Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SHIA-OF-ALI

QUESTIONS FOR THE SUNNI'S

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah) (salam) :)

There are some questions for THE SUNNI'S to try to answer. K-F-C kids welcome :)

QUESTION 1

There are many battles related to Islam and in those battles the "3 caliphs" of sunnis also took part ... and after the period of Holy Prophet (pbuh) they also took part in many battles and wars But give me the name of a single non muslim who was killed by the first "3 Caliphs". :unsure:

QUESTION 2

Tell me or describe to me one single problem solved by "3 caliphs" in accordance with Quran and sunna. Tell only one not more. you can use your own or our Books. :unsure: P.S "IF NOT FOR ALI UMAR WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED"

QUESTION 3

Prove from any of your books that the "3 Caliphs" were the Huffaz of Quran. And they had full command on quran. These things are necessary for a Caliph. :unsure:

QUESTION 4

"3 Caliphs" took part in Uhad , Handak Hunain, Haibar, but what was the special thing they achieved in those wars. :unsure:

QUESTION 5

It is orderd in quran to Reciet Quran in tarteel . But is it practise in trawi? :unsure:

QUESTION 6

Abu hurarira stated 17000 hadiths but could you tell when he embaraced Islam. And what did Ayesha say to him. Did she believe that he was a sincere person and to him she could believe in and trust? :unsure:

QUESTION 7

Prove that Holy prophet (pbuh) Iftar Roza with hearing the voice of Azan??? :unsure:

QUESTION 8

During the lifetime of the Holy prophet (pbuh), the people who stole any thing , what was done to them, was his/her hands cut off or just fingers??? :unsure:

QUESTION 9

40 ulamas of sunnis discussed about the Qadianies but could not prove them kafir. But tell me who defeated them and called them Kafir? :unsure:

QUESTION 10

Nishan -Haidar is given to the persons who loose his life for his country and do a great work for Pakistan. This neshaan(sign) is on Ali (as) name. Can the sunni's tell me any Sign of this type in any country of Muslim Umma? :unsure:

QUESTION 11

Prove from any of your books or from our books that 3 "Caliphs" were greater in rank in any one of these. Baravry, Shkhawat, Rahim, Ibadat , Shajra-e-Nasb? :unsure:

QUESTION 12

Why do you follow the bidat of umar every year during ramadan :unsure:

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to answer to qurstion 9 and 10

QUESTION 9

40 ulamas of sunnis discussed about the Qadianies but could not prove them kafir. But tell to who defeated them and called them Kafir?

peer mehar ali shah (ra) of golra sharif (rawalpindi) (1859-1937)

he were the one who confronted mirza qadiyan, and wanted him to meet him in a debate in lahore. now the wahabi, sunni and shia ullemas gathered around him and supported mehar ali shah (ra) , mirza qadiyan newer showed up. and the decleration to prove them kaafirs were proven alot before the constitution during zia ul haq.

QUESTION 10

Nishan -Haidar is given to the persons who loose his life for his country and do a great work for Pakistan. This neshaan(sign) is on Ali name. Can the sunni's tell me any Sign of this type in any country of Muslim Umma?

i dont know what you mean in here. i dont know if other countries have this nishaan. but the nishan e haider is given for bravery in the battlefield and it represent the bravery of hazrat ali (ra) , surely he were asadullah (lion of Allah swt)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTION 1

There are many battles related to Islam and in those battles the "3 caliphs" of sunnis also took part ... and after the period of Holy Prophet they also took part in many battles and wars But give me the name of a single non muslim who was killed by the first "3 Caliphs".

just want to add, that we believe in hazrat ali (ra) too as khalifa rashedeen, but since you ask for information on the three then i will only give information on the three. i will try my best as i am not an aalim or well knower within islam.

hazrat abu bakr (ra)

He fought in almost all the battles along with the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam). In the first battle of Islam at Badr he was with the Holy Prophet like a shadow. His own son, who had not embraced Islam by that time, was fighting on the side of Quraish. After he accepted Islam he said to Abu Bakr one day, "Dear father! I found you twice under my sword at Badr but I could not raise my hand because of my love for you". "if I had got a chance", Abu Bakr replied, "I would have killed you". It was Abu Bakr's suggestion on which the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) decided to release the prisoners of war after taking ransom.

In the battle of Uhud when some of the Muslims were running away, Abu Bakr was firm and when the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu'alaihi wa Sallam) was brought on the mountain after being injured, he was with him.

Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) was the first companion to accept the peace plan of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) without any hesitation at Hudaibiyah when all the Muslims insisted upon fighting. Even a Muslim like Umar (R.A.) hesitated to accept the treaty with the non-believers of Mecca but Hadrat Abu Bakr fully supported the Holy Prophet's decision.

On the occasion of Tabuk expedition Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) brought everything that he possessed. When the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) asked him, "What did you leave for your family?" Abu Bakr (R.A.) said, "I have left for them Allah and his Prophet". Even Hadrat Umar (R.A.) admitted that he could never hope to surpass Abu Bakr (R.A.) in his sacrifice for the cause of Allah and Islam.

his caliphate

After the death of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam), the Arabs were on all sides rising in rebellion. Apostasy and disaffection raised their heads. Christians and Jews were filled with unrest. Some Muslim tribes refused to pay Zakat to the Caliph for "Baitul Mal" (the Public Treasury). Some disbelievers declared themselves to be prophets. There were many problems and much confusion. Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) faced all these with unparalleled courage and the highest degree of Iman (Faith) which is the characteristic of a "SIDDIQ". At this place I would like to point out that "SIDDIQIAT" is the highest stage of Iman (Faith) and "Tawakkul" (Trust in Allah) after prophethood as pointed out in the following verse of the Holy Qur'an

*these people who decleared themselves to be prophet were killed by abu bakr (ra) army , and surely these people were non muslims.

hazrat umar farooq (ra)

Hadrat Umar (R.A.) had great love for Allah and the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam). He participated in almost all the big battles: Badr, Uhad, Ahzab, Khaibar, Hunain etc. In the expedition to "Tabuk" he gave half of his wealth in the path of Allah. He was next to Hadrat Abu Bakr (R.A.) to sacrifice his belongings for the cause of Allah.

The Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) also had a deep love for him. Once he remarked, "were a prophet to come after me, he would have been Umar". In another Hadith mentioned in Bukhari, Hadrat Abu Hurairah (R.A.) narrated that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu'alaihi wa Sallam) said, "In Bani Isra'il (Israelites) there were people who were not prophets but talked to Allah. Were anyone in my Ummah (people) like those persons, he would be Umar".

his caliphate

he were incharge when the empires of byzants and persia had to fall for muslim hands. and they were non muslims.

hazrat uthman ghani (ra)

He was a very prominent Muslim to serve Islam by all means. He participated in almost all the battles with the non-believers in which the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) had also taken part, except "Badr". At the time of the "Treaty of Hudaibiya" he was sent to Mecca to negotiate with the non-believers. Then the Muslims were wrongly informed about his murder by the non-believers of Mecca. It is for this reason that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) sought a pledge by the Muslims to fight with the non-believers in revenge of his murder. That pledge is known as "Bai'at al-Ridwan" (the Pledge of Ridwan). For Uthman’s pledge, the Holy Prophet(Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) put his left hand (representing Uthman's hand) on his right hand.

When the number of Muslims increased, the Prophet's mosque became too small to accommodate the increasing population, it was Uthman (R.A.) who responded to the Prophet's call and bought land for its extension. When the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu 'alaihi wa Sallam) went to the expedition of Tabuk, Hadrat Uthman bore the expenses for one third Islamic army (i.e., about 10,000 men). He also gave one thousand camels, fifty horses and one thousand Dinars (gold coins) to support the rest of the army. The Holy Prophet (Sallallahu'alaihi wa Sallam) remarked on this, "Nothing will do any harm to Uthman from this day, whatever he does."

his caliphate

Thus we see that during the caliphate of Hadrat Uthman (R.A.) the Muslims conquered a number of new areas. They took over Antalya and Asia Minor in the west including Cyprus. Afghanistan, Samarkand, Tashkent, Trukmennistan, Khurasan and Tabrastan in the East and North East; and Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco in North Africa. In this way Muslims were ruling over a vast part of Asia and Africa viz. Afghanistan, Turkmennistan, Uzbekistan, Persia or Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and of course Arabia (now Saudi Arabia) and Yemen including the Gulf states. All these countries and places were under one flag, and the Islamic state was far bigger than any one of the past mighty Byzantine or Persian Empires. Islam as a religion was also prevailing in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and in some parts of East and Central Africa though these places were not under the direct control of the Caliphate.

*all these conquests were against non muslims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ how come I notice claims, which the question wasn't denying, but not one actual answer for what the first question asked for: "But give me the name of a single non muslim who was killed by the first "3 Caliphs". "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ how come I notice claims, which the question wasn't denying, but not one actual answer for what the first question asked for: "But give me the name of a single non muslim who was killed by the first "3 Caliphs". "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

just the way yazid ibn muawiya were responsible in marturing hazrat imam hussain (ra), the same way did hazrat abu bakr (ra) kill the two men who proclaimed theyr prophethood

tulayha as-asadi of najd and musaylima during the battle of yamama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTION 11

Prove from any of your books or from our books that 3 "Caliphs" were greater in rank in any one of these. Baravry, Shkhawat, Rahim, Ibadat , Shajra-e-Nasb?

all of the four claiphs were infact relatives and were all from the same forefather, quraish

mohammad (saww) ibn abdullah ibn abdul muttalib ibn hashim ibn abde manaf ibn qosay ibn kelab ibn kaab ibn looi ibn QURAISH (ra)

abu bakr ibn abu qahafa ibn amir ibn amr ibn kab ibn sad ibn taym ibn kaab ibn looi ibn QURAISH (ra)

omar ibn kattab ibn nofail ibn abdul uzaz ibn ribah ibn aboullah ibn qash ibn razak ibn adi ibn kaab ibn looi ibn QURAISH (ra)

uthman ibn affan ibn abu as ibn ummayyaibn abdush shams ibn abde manaf ibn qosay ibn kelab ibn kaab ibn looi ibn QURAISH (ra)

ali ibn abu talib ibn abdul muttalib ibn hashim ibn abde manaf ibn qosay ibn kelab ibn kaab ibn looi ibn QURAISH (ra)

some ranks which hazrat abu bakr (ra) recieved

prophets intimate friend after Allah swt

companion of the prophets basin/hawd and the cave

greatest supporter

closest confidant

first spiritual inheritor

first of the men(baligh) who believed in him

first of the four rightly guided caliphs

first of the ten promised paradice

first of the prophets community to endter paradise

al-siddiq

some ranks which hazrat umar (ra) received

second to abu bakr as prophets friend

second caliph

if there was a prophet after mohammad, umar would be

ameer ul momineen

al-farooq

some ranks which hazrat uthman (ra) received

ameer ul momineen

third caliph

al-ghani

dhul qarnain

prophet took his hand to vote the vote of uthman

some ranks which hazrat ali (ra) received

...karram Allah wajha

asadullah

ameer ul momineen

forth caliph

second male to convert to islam

from him prophets prognecy came. (the ahle bait)

the financier during abu bakr (ra) time

vice caliph during umar (ra) time

guardian of uthman (ra)

the one who were martyred in sajdah

carrier of zulfiqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on face value some of these questions look really easy to answer. If I were a sunni and read books I would have been able to answer a lot of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

surely you are right, but i am a sunni who dont read books. may Allah swt guide me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(salam)

I am afraid that you have not answered the question correctly. Please try again. The question was:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tell me one thing. do you consider yazid to be the killer of imam hussain (ra) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would appreciate it if a non shia would answer question 1.

The answer which was given by Morg did not address what I was asking, instead he has decided to give me a very brief history of their acomplishments based on his understanding of them. This was not what I was asking for.

Edited by SHIA-OF-ALI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ sister. answer first my question, then i answer question one as best as i can.

was yazeed the one who were responcible for the martyrdom of imam hussain (ra) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brother shia e ali

i didnt understood question 4,

QUESTION 4

"3 Caliphs" took part in Uhad , Handak Hunain, Haibar, but what was the special thing they achieved in those wars.

what you mean by archieve... you refere to a title? any treasure? or any gift? please tell :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUESTION 6

Abu hurarira stated 17000 hadiths but could you tell when he embaraced Islam. And what did Ayesha say to him. Did she believe that he was a sincere person and to him she could believe in and trust?

Abu Huraira became a Muslim at the hands of At-Tufayl Ibn Amr who was the chief of the tribe to which he belonged. When he submitted to the truthfulness of this religion, he accompanied At-Tufayl to Makkah and had the privilege of meeting the noble Prophet (s.a.w.). The Prophet (s.a.w) asked Abu Huraira what his name was, "Abdu-Shams" (the servant of the sun), Abu Huraira replied. So he was introduced by the holy Prophet (s.a.w) to change his name to "Abdur-Rahman" (the servant of the Beneficent). However, he continued to be known among people as "Abu Hurrah" (the kitten's father) because of his love for a cat he looked after and fed

i dont know what hazrat aisha (ra) thinked of him, but as the prophet mohammad saww was fond of him, would believe that hazrat aisha (ra) also were fond of him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^ sister. answer first my question, then i answer question one as best as i can.

was yazeed the one who were responcible for the martyrdom of imam hussain (ra) ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salaam Alaiqum,

Yaa Ali Madad

Personaly illing the enemy of Islam and being 'responsible' of killing the enemy of Islam r two diferent things -- Bravery is Fighting and killing in an islamic battle field not running away !!!

Allah Hafiz

Yaa Ali Madad

Hussainyet Zindabad

yazeediyet murdabad

Firoz Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can You, Shia, Answer These Questions?

Al-Hassan bin Ali relinquished for Mu'awiya and made peace with him, that happened at a time where he had enough armies and allies which would allowed him to continued fighting. Al-Hussain bin Ali came out to war despite the small number of his followers at a time when he could have made peace. This tells us that one of them was right and the other was wrong because:

If Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was right, then Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was wrong.

If Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was right, then Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was wrong.

And this puts you in a place where no one can envy you. Because if you say that both of them are right, you agree to two opposite things and this destroys your roots and logic.

So if you say that Al-Hussain's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his father and his infallibility. Because he was given a trust and the infallible leader does not give the trust to anyone but an infallible like him. And if you say that Al-Hassan's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his children and progeny because he is the root of their leadership and through him came the leadership. And if the root is wrong, then the branches are all wrong.

And we say to every Shia:

Regardless of what you answer to this conundrum, your answer is not convincing for this reason:

You would believe that Ali accepted to himself what the low Bedouins of the Arabs would not accept for themselves and he is from the Prophet's family? And I repeat the question to you, if Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? So do the Shia put Ali in a class that's lower than the Bedouins (since Bedouins won't accept this shame for themselves)? And would Al-Hussain accept this? Or would Al-Hasan accept this?

And if you accept that, then they are less class than the Bedouin of Arabs! and that is not acceptable to us. The issue is that you make up accusations against Umar bin Al-Khattab and then you want us to accept an excuse which is worse than the sin itself. And your excuse is Taqiyya. So was it for Taqiyya that Ali married his daughter off to Umar? You curse Umar, make up bad things about him, and allege that he was an apostate, then after all that you want to claim that Ali was a coward too? This is not acceptable to us for Umar nor for Ali. And if Umar in your opinion is an Infidel and you claim that Ali knew that, then why did he marry him off to his daughter?!

The whole thing is illogical completely. If the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) were really apostates, as you claim, then did Ali use Taqiyyah instead of fighting them? If using Taqiyyah is the right thing to do, then why did Ali fight the infidels during the time of the Prophet instead of using Taqiyyah to end the matter? If the Kuffar's land was a land of war (Dar Harb), then the Muslim land -under Abu Bakr and Umar- is for sure a land of war as well. In the land of the Kuffar, the infidels used to be fought and calls for war were called. And in the Muslim land under Abu Bakr and Umar, as you claim it to be a land of war, you consider the Rightly Guided Khalifas infidels just like you consider Yazeed and even worse. Don't you consider them Murtadeen (apostates)? Then what is Ali's duty? To get along with this one and be submissive to others? Would the Imam Ali submit to an infidel (as you claim) who took the mother of Mohammad bin Al-Hanafiyah (the son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib) as a woman prisoner during the time of Abu Bakr (who in your opinion is an unfair oppressor)? According to Shia Fiqh, everything that an oppressor does and all his rulings are invalid. So why did Imam Ali take that woman and have a child from her? This is an insult to the Imam form your side.

If you compare Ali with Ammar, then you should remember that Ali's class is much higher than Ammar's since Ali's position to the Prophet was like the status of Haroon to Musa, isn't that what you say? Then how do you compare this to that? And despite all that, it was an exception for Ammar to be used only in times of necessity. But for you, it is a religion and a creed. It is a profession rather than a hobby. Doesn't one of your sayings say "Taqiyya is my religion and the religion of my fathers and grandfathers"? Then it is a religion and not an exception. It is a creed and a root and not a special case. So would Ali submit to the infidels? and would he marry his daughter off to an infidel? and would Ali accept to himself what the lowest of Arabs would never accept? And is there an insult worse than submitting to the infidels? And is there is any more humiliation than marrying his daughter off to a pervert who allegedly hit and caused his wife, Fatimah, to miscarriage? Wouldn't you declare war against him? And you also claim that Umar used to drink Alcohol? And you curse him and accuse him of more insults than that but you still expect Ali to submit to him?

Then why did Imam Ali go to war against the Kuffar if he was going to submit to the alleged apostates? Then who is supposed to fight against the oppressors and the apostates? And you say that Ammar was given an excuse by the messenger? There were no Ayahs from the Quran about Ammar's leadership as you claim for Ali. And he will not be considered an Imam by you at any case. And he does not carry a responsibly like the responsibility of Ali as you say. This is because Ammar was led but did not lead. And Ali lead, but you claim that he cannot be lead. He was a leader, not a follower. However, he submitted once to Abu Bakr, once to Umar, and once to Uthman and they were all apostates as you claim! Your Taqiyya is a rubber that extends here and shrinks there! You give it to Ammar when he was under torture while it was an exception for one time only. And for Imam Ali, the free man and the brave war hero, you used it to justify his submission to Abu Bakr and then his submission to Umar. Then you used it again to explain his submission to Uthman. Then once again, it was used as a justification for him marrying his daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar. And again it was used to justify Ali taking Umm Mohammad bin Al-Hanafyeh even though she was a war prisoner and the ruler was an oppressor. This is not allowed in Shia Jurisprudence at all. So it is actually an admittance of the leadership of Abu Bakr. Then what was Ali's duty in the first place if he did not fight oppression and injustice? This is basically the truth of your words.

Shia References:

1- Ya'qooby's History, Volume 2, page 149-150

2- Al-Forroh min Al-Kafy, the book of Al-Nikah, Chapter of The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom. Volume 5, Page 346.

3- Tahzeeb Al-Ahkam, the book of inheritance, the chapter of inheritance from the drowned and the ones who die under collapsed buildings. Volume 9, Page 115-116.

4- Al-Shafi by Mr. Murtada Alam Al-Huda, Page 116 and his book "Tanzeeh Al-Anbya" page 141, Tahran Issue.

5- Ibn Shaher Ashob in his book "Manaqeb Aal Ali bin Abi Talib" volume 3 page 162.

6- Ibn Aby Al-Hadeed in his commentary on "Nahj Albalagha" volume 3 page 124

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear sunni brother,

You should try to use your own words instead of pasting lengthy text which is not linked to the title of this thread.

Please create a new thread instead of ruining this one, if you wish you can try to answer the questions on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can You, Shia, Answer These Questions?

Al-Hassan bin Ali relinquished for Mu'awiya and made peace with him, that happened at a time where he had enough armies and allies which would allowed him to continued fighting. Al-Hussain bin Ali came out to war despite the small number of his followers at a time when he could have made peace. This tells us that one of them was right and the other was wrong because:

If Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was right, then Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was wrong.

If Al-Hussain's war with lack of means was right, then Al-Hassan's concession with the ability to fight was wrong.

And this puts you in a place where no one can envy you. Because if you say that both of them are right, you agree to two opposite things and this destroys your roots and logic.

So if you say that Al-Hussain's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his father and his infallibility. Because he was given a trust and the infallible leader does not give the trust to anyone but an infallible like him. And if you say that Al-Hassan's action was wrong then you have to believe in the falsehood of his leadership "Imamah" and the falsehood of the leadership of his children and progeny because he is the root of their leadership and through him came the leadership. And if the root is wrong, then the branches are all wrong.

And we say to every Shia:

Regardless of what you answer to this conundrum, your answer is not convincing for this reason:

You would believe that Ali accepted to himself what the low Bedouins of the Arabs would not accept for themselves and he is from the Prophet's family? And I repeat the question to you, if Umar's shortcomings are like what you describe then how would Ali accept him as a husband to his daughter? So do the Shia put Ali in a class that's lower than the Bedouins (since Bedouins won't accept this shame for themselves)? And would Al-Hussain accept this? Or would Al-Hasan accept this?

And if you accept that, then they are less class than the Bedouin of Arabs! and that is not acceptable to us. The issue is that you make up accusations against Umar bin Al-Khattab and then you want us to accept an excuse which is worse than the sin itself. And your excuse is Taqiyya. So was it for Taqiyya that Ali married his daughter off to Umar? You curse Umar, make up bad things about him, and allege that he was an apostate, then after all that you want to claim that Ali was a coward too? This is not acceptable to us for Umar nor for Ali. And if Umar in your opinion is an Infidel and you claim that Ali knew that, then why did he marry him off to his daughter?!

The whole thing is illogical completely. If the Sahaba (companions of the Prophet) were really apostates, as you claim, then did Ali use Taqiyyah instead of fighting them? If using Taqiyyah is the right thing to do, then why did Ali fight the infidels during the time of the Prophet instead of using Taqiyyah to end the matter? If the Kuffar's land was a land of war (Dar Harb), then the Muslim land -under Abu Bakr and Umar- is for sure a land of war as well. In the land of the Kuffar, the infidels used to be fought and calls for war were called. And in the Muslim land under Abu Bakr and Umar, as you claim it to be a land of war, you consider the Rightly Guided Khalifas infidels just like you consider Yazeed and even worse. Don't you consider them Murtadeen (apostates)? Then what is Ali's duty? To get along with this one and be submissive to others? Would the Imam Ali submit to an infidel (as you claim) who took the mother of Mohammad bin Al-Hanafiyah (the son of Imam Ali bin Abi Talib) as a woman prisoner during the time of Abu Bakr (who in your opinion is an unfair oppressor)?  According to Shia Fiqh, everything that an oppressor does and all his rulings are invalid. So why did Imam Ali take that woman and have a child from her? This is an insult to the Imam form your side.

If you compare Ali with Ammar, then you should remember that Ali's class is much higher than Ammar's since Ali's position to the Prophet was like the status of Haroon to Musa, isn't that what you say? Then how do you compare this to that? And despite all that, it was an exception for Ammar to be used only in times of necessity. But for you, it is a religion and a creed. It is a profession rather than a hobby. Doesn't one of your sayings say "Taqiyya is my religion and the religion of my fathers and grandfathers"? Then it is a religion and not an exception. It is a creed and a root and not a special case. So would Ali submit to the infidels? and would he marry his daughter off to an infidel? and would Ali accept to himself what the lowest of Arabs would never accept? And is there an insult worse than submitting to the infidels? And is there is any more humiliation than marrying his daughter off to a pervert who allegedly hit and caused his wife, Fatimah, to miscarriage? Wouldn't you declare war against him? And you also claim that Umar used to drink Alcohol? And you curse him and accuse him of more insults than that but you still expect Ali to submit to him?

Then why did Imam Ali go to war against the Kuffar if he was going to submit to the alleged apostates? Then who is supposed to fight against the oppressors and the apostates? And you say that Ammar was given an excuse by the messenger? There were no Ayahs from the Quran about Ammar's leadership as you claim for Ali. And he will not be considered an Imam by you at any case. And he does not carry a responsibly like the responsibility of Ali as you say. This is because Ammar was led but did not lead. And Ali lead, but you claim that he cannot be lead. He was a leader, not a follower. However, he submitted once to Abu Bakr, once to Umar, and once to Uthman and they were all apostates as you claim! Your Taqiyya is a rubber that extends here and shrinks there! You give it to Ammar when he was under torture while it was an exception for one time only. And for Imam Ali, the free man and the brave war hero, you used it to justify his submission to Abu Bakr and then his submission to Umar. Then you used it again to explain his submission to Uthman. Then once again, it was used as a justification for him marrying his daughter Umm Kulthoom to Umar. And again it was used to justify Ali taking Umm Mohammad bin Al-Hanafyeh even though she was a war prisoner and the ruler was an oppressor.  This is not allowed in Shia Jurisprudence at all. So it is actually an admittance of the leadership of Abu Bakr. Then what was Ali's duty in the first place if he did not fight oppression and injustice? This is basically the truth of your words.

    Shia References:

    1- Ya'qooby's History, Volume 2, page 149-150

    2- Al-Forroh min Al-Kafy, the book of  Al-Nikah, Chapter of The Marriage of Umm Kulthoom. Volume 5, Page 346.

    3- Tahzeeb Al-Ahkam, the book of inheritance, the chapter of inheritance from the drowned and the ones who die under collapsed buildings. Volume 9, Page 115-116.

    4- Al-Shafi by Mr. Murtada Alam Al-Huda, Page 116 and his book "Tanzeeh Al-Anbya" page 141, Tahran Issue.

    5- Ibn Shaher Ashob in his book "Manaqeb Aal Ali bin Abi Talib" volume 3 page 162.

    6- Ibn Aby Al-Hadeed in his commentary on "Nahj Albalagha" volume 3 page 124

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

check this thread http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=681 where it was dicussed 3 years ago...

Or this thread http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7618 where it was discussed 2 years ago

gotta laugh at these kfc folks that think they're bringing something new :lol:

Edited by Aliya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam Alaiqum,

Yaa Ali Madad

Personaly illing the enemy of Islam and being 'responsible' of killing the enemy of Islam r two diferent things -- Bravery is Fighting and killing in an islamic battle field not running away !!!

Allah Hafiz

Yaa Ali Madad

Hussainyet Zindabad

yazeediyet murdabad

Firoz Ali

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sorry brother as i said i dont know much about the history. but i know and i have heard that there were NO RUNNING IN BATTLE, but there wer esome reasons. since i cant answer i will not think what happened so i will end my discuttion on this question here. im sure kurdish sister can answer better than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry brother as i said i dont know much about the history. but i know and i have heard that there were NO RUNNING IN BATTLE, but there wer esome reasons. since i cant answer i will not think what happened so i will end my discuttion on this question here. im sure kurdish sister can answer better than me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Salaam Alaiqum,

Yaa Ali madad

There was indeed RUNNING AWAY from ILAMIC BATTLE fields

The HOLY QURAN:

003.153

YUSUFALI: Behold! ye were climbing up the high ground, without even casting a side glance at any one, and the Messenger in your rear was calling you back. There did Allah give you one distress after another by way of requital, to teach you not to grieve for (the booty) that had escaped you and for (the ill) that had befallen you. For Allah is well aware of all that ye do.

PICKTHAL: When ye climbed (the hill) and paid no heed to anyone, while the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight). Therefor He rewarded you grief for (his) grief, that (He might teach) you not to sorrow either for that which ye missed or for that which befell you. Allah is Informed of what ye do.

SHAKIR: When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for any one, and the Messenger was calling you from your rear, so He gave you another sorrow instead of (your) sorrow, so that you might not grieve at what had escaped you, nor (at) what befell you; and Allah is aware of what you do.

And later on u write:but the were some reasons--

Trying to justlfy those cowards?????

Read the Ayat and does Almighty Allah SWT justify those cowards???They dint even hear the call of The holy Prophet SAWW proving how

much these cowards 'loved'Islam and the Holy Prophet saww

From the thread below it is proved that umar was among those coward who fled battle fields many times leaving the holy Prophet SAWW behind proving his so called 'love' for Islam and Holy Prophet SAWW'

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=59367

Allah Hafiz

Yaa Ali Madad

Hussainyet Zindabad

Yazeediet Murdabad

Firoz Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×