that were not for the best.  I don't know what truly happened back 1400 years ago, as God only knows....

But Fadak has been returned to the Ahlul Bayt (unfortunately revoked later after then) by Sunni Caliphs both times.  Clearly even within Sunni ranks, there was opinion that Fadak should have been left to the Prophet SAW.

But I won't go to accuse or assume plotting and murder and scheming. 

There has been discussion before on these topics, all of it to me is just conjecture.   Nothing worth getting upset or calling the other liars or whatever.  It is evident at least from where I stand, that Mua'wiyah inherited the Caliphate unjustly, and made gross errors extending well beyond that of what Abu Bakr or Omar or Othman have made. 

I think we wrongly attribute "Rightly Guided" to those three, while I don't question their hearts or intentions in trying to lead the muslim people for the sake of Islam, I do question their judgment and capacity seeing as how they were not the Prophet SAW and there would already be a stark contrast during transitions.  If they were rightly guided, then this split, chaos that ensued would not have happened.

Who determines what's Rightly Guided anyway?

Allah chooses who has the authority to lead the ummah, and the Prophet (from Allahs order) appointed Ali ibn abi Talib as the successor. 

@wmehar2 who do you think the Prophet appointed Ali or Abu bakr?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Hassan Y

[AkhiraisReal]

it stands that fahad sani is shia.

how can you be shia and like enemies of ahlul bayt?

[wmehar2]

44 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

Allah chooses who has the authority to lead the ummah, and the Prophet (from Allahs order) appointed Ali ibn abi Talib as the successor. 

@wmehar2 who do you think the Prophet appointed Ali or Abu bakr?

I think it was clear that the Prophet wanted his cousin and son-in-law Imam 'Ali ibn Abu Talib AS/RA to lead.  However I think he knew he would eventually lead, albeit for a short time.  I think he did know what would transpire and the fitnah to come.  And that he did attempt to prevent It as any decent human being would do, even knowing it would come to pass. 

"Muhammad had left Ali to look after his family, but the hypocrites of the time begun to spread the rumor that the prophet found Ali a burden and was relieved to be rid of his presence. Ali, grieved at hearing this wicked taunt, told Muhammad what the local people were saying. In reply, the Prophet said: "They lie, I bade thee remain for the sake of what I had left behind me. So return and represent me in my family and in thine. Art thou not content, O Ali, that thou should be unto me as Aaron was unto Moses, save that after me there is no prophet"

The message came, and now its on people to follow it and be left to sort it out.  I'm not a Shia', But I am certain the Prophet SAW appointed 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to lead the muslims, I am doubtful that he specifically wanted the lineage to also be the continuing to be the Khalifa, instead rather he wanted the most qualified of the muslims to lead, which I do believe were the lineage of Imam 'Ali, though a few Sunni Caliphs did have capacity to be benevolent and righteous leaders of the Muslims.

But now, the Imam's times have passed, there's potentially a Mahdi fitting in the mold of the Shia or Sunni or both (some Sunni's do believe in the Shia' Mahdi), though we do know for certain Isa Ibn Mariam is to return.  We have conjectures, past, arguments and no forward thinking and too much bickering and fighting over things people maybe did or didn't do thousands of years back.   Forgive, Forget, Learn.

@AkhiraisReal  Sunni's aren't the enemy of Shia, and neither are the Shia the enemies of the Sunni.  The greatest enemy that each sect has is from within.

[Talut]

8 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

I'm of the opinion Abu Bakr, Omar were misguided and perhaps with even good intentions made decisions that were not for the best.  I don't know what truly happened back 1400 years ago, as God only knows....

But Fadak has been returned to the Ahlul Bayt (unfortunately revoked later after then) by Sunni Caliphs both times.  Clearly even within Sunni ranks, there was opinion that Fadak should have been left to the Prophet SAW.

But I won't go to accuse or assume plotting and murder and scheming. 

There has been discussion before on these topics, all of it to me is just conjecture.   Nothing worth getting upset or calling the other liars or whatever.  It is evident at least from where I stand, that Mua'wiyah inherited the Caliphate unjustly, and made gross errors extending well beyond that of what Abu Bakr or Omar or Othman have made. 

I think we wrongly attribute "Rightly Guided" to those three, while I don't question their hearts or intentions in trying to lead the muslim people for the sake of Islam, I do question their judgment and capacity seeing as how they were not the Prophet SAW and there would already be a stark contrast during transitions.  If they were rightly guided, then this split, chaos that ensued would not have happened.

Who determines what's Rightly Guided anyway?

The term 'rightly guided' is just ideological.

They were all Sahaba and to call all of them 'rightly guided' does exclude the possibilty of Imamate.

 

[Talut]

7 hours ago, wmehar2 said:

The message came, and now its on people to follow it and be left to sort it out.  I'm not a Shia', But I am certain the Prophet SAW appointed 'Ali ibn Abi Talib to lead the muslims, I am doubtful that he specifically wanted the lineage to also be the continuing to be the Khalifa, instead rather he wanted the most qualified of the muslims to lead, which I do believe were the lineage of Imam 'Ali, though a few Sunni Caliphs did have capacity to be benevolent and righteous leaders of the Muslims.

I believe in Imamate untill that extent that if those who were caliph at their time were making errors or were leading the Ummah astray they (the Imams a.s.) would rise up and resist and not passively watch how the Ummah would be destroyed.

The Imams a.s. as how I see them were actually more than caliphs. They were protectors and correctors of the Ummah and its leadership.

I know his is a very new and revolutionairy view to some which is actually between caliphate and imamate.

However, I do not support the Taqiyyah modus as islam is a religion that expresses itself outwardly and is not something only in the mind or one has to hide all his life.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Talut

[ShiaMan14]

7 hours ago, Talut said:

However, I do not support the Taqiyyah modus as islam is a religion that expresses itself outwardly and is not something only in the mind or one has to hide all his life.

Brother - taqiyah by the Imams was not to prevent harm to themselves but to their followers. All rulers knew who the Imam of the time was and their assassinations is proof that they were known. Taqiyah was done by their followers exactly like how the Quran prescribes and how Hz Ammar did while the Prophet didnt.

7 hours ago, Talut said:

I believe in Imamate untill that extent that if those who were caliph at their time were making errors or were leading the Ummah astray they (the Imams a.s.) would rise up and resist and not passively watch how the Ummah would be destroyed.

The Imams a.s. as how I see them were actually more than caliphs. They were protectors and correctors of the Ummah and its leadership.

I know his is a very new and revolutionairy view to some which is actually between caliphate and imamate.

Since their is no compulsion in faith, I don't believe the role of the Imam was to ensure 100% of the Ummah did the right thing. 

People had to come to the Imams to seek guidance; the Imams the didn't do public dawah ie stand in the Plaza and announce "follow me". Sincere seekers of truth came to the Imams from all over the world.

To be honest, Caliphate of Ali was a right of the Ummah that was stolen in Saqifah. We deserved a Caliph like Ali. His one letter to Malik Al-Ashtar on governorship hangs in the UN today. Imagine if we had 25-30 years of his rulership!

[Talut]

On ‎14‎-‎2‎-‎2017 at 2:03 PM, shiaman14 said:

Brother - taqiyah by the Imams was not to prevent harm to themselves but to their followers. All rulers knew who the Imam of the time was and their assassinations is proof that they were known. Taqiyah was done by their followers exactly like how the Quran prescribes and how Hz Ammar did while the Prophet didnt.

Since their is no compulsion in faith, I don't believe the role of the Imam was to ensure 100% of the Ummah did the right thing. 

People had to come to the Imams to seek guidance; the Imams the didn't do public dawah ie stand in the Plaza and announce "follow me". Sincere seekers of truth came to the Imams from all over the world.

To be honest, Caliphate of Ali was a right of the Ummah that was stolen in Saqifah. We deserved a Caliph like Ali. His one letter to Malik Al-Ashtar on governorship hangs in the UN today. Imagine if we had 25-30 years of his rulership!

You don't have to agree with me brother. I respect Twelver Shia muslims and there are a lot of things we have in common but after a long time of studying it I could not reconcile the stance of Imam Ali a.s. towards the three first caliphs and the fact that he a.s. became a caliph himself afterwards with the concept of Imamate.

If caliphacy was illegitimate and Imamate was legitimate then something is not right.

Logically seen, you do not accept a kind of rulership that is the cause of the snatching away of your own right to rule.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Talut

[Talut]

On ‎13‎-‎2‎-‎2017 at 10:49 PM, wmehar2 said:

@AkhiraisReal  Sunni's aren't the enemy of Shia, and neither are the Shia the enemies of the Sunni.  The greatest enemy that each sect has is from within.

The last sentence is sufism.