Brother Taha, if you don't mind. :)

[Dhulfiqar 34]

It's amazing how the nature of person changes when he gravitates away from the Haq. SubhanAllah, truly amazing.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

[mehdi soldier 31]

It's amazing how the nature of person changes when he gravitates away from the Haq. SubhanAllah, truly amazing.

Wa Salaam,

Dhulfiqar

i dont understand.please bro. can you tell us what you are saying?is it about "taha"?

[rahat 28]

In Reply to #2: All Muslims believe that the present Quran is not in its original order of compilation. All Muslims also believe that none of the present grammatical markings are not in the original Quran. I do not see why the Shia are singled out.

Furthermore, you may have found 3 or 4 scholars from 1000 years ago that might have thought that there was some tahreef, however, there was never ijma of this amongst our scholars, and you know as well as anyone that none of the hadith indicated tahreef are considered authentic today.

#3 - How can you say this at all? Ayatollah Khoei has revolutionized the system of hadith such that it is like a steel cage: all hadith are strong and all classifications are without error.

#4 and #6 - You know as well as anyone else that Shia scholars were scattered, others were killed, our libraries burned to the ground repeatedly. As such, it wasn't until the past few hundred years that our scholars were able to work together, our texts presented in one united location, and our people not massacred for presenting their beliefs.

If it appears to you that Shiaism is different now than before, this is not the case: it was the fault of your sect with their viscious campaign of genocide and murder to keep our religion from spreading to even our own people.

Shiaism has not changed, it has simply become more open and well known.

-

rahat

-

rahat

Edited August 30, 2006 by rahat

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

[6) The 'evolution' of shi'ism: What shi'ism is today is different from what shi'ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi'ism was then, was different from the shi'ism of the early salaf. Shi'ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this - it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.

brother Tahasyed could you please describe the shiaism of the "early salaf" amd how was it different from todays shias ....in detail please and also mention if you can the names of those shias of early salaf

Edited August 30, 2006 by Panzerwaffe

[Aliya 21]

Abu bakr wasn't chosen by shura (none of the first three were). Abu Bakr was chosen by Umar. Umar was chosen by Abu Bakr, and Uthman was selected by a "comittee" named by Umar, but the only vote that truly counted was that of Uthman's brother in law....

[Aliya 21]

most were mourning the prophet (pbuh) who was being readied for his burial. SOME had went to saqifa, and there was much arguing and disorder over who should be caliph, so in the midst of it Umar told Abu Bakr to give him his hand so he could give bayyat. this is a VERY interesting thread on the subject http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=69473

[Aliya 21]

these give a pretty detailed account of everything, before during and immediately after

http://al-islam.org/restatement/47.htm

http://al-islam.org/restatement/48.htm

http://al-islam.org/restatement/49.htm

http://al-islam.org/restatement/50.htm

http://al-islam.org/restatement/51.htm and here

http://al-islam.org/restatement/52.htm generally they were arguing. [EDIT: THE "RUNNER UP" WAS KILLED BY UMAR, WHO HAD THE NERVE TO SAY THAT IT WAS Allah (SWT) WHO HAD KILLED HIM (HIS NAME WAS SAAD BIN UBADA MORE DETAIL CAN BE FOUND IN NUMEROUS THREADS BUT THIS IS A GOOD ONE http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...mp;#entry976541]

Edited August 31, 2006 by Aliya

[Jondab_Azdi 41]

[6) The 'evolution' of shi'ism: What shi'ism is today is different from what shi'ism was right after the ghaybah. And what shi'ism was then, was different from the shi'ism of the early salaf. Shi'ism (in its present form) did not crystallize until very late, and if I may be bold enough to say this - it still has not crystallized. So what shias beleive today, may very well be discarded tomorrow.

brother Tahasyed could you please describe the shiaism of the "early salaf" amd how was it different from todays shias ....in detail please and also mention if you can the names of those shias of early salaf

Bro. Panzerwaffe what do you say about these :

Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to Imam Ja'far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja'far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be 'ulema abrar atqiya' - pious God-fearing scholars (i.e. they had to acquire knowledge). And as Syed Al- Badri argued, there is a different between a 'alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat shias showed up at Ibn Yafur's funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.

Another famous theologian, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishhad para 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, whose agreement was essential for ijma' (concensus) for any religious matter (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.

and this was the belief of Shiites of First century AH. :

" Surely Ali was the most deserving of men after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), due to his virtues' and his pioneering (roles in Islam) and his knowledge. He was the best of all men after the prophet (peace be upon him) the bravest, the most generous, the most ascetic of them. But they legalized despite that, the leadership of Abu Bakr and Umar and considered them, as qualified for that honorable position. They mentioned that Ali submitted the affairs to them, accepted that and voluntarily gave his oath of allegiance to them, without being coerced into that, he left his right to them, so we also accept what the Muslims have accepted of him, and whom he gave his allegiance to. Anything other than this is not permissible for us, and nothing will suffice anyone of us other than this. So the leadership of Abu Bakr has becomes right and acceptance because of Ali's acceptance of it." (Maqalat al-Islami'yeen).

ws

[Zafaryab 0]

(salam)

Bro. Panzerwaffe what do you say about these :

Muhammad Abdullah ibn Yafur, a prominent scholar of Kufa (Najashi 213, Kashhi 162), who was very close to Imam Ja'far (Kulayni 6:464 and Kashhi 10) was praised highly by the imams. Imam Ja'far was completely satisfied with him (ibid 246, 249, 250). But Ibn Yafur simply considered the imams to be 'ulema abrar atqiya' - pious God-fearing scholars (i.e. they had to acquire knowledge). And as Syed Al- Badri argued, there is a different between a 'alim and a rabbani. It is interesting to note that a number of anti-ghulat shias showed up at Ibn Yafur's funeral, showing the popularity of the idea in the early shia community. These shias were labeled by the extremists as muqassireen, shia murijites, or having sunni inclinations.

Another famous theologian, Ibn Qiba Ar-Razi held the same view (Naqd Kitab Al-Ishhad para 34). He was a figure so high in the shia community that Najashi, Tusi and Hilli put his name in the beginning of the list of authorities of the shia school, whose agreement was essential for ijma' (concensus) for any religious matter (Shafi 1:127 and 2:323). Interestingly, Ibn Qiba maintained that what happened at saqeefah was merely an error, and did not even reach the level of fisq, let alone kufr or nifaq.

There is no 'ijma' required in the shi3a madhab.. we only have Ayatullahs.. no ijmas.. and ahadith hold more value than views of two scholars... what are the books called?

and this was the belief of Shiites of First century AH. :

"Surely Ali was the most deserving of men after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), due to his virtues' and his pioneering (roles in Islam) and his knowledge. He was the best of all men after the prophet (peace be upon him) the bravest, the most generous, the most ascetic of them. But they legalized despite that, the leadership of Abu Bakr and Umar and considered them, as qualified for that honorable position. They mentioned that Ali submitted the affairs to them, accepted that and voluntarily gave his oath of allegiance to them, without being coerced into that, he left his right to them, so we also accept what the Muslims have accepted of him, and whom he gave his allegiance to. Anything other than this is not permissible for us, and nothing will suffice anyone of us other than this. So the leadership of Abu Bakr has becomes right and acceptance because of Ali's acceptance of it." (Maqalat al-Islami'yeen).

ws

Do you have the author's name as well?.. the one who wrote this piece.. the book has views of many scholars from different schools.. wassalaamun alaikum

Edited August 31, 2006 by Zafaryab

[Panzerwaffe 1,208]

bro coloreal there is no doubt that ghulat extremists maligned shias a great deal ...it is upto us to seperate pure shia beliefs those of the earliest companions of Imam Ali and the exaggerated beliefs that creeped into shiaism much later but were attributed to the Imams ....how do we do that ? ...it is impossible in this envoirment ....anyone who praises Imam Ali even if he is hindu or mushrik and even if he/she extolls him to the level of a god automatically becomes a buddy of the shias

when the Imam himself said to someone who praised him inappropriatly "I am less than what you say, but more than what you think" hinting that flattery does not work with him.The result is that shias are considered now the deviated ones and in many cultural practices ( mistakenly thought of as "religious practices") they really are...actually true shias are the real puritans in Islam...cuz Imam Ali preached a Islam unchanged since the time of the Prophet(s) refusing to follow those practices of the first 2 caliphs which contradicted the Quran and sunnah( like the superority of quraish and arabs over nonarabs).....needless to to say uthmans practices were even worse than those of abubakr and umar's

Edited September 1, 2006 by Panzerwaffe

[Aliya 21]

the account is found in shia and sunni sources. It's therefore likely not an exaggeration, whether we can understand it or not. I doubt most of us can get our heads around the "closest companions" of the Prophet (pbuh) rushing off for political purposes before the Prophet's (pbuh) even washed and buried, yet it happened.

Also, what was Ali (as) supposed to do? He didn't fight the ppl who had usurped his right (though he didn't stop claiming it), nor should it be supposed that he would execute Umar (who also at the VERY least threatened Bibi Fatima (as)) for this incident. Absolute Justice lies ONLY with Allah (SWT), and patience is a virtue that Ali (as) had in abundance, even in the face of his own oppression and injustices toward him (as has been discussed in another thread, even in regards to his own killer he demanded that his killer (and ONLY the killer, i.e. not the killers co-conspirators if any existed) be killed with a single stroke of the sword, IF he died of the wounds the killer inflicted on him). Our minds cannot comprehend the kind of patience and mercy that would require, and yet...

Edited September 1, 2006 by Aliya

[Aliya 21]

I don't tend to doubt the things that both sides agree on :) nor the stuff that has so much evidence to back it up.

[Aliya 21]

O...K.... :unsure:

[Aliya 21]

^ doesn't have anything to do with the accounts of Saqifa from ppl who were there, nor the deeds of Imam Ali (as) before and after the death of the Prophet (pbuh). so I don't quite get your connection with Bush, etc.

But the ppl throughout history have not chosen their religious leaders in Islam, the prophets (as) and we believe the imams (as) were divinely appointed. So why a majority believed (or still believes) that after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) that they could/should be able to choose their own ruler is :blink: But then again, most ppl don't like the think and analyze, but prefer to follow what they're told, so... it's true in many aspects of life, we can see for ourselves.

So NOW I see your tie in with Bush (and other politicians the world over) :)

[mehdi soldier 31]

what i still never knew is whether bro. "taha" is shia or sunni.can someone please tell us?

[tahasyed 7]

what i still never knew is whether bro. "taha" is shia or sunni.can someone please tell us?

I am an orthodox Sunni:

1) Maliki in Fiqh (click here for a brief overview of Maliki Usool)

2) Sunni in Aqida (click here to read the Aqida Al-Tahawiyyah)

3) Orthodox Sufi of the Shadhili Tariqa (click here for a brief audio overview of authentic Sunni tasawwuf by the Wali of Allah, Sheikh Nuh Keller)

ws

[SpIzo 184]

:huh:

I was only referring to the people present at Saqeefa. What were they doing? Why did they even listen to omar? What was so special about omar that they just accepted his decision without any objection? And when omar gave bayyah, what did the other people follow him in giving bayah to abu bakr? were they mindless drones?

Maybe this book will help:

The Saqifah - A detailed and unbiased perspective of what exactly happened at Saqifah.

:)

[mehdi soldier 31]

I am an orthodox Sunni:

1) Maliki in Fiqh (click here for a brief overview of Maliki Usool)

2) Sunni in Aqida (click here to read the Aqida Al-Tahawiyyah)

3) Orthodox Sufi of the Shadhili Tariqa (click here for a brief audio overview of authentic Sunni tasawwuf by the Wali of Allah, Sheikh Nuh Keller)

ws

thanks for clarifying.i didnt realize because you sometimes talk shiism!maybe a fourth item is needed in your list above :D

Edited September 2, 2006 by mehdi soldier

[EEman 0]

(bismillah)

Allah o Akbar. Allah is the Greatest

Ya Allah Madad

and Uthman was selected by a "comittee" named by Umar, but the only vote that truly counted was that of Uthman's brother in law....

Did HAzrat Ali Karam Allah Wajhu accepted the Committee named by Hazrat Umar (ra) to choose the next Caliph?????????

Ah Allah! give us the True knowledge and guide us as YOU are the only ONE Who can guide us. Aameen

Edited September 2, 2006 by EEman

[umar_khan 0]

(bismillah)

Allah o Akbar. Allah is the Greatest

Ya Allah Madad

Did HAzrat Ali Karam Allah Wajhu accepted the Committee named by Hazrat Umar (ra) to choose the next Caliph?????????

Ah Allah! give us the True knowledge and guide us as YOU are the only ONE Who can guide us. Aameen

of course ali (ra) accepted the ashra mubashara "committee". he was part of it and he selected usman (ra)

[Aliya 21]

LOL, did Ali (as) agree to "follow the sunnah of the two sheikhs" as a condition for his caliphate? NO, which is why 1. it was named as a condition and 2. why he wasn't #3. Uthman agreed.

What you guys are either ignorant of or ignoring willfully, is that the ONLY vote that counted (even if he was the only one that voted for person) was the vote of Uthman's brother in law.

But of course that makes no difference to you guys because you don't accept ANYTHING if it comes from a shia, even if what the shia says is found in your own books and is historical FACT.

[SpIzo 184]

of course ali (ra) accepted the ashra mubashara "committee". he was part of it and he selected usman (ra)

Imam Ali [as] accepted to be a part of the committee because he wanted to prove Umar's contradictary statement that Prophethood and Caliphate [imamate] cannot be in the same household.

And he [as] didn't select Uthman.

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 314:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

The group of people whom 'Umar had selected as candidates for the Caliphate gathered and consulted each other. Abdur-Rahman said to them, "I am not going to compete with you in this matter, but if you wish, I would select for you a caliph from among you." So all of them agreed to let 'Abdur-Rahman decide the case. So when the candidates placed the case in the hands of 'Abdur-Rahman, the people went towards him and nobody followed the rest of the group nor obeyed any after him. So the people followed 'Abdur-Rahman and consulted him all those nights till there came the night we gave the oath of allegiance to 'Uthman. Al-Miswar (bin Makhrama) added: 'Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, "I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough. Go and call Az-Zubair and Sa'd.' So I called them for him and he consulted them and then called me saying, 'Call 'Ali for me." I called 'Ali and he held a private talk with him till very late at night, and then 'Al, got up to leave having had much hope (to be chosen as a Caliph) but 'Abdur-Rahman was afraid of something concerning 'Ali. 'Abdur-Rahman then said to me, "Call 'Uthman for me." I called him and he kept on speaking to him privately till the Mu'adhdhin put an end to their talk by announcing the Adhan for the Fajr prayer. When the people finished their morning prayer and that (six men) group gathered near the pulpit, 'Abdur-Rahman sent for all the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar present there and sent for the army chief who had performed the Hajj with 'Umar that year. When all of them had gathered, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," and added, "Now then, O 'Ali, I have looked at the people's tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to 'Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing)." Then 'Abdur-Rahman said (to 'Uthman), "I gave the oath of allegiance to you on condition that you will follow Allah's Laws and the traditions of Allah's Apostle and the traditions of the two Caliphs after him." So 'Abdur-Rahman gave the oath of allegiance to him, and so did the people including the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar and the chiefs of the army staff and all the Muslims.

Imam Ali [as] himself mentions in Nahjul Balagha:

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1)

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

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A`sha's verse).

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

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

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group(4) and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth(5) like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:

That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones. (Qur'an, 28:83)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)

http://nahjulbalagha.org/SermonDetail.php?Sermon=3

[umar_khan 0]

Imam Ali [as] accepted to be a part of the committee because he wanted to prove Umar's contradictary statement that Prophethood and Caliphate [imamate] cannot be in the same household.

again utter nonsense. if ali (ra) hated usman (ra) why was he closest adviser and were married into each others family. ali (ra) himself said in a letter to muawiyah that usman (ra) was the most beloved person to him with the exception of his children.

umar (ra) was the son in law of ali (ra)

ali (ra) had sons called abu bakr and umar

this proves your accusations are false

[Aliya 21]

wrong wrong wrong! Please REFERENCE your claims.

there are numerous threads that disprove that Ali (as) married his daughter Umm Kulsum (ra) to Umar, instead it was Abu Bakr's daughter Umm Kulsum (who was raised in the house of Ali (as) after he married Abu Bakr's widow) that married Umar. See here http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umm...um/en/index.php (more links on the left for the remainder of the piece)

the names have also been discussed and disproven (that they were in honor of the caliphs) before. Especially since Abu Bakr was a nickname both of the caliph AND of Imam Ali's (as) son, and umar and uthman were common names see here for refuation http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/names/en/index.php

Edited September 3, 2006 by Aliya

[SpIzo 184]

^Kudos to you sis. May Allah [swt] reward you for your efforts. ^_^

again utter nonsense. if ali (ra) hated usman (ra) why was he closest adviser and were married into each others family. ali (ra) himself said in a letter to muawiyah that usman (ra) was the most beloved person to him with the exception of his children.

umar (ra) was the son in law of ali (ra)

ali (ra) had sons called abu bakr and umar

this proves your accusations are false

Thanks for letting us know your books are utter nonsense.

[EEman 0]

(bismillah)

Allah o Akbar. Allah is the Greatest

Ya Allah Madad

LOL, did Ali (as) agree to "follow the sunnah of the two sheikhs" as a condition for his caliphate? NO, which is why 1. it was named as a condition and 2. why he wasn't #3. Uthman agreed.

What you guys are either ignorant of or ignoring willfully, is that the ONLY vote that counted (even if he was the only one that voted for person) was the vote of Uthman's brother in law.

i asked a simple question and then you said this ....... i thought theanswer will be yes or no and if no then it will simply be followed by his(Hazrat Ali's Karam Allah Wajhu ) opinion.

But of course that makes no difference to you guys because you don't accept ANYTHING if it comes from a shia, even if what the shia says is found in your own books and is historical FACT.

no who said that. I believe as a muslim it is our duty to gain knowledge of Islam from where ever possible without the eye of sect or personnel interest. Seccondly Ask Anyone, 99% histroy is a not a fact.(fact means cent per cent true e.g Allah is the Master of everything.Sun rises in the East etc.) Historian write history from where ????????

i beleive in everything which is in Quran and i think Quran is the same for every sect of Islam

All the books are written by humans and it is very natural that there might be mistakes. secondly authors have their own opinions and methodology. on cant clearly understand the critical things without their clear explainations. still it is greatly possible that their way of analysing is wrong..

Ah Allah! give us the True knowledge and guide us as YOU are the only ONE Who can guide us. Aameen

[EEman 0]

(bismillah)

Allah o Akbar. Allah is the Greatest

Ya Allah Madad

^Kudos to you sis. May Allah [swt] reward you for your efforts. ^_^

Thanks for letting us know your books are utter nonsense.

Islamic Books tell us

1. Hazrat Ali Karam Allah Wajhu is the head of Walliat.

2. Hazrat Hassan and Hussain (ra) are the leaders of young in janah

3. Hazrat Mohammad S.A.W.W. and his Ahal e Bait should be respected more than ourselves and our families if u want to be muslims

so these books as u say

utter nonsense

Astagfirullah.

and one more BOOK is present in Islamic books but i dont want to name it here. Astagfirullah Astagfirullah Astagfirullah.....

You are disrespecting All the muslims better ask for forgiveness from Allah

May Allah forgive us All as HE is the Most Merciful.Aameen

[umar_khan 0]

so these books as u say

Astagfirullah.

and one more BOOK is present in Islamic books but i dont want to name it here. Astagfirullah Astagfirullah Astagfirullah.....

You are disrespecting All the muslims better ask for forgiveness from Allah

May Allah forgive us All as HE is the Most Merciful.Aameen

bro that quote was not directed at the "book" but at the brother who wastalking nonsense

wrong wrong wrong! Please REFERENCE your claims.

there are numerous threads that disprove that Ali (as) married his daughter Umm Kulsum (ra) to Umar, instead it was Abu Bakr's daughter Umm Kulsum (who was raised in the house of Ali (as) after he married Abu Bakr's widow) that married Umar. See here http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/umm...um/en/index.php (more links on the left for the remainder of the piece)

the names have also been discussed and disproven (that they were in honor of the caliphs) before. Especially since Abu Bakr was a nickname both of the caliph AND of Imam Ali's (as) son, and umar and uthman were common names see here for refuation http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/names/en/index.php

oh reallly you probably also argue that the prophet (pbuh) only had one daughter in fatimah (ra). youve shot yourself in the foot as its another example of the abu bakr (ra) and ali (ra) families mixing. you probably also deny the families of abu bakr (ra) and hussain (ra) were married into each other. thinking about it...............its quite ironic that all the imams (ra) since hussain (ra) have the blood of abu bakr (ra) .

no matter how much you deny you can never escape the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aliya 21]

LOL, of course it IS most likely and logical that the Prophet (pbuh) only had one biological daughter (discussed many many times on this forum, the others were most likely nieces of Bibi Khadija (as) from her sister (this explains why Prophet (pbuh) had no relationship with them into adulthood, there's no mention of his relationship with their children or husbands as sons-in-law, the way there is with Bibi Fatima (as), Ali (as) and Hasan (as) Husain (as)) for detailed thread it can be found here http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=77243

But even scholars cannot say definitively one way or the other IF these were daughters of Prophet (pbuh), daughters of Bibi Khadija (as) from previous marriages, or the nieces of Bibi Khadija (as) from her sister, most evidence supports the latter.

As for our imams (as) the lineage goes through Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (ra), one of the strongest supporters of Imam Ali (as), this si NO SHAME for shias... but what do sunnis say about this noble man (ra) who sided against his own sister, Aisha, in the battle of Jamal? :)

[Gypsy 3,166]

again utter nonsense. if ali (ra) hated usman (ra) why was he closest adviser and were married into each others family. ali (ra) himself said in a letter to muawiyah that usman (ra) was the most beloved person to him with the exception of his children.

umar (ra) was the son in law of ali (ra)

ali (ra) had sons called abu bakr and umar

this proves your accusations are false

(salam)

Being married to some family doesnt proof anything. Eman is based solely on faith no iff and buts.

As said many time on this board..Umar did not marry any children of Ali(as). Ali (as) adopted son was Muhamamd Ibn Abu Bakr.

Uthman was thief and according to Ayesha "Uthman was a kafir and deserve to be killed". And that was how his life ended.

[umar_khan 0]

As for our imams (as) the lineage goes through Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (ra), one of the strongest supporters of Imam Ali (as), this si NO SHAME for shias... but what do sunnis say about this noble man (ra) who sided against his own sister, Aisha, in the battle of Jamal? :)

again you destroying your own shia argument. the imams after hussain (ra) inherit the genes and blood of abu bakr (ra). ali (ra) was the step father of abu bakr (ra) son and married his widow. hardly sounds like they were enemies. in the contrary its another proof of their close relationship. again you said aisha (ra) or mohammad bin abu bakr fought on the opposite sides, hardly the actions of inherent hatred for ali (ra).

(salam)

Uthman was thief and according to Ayesha "Uthman was a kafir and deserve to be killed". And that was how his life ended.

another disgusting false quote. usman (ra) was martered in the best manner of all in the history of islam. the prophet (pbuh) came to him in a vision just before he was martered.

the shia hatred knows no bounds.

[Syed 0]

again you destroying your own shia argument. the imams after hussain (ra) inherit the genes and blood of abu bakr (ra). ali (ra) was the step father of abu bakr (ra) son and married his widow. hardly sounds like they were enemies. in the contrary its another proof of their close relationship. again you said aisha (ra) or mohammad bin abu bakr fought on the opposite sides, hardly the actions of inherent hatred for ali (ra).

another disgusting false quote. usman (ra) was martered in the best manner of all in the history of islam. the prophet (pbuh) came to him in a vision just before he was martered.

the shia hatred knows no bounds.

(bismillah)

(salam) + Ya Ali Madad!!

What rubbish are U talking about the Genes of Mola Hussain (A.S)???? Explain urself...

About Uthman, well if he was such a big martyr, how come his body was not buried for three days??? Infact, a dog amputated his arm or a leg also.. And howcome he was buried in the JEWISH portion of Baqi... Prob ppl, for once atleast, listend to what Ayesha said (Hint: Kill that old Jew)....

Btw, since we are on the topic, What was Mohammed bi Abu Bakr's role in the killing of Uthman????? And why did he START the agitation against Utman????

Wa Salam n Ya Ali Madad!!

[umar_khan 0]

(bismillah)

(salam) + Ya Ali Madad!!

What rubbish are U talking about the Genes of Mola Hussain (A.S)???? Explain urself...

you obviously dont know the history of your own imams. your imams (ra) basically came from abu bakr (ra) via his son.

About Uthman, well if he was such a big martyr, how come his body was not buried for three days???

absolute falsehood. have you been brainwashed by your scholars aswell

Infact, a dog amputated his arm or a leg also.. And howcome he was buried in the JEWISH portion of Baqi... Prob ppl, for once atleast, listend to what Ayesha said (Hint: Kill that old Jew)....

contine speaking nonsense.... im not even going to take you seriously

Btw, since we are on the topic, What was Mohammed bi Abu Bakr's role in the killing of Uthman????? And why did he START the agitation against Utman????

thats another shia filthy accusation.and a direct insult of ali (ra)

Wa Salam n Ya Ali Madad!!

allahu akbar

its said that when usman (ra) was being martered, the prophet (pbuh) came to him in a vision saying to usman (ra), usman you can either live and find out who the munafiqs are and kil them all. or you can come and eat with me and my companions tonight. usman (ra) chose the latter and then was martered. (hayatus sahabah)

what a beautiful martydom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited September 4, 2006 by umar_khan

[Aliya 21]

First of all, it is HISTORIC FACT that Uthman died three days before he was buried in the JEWISH cemetery (which was NOT part of Janaatul Baqi until the caliphate of Muawiya (LA) who demolished the wall that separated the cemeteries, so that Uthman's grave is included in Janaatul Baqi).

Second, as has been pointed out, it is character that matters most, and our imams (as) come through Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (ra) who was raised in the house of Ali (as), who was an ardent supporter of Ali (as) even against Aisha, and according to numerous sunni sources, played a major role in the assassination of Uthman (who was killed due to his corruption, so NO it's NOT a martyrdom to be killed for other than the way of Allah (SWT)), and he was murdered by Muawiya (LA).

But of course you'll never accept these things (found in your own books) so strong is your bias against ANY information coming from a shia, even when we provide direct links and quotes from sunni sources.

[EEman 0]

(bismillah)

Allah o Akbar. Allah is the Greatest

Ya Allah Madad

Ms. Aliya Can u plz answer or comment on my post no. 103

and

SpIzo will u answer my post no. 104

Ah Allah! give us the True knowledge and guide us as YOU are the only ONE Who can guide us. Aameen