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
fawad221

I am a Sunni looking for the truth

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Faruk said:

So you accuse and blame the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) of usurpation and misguidance yet you claim that Imam's passivity was saving Islam?

In all honesty I don't see the logic.

Does this seem logical to you that an incapable person should  be Chief Qazi ? 

While Hazrat Abu Bakar (رضي الله عنه) and Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) were caliphs and on the position of Chief Qazis but they had to take help of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for juriprudential matters ? So, who looks to you more entitled for caliphate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) or those who seek help ?

It is question which if you answer with justice, you will reach to justified answer. But if you not, then brother, I will not be asked about you nor you will be asked about me.

Edited by Flying_Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Faruk said:

So you accuse and blame the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) of usurpation and the cause of misguidance of the ummah yet you claim that Imam's passivity was saving Islam?

In all honesty I don't see the logic.

Yes, clear usurpation, they held a thing which they do not know how to manage, asking for help and saying that "O! people, if I am wrong, guide me". and saying "If Ali were not born, Umer would have perished". This shows who should have been on Khilafah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

While Hazrat Abu Bakar (رضي الله عنه) and Hazrat Umer (رضي الله عنه) were caliphs and on the position of Chief Qazis but they had to take help of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for juriprudential matters ? So, who looks to you more entitled for caliphate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) or those who seek help ?

⁷Those who Imam Ali (عليه السلام) gave his consent to rule.

Share this post


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

Yes, clear usurpation, they held a thing which they do not know how to manage, asking for help and saying that "O! people, if I am wrong, guide me". and saying "If Ali were not born, Umer would have perished". This shows who should have been on Khilafah. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knows better than you who should rule and who not. I stand with the position of Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Share this post


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

:hahaha:

You will go round and round brother. same thing again which I explained.

Same can be said about you.

You condemn the caliphacy of the Shaykhayn yet you interpret Imam's passivity as a rescue for the ummah.

A straight up contradiction.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you accuse and blame the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) of usurpation and the cause of misguidance of the ummah yet you claim that Imam's passivity was saving Islam?

In all honesty I don't see the logic.

Share this post


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

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) knows better than you who should rule and who not. I stand with the position of Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

You claim to be with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) yet you deny that his comments. I consider your claim to be devoid of practice.

Share this post


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

Salam I did not say so it was brother @Jaabir

Ok. @Ibn Al-Ja'abi I was in hurry and you could see that I wrote Hazrat Ayesha and did not say Muwawiya Hazrat which should itself make sense that I do not disrespect your beliefs. If you are hurt, I appologise to you, would make sure that it does not happen again. alright ?

Share this post


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

Same can be said about you.

You condemn the caliphacy of the Shaykhayn yet you interpret Imam's passivity as a rescue for the ummah.

A straight up contradiction.

well you can comfort yourself upon a lie that Shaykeen were eligible for khilafah, but their own conduct that they need a guide prove that they were not able guide themselves. I question their double standards, on one hand they sit on caliphate to guide all Muslims, on other hand they come to ask a person to guide them. A Muslim has one Allah and One heart as Allah says in Qur'an, and should have one tongue too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Faruk said:

yet you claim that Imam's passivity was saving Islam?

 

Salam brother,

The logic behind this is that the Imams were not passive, but rather silently active. They had to survive, because otherwise there would have been no guide and the Shi’as would have died off. The next Imam would then also not be if his father dies before him, because he won’t be born then. This resulted in the 200 million Shi’as we have today.

ws/wrb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mortadakerim said:

Salam brother,

The logic behind this is that the Imams were not passive, but rather silently active. They had to survive, because otherwise there would have been no guide and the Shi’as would have died off. The next Imam would then also not be if his father dies before him, because he won’t be born then. This resulted in the 200 million Shi’as we have today.

ws/wrb

Correction, there is more than 320 million Shia’s in the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mortadakerim said:

Salam brother,

The logic behind this is that the Imams were not passive, but rather silently active. They had to survive, because otherwise there would have been no guide and the Shi’as would have died off. The next Imam would then also not be if his father dies before him, because he won’t be born then. This resulted in the 200 million Shi’as we have today.

ws/wrb

Wa alaykum Salaam,

It maybe saved lives but not imamate.

That is why I believe that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) supported the caliphate willingly without a hidden agenda.

Nevertheless he (عليه السلام) was still the Imam as his consent was decisive for the legimitacy of the ruler.

That is why I believe in caliphate. The reason of the uprising of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was not because of imamate but because the Umayyads wanted to turn it into a monarchy for their own tribesmen.

As Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)  was not consent with this, real Islamic rulership lasted not longer but 30 years after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

It stopped right after the transfer of the caliphate from Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to the son of Abu Sufyan.

I'm not a Sunni though. I don't believe in Adalat al-Sahaba and I believe the consent of Imam Ali, Hassan & Hussain (عليه السلام) was decisive for rulership.

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 2:11 PM, Faruk said:

So you accuse and blame the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) of usurpation and the cause of misguidance of the ummah yet you claim that Imam's passivity was saving Islam?

I don’t consider a donkey seller (or an auctioneer) as a successor of a messenger.

In the dictionary of Tāj āl-ʿĀrūs, by the famous Ḥānafi scholar, Mūrtāḍha ʿāl-Zābīdī, volume 17, page 73,

āl-mūbārṭīsh: was ignored by āl-Jāwhari, āl-Ṣāġhani and Ṣāḥīb āl-Lisān (1), and it is: the auctioneer, or the courier between the buyer & seller. And it was related in the ḥādith: “Omar used to be a mūbārṭīsh in the jāhilīyah,” meaning, he used to rent donkeys and camels to people, and take on top of it a salary (jū’l). Or it’s [pronounced] with the sīn mūhmālah, as did I’bn Dūrāid see.

(1): Ṣāḥīb āl-Lisān is I’bn Mānḍhūr ʿāl-I’frīqī, the author of Līsān ʿāl-Arab.

ad7C1YN.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I don’t consider a donkey seller (or an auctioneer) as a successor of a messenger.

In the dictionary of Tāj āl-ʿĀrūs, by the famous Ḥānafi scholar, Mūrtāḍha ʿāl-Zābīdī, volume 17, page 73,

āl-mūbārṭīsh: was ignored by āl-Jāwhari, āl-Ṣāġhani and Ṣāḥīb āl-Lisān (1), and it is: the auctioneer, or the courier between the buyer & seller. And it was related in the ḥādith: “Omar used to be a mūbārṭīsh in the jāhilīyah,” meaning, he used to rent donkeys and camels to people, and take on top of it a salary (jū’l). Or it’s [pronounced] with the sīn mūhmālah, as did I’bn Dūrāid see.

(1): Ṣāḥīb āl-Lisān is I’bn Mānḍhūr ʿāl-I’frīqī, the author of Līsān ʿāl-Arab.

ad7C1YN.jpg

So what?

Islam is not an aristocratic or tribal thing.

It doesn't matter who or what you were before your conversion.

This Asabiyyah mentality should be erased out of Islam.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 4:12 PM, Faruk said:

So what?

Islam is not an aristocratic or tribal thing.

It doesn't matter who or what you were before your conversion.

This Asabiyyah mentality should be erased out of Islam.

In ʿal-Sunān ʿal-Kubrā, volume 1, page 165, by ʿal-Bāyhaqī.

492 - Narrated A’bu Abdillāh ʿal-Ḥāfiḍh, from A’bu-l Abbas Muḥamād bin Ahmad ʿal-Māḥbūbi in Merv, from Sāʾid bin Mās’ūd, from Ubāydullah bin Mūsā, from Israel, from ʿal-Miqdām bin Shurāyḥ, from his father, he said:

“I heard Aisha swearing by God, that no one saw the Prophet urinating while standing, since the Qurʾān was revealed to him.”

493 - Narrated A’bu Muḥamād Abdullah bin Yāḥya bin Abd ʿal-Jābbar ʿal-Sukāri in Baghdad, from Ismail bin Muḥamād ʿal-Ṣāffar, from Ahmad bin Mānṣūr ʿal-Rāmadi, from Abdulrazzāq, from I’bn Jurāyj, from Abdulkārim, from Nāfiʾ, from I’bn Omar, he said, Omar said:

The Prophet saw me urinating while standing, so he said: “O’ Omar! don’t urinate while standing!” so, I didn’t stand while urinating afterwards.

494 - Narrated A’bu Zākariya bin Aʾbi Isḥāq, from A’bu Bākr bin ʿal-Ḥāsan, from A’bu-l Abbas Muḥamād bin Yāqūb, from Bāḥr bin Nāṣr, from bin Wāhab, from Mālik bin Anās, from Abdullah bin Dinār, that he saw Abdullah bin Omar urinating while standing.

495 - Narrated Narrated A’bu Abdillāh ʿal-Ḥāfiḍh [in ijāza], from A’bu Bākr bin Isḥāq ʿal-Fāqih, from Abdullah bin Muḥamād, from Isḥāq, from Sufyān, from Muṭrif, from Saʾid bin Am’r bin Saʾid, he said:

Omar said: “Urinating while standing is safer for the anus!”

jquAzku.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 7:17 PM, Faruk said:

Wa alaykum Salaam,

It maybe saved lives but not imamate.

That is why I believe that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) supported the caliphate willingly without a hidden agenda.

Nevertheless he (عليه السلام) was still the Imam as his consent was decisive for the legimitacy of the ruler.

That is why I believe in caliphate. The reason of the uprising of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was not because of imamate but because the Umayyads wanted to turn it into a monarchy for their own tribesmen.

As Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)  was not consent with this, real Islamic rulership lasted not longer but 30 years after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

It stopped right after the transfer of the caliphate from Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to the son of Abu Sufyan.

I'm not a Sunni though. I don't believe in Adalat al-Sahaba and I believe the consent of Imam Ali, Hassan & Hussain (عليه السلام) was decisive for rulership.

 

 

'Ali became a lot more outspoken towards his caliphate when he had his base in Kufa. He would openly ask people about Ghadir (hadith of Ruhba) which can be found in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal which is a Sunni book! After all 'Ali refused to pledge allegience to Abu Bakr and only did after Umar's idea of threatening to burn down the house (narrated by both schools). Caliphate was an innovation in this sense because the senior companions chose to override the Amir which the Prophet (s) had chosen.

The uprising of Hussain was about imamate after all the letters from the Kufans say explicitly "come be our Imam". Hussain responded to their call and they betrayed him plain and simple. He dispensed his duty as an Imam and they betrayed him teaming up with the Umayyads to slaughter them at Karbala. 'Ali and Hasan had the same issue with their so called "Shia" who would often betray them. Nevertheless we are told there was to be 12 Imams and that the Mahdi will appear at some point, so the Shia concept of Imamate is a lot stronger than the concept of Caliphate imo. One is divinely ordained and one was created by the sahaba under very suspicious circumstances.

Unfortunately it was never meant to be they could just never get enough loyal Shia to back their cause and eventually the Imams became quietiest. The Umayyads fabricated hadiths which are now regarded as Sahih by the vast majority and the Shia ghulats elevated their Imams beyond normal means.

Edited by ali47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ali47 said:

'Ali became a lot more outspoken towards his caliphate when he had his base in Kufa. He would openly ask people about Ghadir (hadith of Ruhba) which can be found in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal which is a Sunni book! After all 'Ali refused to pledge allegience to Abu Bakr and only did after Umar's idea of threatening to burn down the house (narrated by both schools). Caliphate was an innovation in this sense because the senior companions chose to override the Amir which the Prophet (s) had chosen.

The uprising of Hussain was about imamate after all the letters from the Kufans say explicitly "come be our Imam". Hussain responded to their call and they betrayed him plain and simple. He dispensed his duty as an Imam and they betrayed him teaming up with the Umayyads to slaughter them at Karbala. 'Ali and Hasan had the same issue with their so called "Shia" who would often betray them. Nevertheless we are told there was to be 12 Imams and that the Mahdi will appear at some point, so the Shia concept of Imamate is a lot stronger than the concept of Caliphate imo. One is divinely ordained and one was created by the sahaba under very suspicious circumstances.

Unfortunately it was never meant to be they could just never get enough loyal Shia to back their cause and eventually the Imams became quietiest. The Umayyads fabricated hadiths which are now regarded as Sahih by the vast majority and the Shia ghulats elevated their Imams beyond normal means.

The facts are that he (عليه السلام). pledged allegiance and at least did not oppose the first three caliphs.

We can never be sure if he (عليه السلام). did it willingly or unwillingly (عليه السلام).

The safest position to me is to judge by the apparent as that is always a proof in itself.

I am not saying that imamate is an invention. 

What I am saying is that the legitimacy of the caliphs was a matter of the consent of the Imams which was not the case with the rulership of Yazid.

Share this post


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

The facts are that he (عليه السلام). pledged allegiance and at least did not oppose the first three caliphs.

We can never be sure if he (عليه السلام). did it willingly or unwillingly (عليه السلام).

The safest position to me is to judge by the apparent as that is always a proof in itself.

I am not saying that imamate is an invention. 

What I am saying is that the legitimacy of the caliphs was a matter of the consent of the Imams which was not the case with the rulership of Yazid.

Indeed what choice did he have? The narrations are clear that he refused allegience and that 'Umar made a threat to burn the house. Does that make the 3 caliphs legitimate? Of course the Umayyads created the hadiths to say that 'Ali later pledged allegience willingly because he "thought he had a right" but decided he no longer had. This is to avoid narrating the embarassing event of Umar's threats which can be found in other Sunni and Shia sources.

If you consult the sources you will see he gave allegience unwillingly and that it was most likely the threats to burn the house which made him do so. Again I ask, does Imam Ali pledging allegience based on coercion make their claims legitimate? 'Ali served the best interests of Islam and tried to guide them to the truth of their actions.

Round the time of Muawiyah's reign when the fabricated hadiths were being created and Imam Ali's Shia were being killed, 'Ali started to make matters clear about him and the Shaykhs. This is why there are so many pro-Abu Bakr and pro-Umar hadiths to counter Ali and his Shia's claims. Indeed Muawiyah paid people to fabricate these traditions and people like Amr ibn Al As and Abu Hurayrah did so willingly. This is why the matter may be unclear to you my brother, the Umayyads had to reduce 'Ali's claim in order to secure their leadership.

You might ask how I am so certain that the Umayyad hadiths have been forged. The answer is our Imams have told us this and given us examples. An easy one is that Abu Bakr and Umar are the old men of paradise - clearly an attempt our fifth Imam says to counter the hadith that Hasan and Husayn are the masters of the youth of paradise. In fact, this hadith apparently narrated by 'Ali has been declared weak (da'if) even by the Sunni scholars who came years later. I ask, if everything was fine between Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, why was there this desire to create narrations and attribute them to 'Ali about loving the caliphs so much?

There are many more examples and I can provide them if you wish. Despite the fabrications in the "Sahih" books the truth still shines:

Narrated Hubshi bin Junadah:
that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "'Ali is from me and I am from 'Ali. And none should represent me except myself or 'Ali."
 
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ حُبْشِيِّ بْنِ جُنَادَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ عَلِيٌّ مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْ عَلِيٍّ وَلاَ يُؤَدِّي عَنِّي إِلاَّ أَنَا أَوْ عَلِيٌّ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏
Grade Hasan (Darussalam)  
English reference  : Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3719

 

 

 : Book 49, Hadith 4085

 

Here is an extract from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal (one of the Sunni Imams) about 'Ali in Kufa about 25 years after the event of Ghadir Khumm, asking those who heard the Prophet (s) declare him mawla to stand up and testify. There are a lot of hadiths in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal about Ghadir itself and this Sermon (of Ruhbah). Does this not prove Ali's entitlement to leadership along with all the other historical evidence? Why did certain companions not treat him like their mawla?

image.thumb.png.7ca800a03c25e65eba755c3f74a78c41.png

 

Edited by ali47

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ali47 said:

Again I ask, does Imam Ali pledging allegience based on coercion make their claims legitimate? 

Yes.

Why?

Because the attitude and actions of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) are the norm.

Not the atrocities committed towards him (عليه السلام).

 

6 hours ago, ali47 said:

An easy one is that Abu Bakr and Umar are the old men of paradise - clearly an attempt our fifth Imam says to counter the hadith that Hasan and Husayn are the masters of the youth of paradise.

I agree with this one. Thank you.

But this only is contrary to the superiority of the Itra over the Sahaba. Not in defence of the 12er imamate concept.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Faruk said:

Not in defence of the 12er imamate concept.

In Ṣāḥih Muslim, page 882, ḥādith (1821), print of Dār Ṭeebā.

Narrated Qutāybah bin Sāʾid, from Jārir, from Ḥuṣāyn, from Jābir bin Sāmura, he said:

I joined the company of the Prophet with my father and I heard him say: “This caliphate will not end until there have been twelve caliphs among them.” The narrator said: Then he said something that I could not follow. I said to my father: What did he say? He said: He has said: “All of them will be from the Qurāysh.”
 
EiCgxML.jpg
 
6iz03MH.png
 
Who are your twelve caliphs? Name them.
Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

This caliphate will not end until there have been twelve caliphs among them

First let’s establish what a caliphate  according to Sunni theology is. Is it rulership by caliph? Because the last Islamic caliph (according to Sunnis lived a long time ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 8:30 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

then they specially Abu Hanifa betrayed & became silenced when Zaid (رضي الله عنه) asked for help

If Hazrat Zaid (رضي الله عنه) assembled an army, then why did he ask for help? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 1:27 AM, fawad221 said:

Why do Shias hate Umar and Abu Bakr so much? I am really confused in the Sunni view it says that Ali was fine with them becoming caliphs before him, I just want to know the truth I want to get close to Allah and seek knowledge I don't want to commit any fitna or shirk I just want to be aware of the truth, Allah knows best and I am very young and fear Allah and would like Allah to be pleased with me when I die  

Does Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) love those

1.  Who acted against the teachings and Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

2. Who didn't listen to the Prophet advices?

3. Who made up false stories about the Prophet?

4. Who claimed to be followers of the Prophet and fought bloody battles with the intend to kill?

Shias found some inconsistent behavior among early followers of the Prophet as well as very consistent followers. 

Ahlul Bayt were the most consistent group of followers in term of behavior.  Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) like them and mentioning them ahead of time ( while the Prophet was physically alive) in surah 33 ayat 33

...And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.

If the above ayat was revealed specifically for Abu Bakr and Umar, we will not having problems with Shia vs Sunnis.  But, the ayat was specifically for Ahlul Bayt.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all and purify us as He did to Ahlul Bayt, insyaAllah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 8:30 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

hen they specially Abu Hanifa betrayed & became silenced when Zaid (رضي الله عنه) asked for help that Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) says who hears his call for support & doesn't support him is like as persons that heard call of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & didn't help him

He issued a fatwa to support him (عليه السلام) and gave him financial support. This is confirmed by Sunni's and zaidi's so what do you mean with betrayed and became silenced?

Share this post


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

He issued a fatwa to support him (عليه السلام) and gave him financial support. This is confirmed by Sunni's and zaidi's so what do you mean with betrayed and became silenced?

Are you going to name me the twelve caliphs you should believe in? The ḥādith is in Ṣāḥih Muslim above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2019 at 5:27 AM, fawad221 said:

Why do Shias hate Umar and Abu Bakr so much? I am really confused in the Sunni view it says that Ali was fine with them becoming caliphs before him, I just want to know the truth I want to get close to Allah and seek knowledge I don't want to commit any fitna or shirk I just want to be aware of the truth, Allah knows best and I am very young and fear Allah and would like Allah to be pleased with me when I die  

I'm glad you're looking into Islam and wish you the best of success :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mortadakerim said:

If Hazrat Zaid (رضي الله عنه) assembled an army, then why did he ask for help? 

Salam he assembled a little army & expected support from persons like Abu Hanifa in city but they betrayed him & most of his little army scattered  after their betrayal that few loyal men remained for him that all of them martyred .

Quote

He issued a fatwa to support him (عليه السلام) and gave him financial support. This is confirmed by Sunni's and zaidi's so what do you mean with betrayed and became silenced?

@Faruk

Imam Reza (عليه السلام) said that Zaid (رضي الله عنه) was the only person that his uprising was for returning right to Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) so when people like Abu Hanifa that in heart were against Shia Imams ,betrayed him to prevent him from giving caliphate to Shia Imams that Sunnis sources created topics to support Ummayid & Abbasid rulers that later Zaidis accepted a part of it because of distortion in their main idea by internal agents of Abbasyds between them that derived them a little away from Shia Imams that these deviated zaydi groups later condemned by Imam Jawad  (عليه السلام) although all Imams even Imam Jawad (عليه السلام) highly praised Zayd (رضي الله عنه) & his movement but also they fixed many of their wrong belief too but a little bit of these fake histories about Abu Hanifa & etc remained in their history that maybe at first was for Taqyia but later they accepted it as a truth.

There are hadiths narrated from Imam al-Jawad (a) in which he (a) considered Zaydiyya and Waqifiyya similar to Nasibis.[45] He (a) said that the verses "Some faces on that day will be humbled, (2) wrought-up and weary" (Qur'an 88:2-3) were revealed about them.[46] Also, Imam al-Jawad (a) prohibited his companions from following Waqifiyya in congregational prayers.[47]

Imam al-Jawad (a) also cursed Ghulat [exaggerators] such as Abu l-Khattab and his followers. 

http://en.wikishia.net/view/Imam_Muhammad_b._'Ali_al-Jawad_(a)

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mortadakerim said:

If Hazrat Zaid (رضي الله عنه) assembled an army, then why did he ask for help? 

Salam he assembled a little army & expected support from persons like Abu Hanifa in city but they betrayed him & most of his little army scattered  after their betrayal that few loyal men remained for him that all of them martyred .

Quote

He issued a fatwa to support him (عليه السلام) and gave him financial support. This is confirmed by Sunni's and zaidi's so what do you mean with betrayed and became silenced?

@Faruk

Imam Reza (عليه السلام) said that Zaid (رضي الله عنه) was the only person that his uprising was for returning right to Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) so when people like Abu Hanifa that in heart were against Shia Imams ,betrayed him to prevent him from giving caliphate to Shia Imams that Sunnis sources created topics to support Ummayid & Abbasid rulers that later Zaidis accepted a part of it because of distortion in their main idea by internal agents of Abbasyds between them that derived them a little away from Shia Imams which these deviated zaydi groups later condemned by Imam Jawad  (عليه السلام) although all Imams even Imam Jawad (عليه السلام) highly praised Zayd (رضي الله عنه) & his movement but also they fixed many of their wrong belief too but a little bit of these fake histories about Abu Hanifa & etc remained in their history that maybe at first was for Taqyia but later they accepted it as a truth also two persons with Zayd name did uprising against caliphates that first one was Zayd ibn Ali (رضي الله عنه) that praised by all Imams & the second one was brother of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) that Imam Reza diassociated from him because of his wrong intention & behavior that second Zayd followere mixed with first group of Zaydis & distorted their beliefs 

Imam Reza (as):

My father, Musa ibn Ja'far, quoted saying that he had heard from his father Ja'far ibn Muhammad, who said: ... Zayd consulted me for his uprising; I told him: "my uncle, if you would like to be the  person that would be hanged in Kanasah (Kufa) That's your way". When Zayd came out of the presence of Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him), Imam said: "Woe to  anyone that who  hears his call and doesn't help him."

Mamoun! Do not compare Zayd (Imam Reza's brother) with Zayd bin Ali (son of Imam Sajjad); he was a scholar of the Prophet's family; he was angry for Allah and fought against his enemies and was martyred on his way. O Mamuon! My father, Musa ibn Ja'far (عليه السلام), said: "May Allah have mercy on my uncle Zayd, if he was succeeded, he would fulfill his promise [he would gave ruler ship to the  Imam Sadiq (as)]

 In the following, Ma'mun asked Eighths Imam : "Is Zayed ibn Ali not among those who  claimed  the Imamate without the right?" Imam said: no! Zayd did not claim to be Imam and did not invite anyone that was not qualify, he had piety and said, "I call you what is pleasing to the family of the mission."

Uyūn akhbār al-Riḍā v 1 p 248 

https://www.farsnews.com/news/13930813000293/آیا-قیام-زید-در-خونخواهی-از-سیدالشهدا-ع-مورد-تأیید-بود-تصاویر

http://en.wikishia.net/view/'Uyun_akhbar_al-Rida_(a)_(book)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam he assembled a little army & expected support from persons like Abu Hanifa in city but they betrayed him & most of his little army scattered  after their betrayal that few loyal men remained for him that all of them martyred .

Wa Aleikum Asalam

It seems there is dispute about Zaid (رضي الله عنه), but I am not entitled to speak about history, so I will keep silent on this. If someone betrayed our beloved Zaid (رضي الله عنه), then I disassociate myself from him/her.

Edited by Mortadakerim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth?

 

Stick to calling yourself a Muslim and stick to Ahlus Sunnah wa'al Jamat

 

Those who try and create fitnah and fassad between the Shaykhain, the two principle companions of the Prophet saw , and Ahlul Bayt are those who you should avoid. 

The following narrations sum up the relation of Umar (رضي الله عنه) and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Ali and Ahlul Bayt:

 

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ، وَصَدَقَةُ، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ارْقُبُوا مُحَمَّدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ‏

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 3751

Narrated Ibn `Umar:

Abu Bakr used to say, "Please Muhammad (I.e. the Prophet) by doing good to his family."

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، يَقُولُ وُضِعَ عُمَرُ عَلَى سَرِيرِهِ، فَتَكَنَّفَهُ النَّاسُ يَدْعُونَ وَيُصَلُّونَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُرْفَعَ، وَأَنَا فِيهِمْ، فَلَمْ يَرُعْنِي إِلاَّ رَجُلٌ آخِذٌ مَنْكِبِي، فَإِذَا عَلِيٌّ فَتَرَحَّمَ عَلَى عُمَرَ، وَقَالَ مَا خَلَّفْتَ أَحَدًا أَحَبَّ إِلَىَّ أَنْ أَلْقَى اللَّهَ بِمِثْلِ عَمَلِهِ مِنْكَ، وَايْمُ اللَّهِ، إِنْ كُنْتُ لأَظُنُّ أَنْ يَجْعَلَكَ اللَّهُ مَعَ صَاحِبَيْكَ، وَحَسِبْتُ أَنِّي كُنْتُ كَثِيرًا أَسْمَعُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ذَهَبْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ، وَدَخَلْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ، وَخَرَجْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ‏.‏


Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

 

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي حُسَيْنٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، قَالَ رَأَيْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ وَحَمَلَ الْحَسَنَ وَهْوَ يَقُولُ بِأَبِي شَبِيهٌ بِالنَّبِيِّ، لَيْسَ شَبِيهٌ بِعَلِيٍّ‏.‏ وَعَلِيٌّ يَضْحَكُ‏.‏

Sahih al-Bukhari 3750

Narrated `Uqba bin Al-Harith:

I saw Abu Bakr carrying Al-Hasan and saying, "Let my father be sacrificed for you; you resemble the Prophet and not `Ali," while `Ali was laughing at this.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا، يَقُولُ خَيْرُ النَّاسِ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَخَيْرُ النَّاسِ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ عُمَرُ ‏.‏
 
 
It was narrated that 'Abdullah bin Salimah said:
"I heard 'Ali say: 'The best of people after the Messenger of Allah is Abu Bakr, and the best of people after Abu Bakr is 'Umar.'"
 
Sahih al-Bukhari 3671
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا جَامِعُ بْنُ أَبِي رَاشِدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو يَعْلَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ ابْنِ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لأَبِي أَىُّ النَّاسِ خَيْرٌ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ مَنْ قَالَ ثُمَّ عُمَرُ‏.‏ وَخَشِيتُ أَنْ يَقُولَ عُثْمَانُ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَنْتَ قَالَ مَا أَنَا إِلاَّ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ‏.‏

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya:

I asked my father (`Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then `Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you?" He said, "I am only an ordinary person.

 

 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abu Shareef said:

The truth?

 

Stick to calling yourself a Muslim and stick to Ahlus Sunnah wa'al Jamat

 

Those who try and create fitnah and fassad between the Shaykhain, the two principle companions of the Prophet saw , and Ahlul Bayt are those who you should avoid. 

The following narrations sum up the relation of Umar (رضي الله عنه) and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Ali and Ahlul Bayt:

 

حَدَّثَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ، وَصَدَقَةُ، قَالاَ أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ارْقُبُوا مُحَمَّدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ‏

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 3751

Narrated Ibn `Umar:

Abu Bakr used to say, "Please Muhammad (I.e. the Prophet) by doing good to his family."

 

Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، يَقُولُ وُضِعَ عُمَرُ عَلَى سَرِيرِهِ، فَتَكَنَّفَهُ النَّاسُ يَدْعُونَ وَيُصَلُّونَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُرْفَعَ، وَأَنَا فِيهِمْ، فَلَمْ يَرُعْنِي إِلاَّ رَجُلٌ آخِذٌ مَنْكِبِي، فَإِذَا عَلِيٌّ فَتَرَحَّمَ عَلَى عُمَرَ، وَقَالَ مَا خَلَّفْتَ أَحَدًا أَحَبَّ إِلَىَّ أَنْ أَلْقَى اللَّهَ بِمِثْلِ عَمَلِهِ مِنْكَ، وَايْمُ اللَّهِ، إِنْ كُنْتُ لأَظُنُّ أَنْ يَجْعَلَكَ اللَّهُ مَعَ صَاحِبَيْكَ، وَحَسِبْتُ أَنِّي كُنْتُ كَثِيرًا أَسْمَعُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ذَهَبْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ، وَدَخَلْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ، وَخَرَجْتُ أَنَا وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ‏.‏


Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

 

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدَانُ، أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ أَبِي حُسَيْنٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، قَالَ رَأَيْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ وَحَمَلَ الْحَسَنَ وَهْوَ يَقُولُ بِأَبِي شَبِيهٌ بِالنَّبِيِّ، لَيْسَ شَبِيهٌ بِعَلِيٍّ‏.‏ وَعَلِيٌّ يَضْحَكُ‏.‏

Sahih al-Bukhari 3750

Narrated `Uqba bin Al-Harith:

I saw Abu Bakr carrying Al-Hasan and saying, "Let my father be sacrificed for you; you resemble the Prophet and not `Ali," while `Ali was laughing at this.

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا، يَقُولُ خَيْرُ النَّاسِ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَخَيْرُ النَّاسِ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ عُمَرُ ‏.‏
 
 
It was narrated that 'Abdullah bin Salimah said:
"I heard 'Ali say: 'The best of people after the Messenger of Allah is Abu Bakr, and the best of people after Abu Bakr is 'Umar.'"
 
Sahih al-Bukhari 3671
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ كَثِيرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا جَامِعُ بْنُ أَبِي رَاشِدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو يَعْلَى، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ ابْنِ الْحَنَفِيَّةِ، قَالَ قُلْتُ لأَبِي أَىُّ النَّاسِ خَيْرٌ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ مَنْ قَالَ ثُمَّ عُمَرُ‏.‏ وَخَشِيتُ أَنْ يَقُولَ عُثْمَانُ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَنْتَ قَالَ مَا أَنَا إِلاَّ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ‏.‏

Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiya:

I asked my father (`Ali bin Abi Talib), "Who are the best people after Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ?" He said, "Abu Bakr." I asked, "Who then?" He said, "Then `Umar. " I was afraid he would say "Uthman, so I said, "Then you?" He said, "I am only an ordinary person.

 

 
 

 

I wonder why those considered the two best Muslims after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were the very two who became caliphs right after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). without a proper consultation.

Not saying the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) were bad or whatever but it's obvious the ahaadith you cited are politically motivated.

The Umayyads used all means to belittle Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Their first concern wasn't the belief in imamate but the status of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) in particular and they used all means to degrade the latter.

Plain Umawi heritage.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 11:31 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam he assembled a little army & expected support from persons like Abu Hanifa in city but they betrayed him & most of his little army scattered  after their betrayal that few loyal men remained for him that all of them martyred .

@Faruk

Imam Reza (عليه السلام) said that Zaid (رضي الله عنه) was the only person that his uprising was for returning right to Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) so when people like Abu Hanifa that in heart were against Shia Imams ,betrayed him to prevent him from giving caliphate to Shia Imams that Sunnis sources created topics to support Ummayid & Abbasid rulers that later Zaidis accepted a part of it because of distortion in their main idea by internal agents of Abbasyds between them that derived them a little away from Shia Imams which these deviated zaydi groups later condemned by Imam Jawad  (عليه السلام) although all Imams even Imam Jawad (عليه السلام) highly praised Zayd (رضي الله عنه) & his movement but also they fixed many of their wrong belief too but a little bit of these fake histories about Abu Hanifa & etc remained in their history that maybe at first was for Taqyia but later they accepted it as a truth also two persons with Zayd name did uprising against caliphates that first one was Zayd ibn Ali (رضي الله عنه) that praised by all Imams & the second one was brother of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) that Imam Reza diassociated from him because of his wrong intention & behavior that second Zayd followere mixed with first group of Zaydis & distorted their beliefs 

Imam Reza (as):

My father, Musa ibn Ja'far, quoted saying that he had heard from his father Ja'far ibn Muhammad, who said: ... Zayd consulted me for his uprising; I told him: "my uncle, if you would like to be the  person that would be hanged in Kanasah (Kufa) That's your way". When Zayd came out of the presence of Imam Sadiq (peace be upon him), Imam said: "Woe to  anyone that who  hears his call and doesn't help him."

Mamoun! Do not compare Zayd (Imam Reza's brother) with Zayd bin Ali (son of Imam Sajjad); he was a scholar of the Prophet's family; he was angry for Allah and fought against his enemies and was martyred on his way. O Mamuon! My father, Musa ibn Ja'far (عليه السلام), said: "May Allah have mercy on my uncle Zayd, if he was succeeded, he would fulfill his promise [he would gave ruler ship to the  Imam Sadiq (as)]

 In the following, Ma'mun asked Eighths Imam : "Is Zayed ibn Ali not among those who  claimed  the Imamate without the right?" Imam said: no! Zayd did not claim to be Imam and did not invite anyone that was not qualify, he had piety and said, "I call you what is pleasing to the family of the mission."

Uyūn akhbār al-Riḍā v 1 p 248 

https://www.farsnews.com/news/13930813000293/آیا-قیام-زید-در-خونخواهی-از-سیدالشهدا-ع-مورد-تأیید-بود-تصاویر

http://en.wikishia.net/view/'Uyun_akhbar_al-Rida_(a)_(book)

 

So your actual point is that Twelvers have no sympathy for any Shia or Sunni denomination except their own?

I am truly asking myself if you guys really believe that such bigotry was the case between the opposition groups and diffirent Imams at that time and that the only reliable narrative about Zaidiyyah comes from you and not from their selves.

Books from both the Ahnaf and Zaidi's confirm there was positive cooperation between the two.

And as always you guys try to make it a bad or opportunist intention matter.

He accepted but ...

They worked together but ...

You guys are really experts in this. :D

 

 

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

I wonder why those considered the two best Muslims after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were the very two who became caliphs right after the death of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). without a proper consultation.

Not saying the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) were bad or whatever but it's obvious the ahaadith you cited are politically motivated.

The Umayyads used all means to belittle Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Their first concern wasn't the belief in imamate but the status of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the Ahl al-Bayt (عليه السلام) in particular and they used all means to degrade the latter.

Plain Umawi heritage.

 

The Shaykhain, may Allah be pleased with them, are innocent of what their enemies accuse them of.

Some of the Banu Umayyah and the tulaqa were indeed enemies of Ahlul Bayt and I won't conceal any of their crimes and misdeeds. Infact it's sad to see today some among Ahlus Sunnah try and brush aside and even defend what Ameer Muawiyah and what his son Yazeed did. No alim from Ahlus Sunnah recognizes Ameer Muawiyah as a rightly guided khalifa. What they did to Ali and the family of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is vile and deplorable and the truth is they were on a path to corrupt the practices within the Deen itself. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Abu Shareef

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.


×
×
  • Create New...