Shia vs. Sunni 2

Salam brother Muslim.

I just want to comment on what you said previously:

"80% of iraqis r shia yet they found it hard to get rid of 1 bad leader saddam hussein out of power? doesnt that show u how weak shia's are? u fuckers dont live for allah or islam u live for ur big fat bellies n mutaa marriages thats all..."

To me it is clear that Shia people love peace taught by the Prophet Muhammad saaw down to Imam Ali as and so on. Shia believe to never execute someone illegally like many Sunnis do (by killing innocent people). Shia knew better that if they had fought against Sadam, a civil war would've broken out which would've resulted mass killing amongst Muslims. It shows how much Shia care and respect their Sunni brothers and sisters, how much the unity of Muslim brotherhood is above their own affairs and security.

About the muta, brother, you really must broaden your knowledge before you bring any subject to a discussion forum. Look around you in your Sunni community. Don't you read papers? Didn't your scholars tell you anything about Misyar marriage that has been legalized by the biggest Sunni leaders and practiced legally in Saudi, Egypt and other countries with the majority of Sunnis? Like muta in Shia, there are pros and contras, of course. Here's some brief explanation about it for you. You can also find out more about it through other websites:

Marriage institution in Islam, allowing for a lesser form of relationship between man and woman than normal marriage, zawaj.
Misyar is an official relationship between man and woman, but does not involve that the two live together, nor that the man is economically responsible. Misyar allows the man to have a normal wife in a addition to his misyar-wife(s). The misyar wife is expected to live with her
parents, and her husband can visit her according to a predetermined schedule.
Misyar has been practiced in Saudi Arabia and Egypt for years. It was officially legalized by the Egyptian Sunni Imam Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi in February 1999, and the Mufti of Egypt has also been defending the arrangement of misyar.
Misyar has been widely discussed through the year of 1998. Misyar has met strong opposition from scholars outside Egypt, but also from
many in Egypt, especially among scholars at the al-Azhar University in Cairo. Defenders of misyar claim that the arrangement is in accordance with Islam. They also say that it gives protection to many women who do not find husbands in the more traditional way.
Misyar has many similarities with mut'a, practiced in Shi'i Islam, except for the preceding definition of duration. But misyar can
easily be terminated with standard divorce, making it quite possible to form temporary marriage of even short periods.

hahahahahaha....I am starting this thread with a big laugh...hahahahahahaha

Thanks Michael Williams

Sunni Islam (if I may call it) is a laughing stock, very little logic, big stories but no lessons, their religion does not go above Umar's belly button.... what do you think?

Muslim! Try doing prayer and at the end of prayer do not send Salaam on Prophet (pbuh) and his progeny. What will happen to your Salaat, would it be accepted? (It won't be accepted anyways because your salaat is wrong to start with, does not meet Prophet's (pbuh) standard)But still according to your standard and for the sake of argument, would it be accepted?

If it is compulsory in your Salaat to send Salaam on the Prophet (pbuh) and his progeny then don't blame Shias it they take their names in the sajood.

Cheers

Brother Ali Ameem “ jug jug jiyo…naam Ali da liyo”…” Ali da pehla number… Damadum must qalandar”….LOL

The following is fresh from my brain and it’s for you Brother Ali Ameem!
Mil gaye jo noor doo cuch iss tarhah roze Ghadeer
Noor key darya labey kosar bahai jaingay

Mimbare bay misl per hain saqiya kosar kharey
Maarefat key jam bhur bhur kar pilaye jaingay

Hoo gayee takmeele deen, nafiz imamat hoo gayee
Sirf barah taj-e-sultani sajaye jaingay

Sazishe aqba hey mujrim kal karaingay apna kaam
Aaj jhoontey naraey bakhkhin lagaye jaingay

Chup rahey khandaq main buzdil jesy tair ser peh hoon
Aaj un key haathon key totey ura aye jaingay

Go keh sabit hai imamat ayah-e-baligh key baad
Kufr key fatwaye magar phir bhi lagaye jaingey

Pa-ain gey jaanat ki khushboo kis tarha dozakh key paas
Munkire maula jahannam main jalaiye jaingay

Hoo gaye pur noor jo noore hidayat sey sada
Loriyn dey kar lahed main who sulaye jaingay

Roze mahsher hai yeh umidain kah Syed key gunah
Hubb-e-Haider key evaz sarey dhulaye jaingay

How is it?

Salam brother Amer,

Your statement "No One has answerd the question.
How does any one know what the prophet was going to wright. No one does!" has in fact been answered many times before. I wonder if you actually read what others have posted previously. Perhaps, you should re-read them, really. This way, you won't waste others' time rewriting it.

Historians have written many incidents where Umar Al Khattab doubted Prophet's decision. These historians were Sunnis for i never took or considered any materials from the Shia because what i found in the Sunni's was sufficient to proove that Umar Al Khattab often disobeyed Prophet.

2 days before Prophet's death, he and Abu Bakr questioned Prophet's decision of choosing a young man Usamah ibn Haritha (at that time Usamah was only 18 year old) to be the commander in chief and hold a big responsibility as he leads important army of Muhajereen and Ansar for an expedition to Asia. Prophet did not choose Umar or Abu Bakr, instead they had to obey this young man during the mission. As usual, Umar questioned Prophet'd decision and critized Prophet along with Abu Bakr and other companions just like when they critized Prophet for appointing Usamah's father as an army commander before.

They went on criticizing until the Prophet became so angry that he got up from his bed, still sick with fever and with his head bandaged, with two men supporting him because he could hardly stand straight. He praised Allah highly then said:

"O People ! I have been informed that some of you object to my appointing Usamah as commander of the detachment. You now object to my appointing Usamah as commander in chief as you objected to me appointing his father commander in chief before him. By Allah, his father was certainly competent for his appointment as commander in chief and his son is also competent for the appointment."

Then he said,

"Send the detachment of Usamah; deploy the detachment of Usamah, send forward the detachment of Usamah."

He kept repeating the exhortations but the companions were still hesitant, and camped by al-Jurf.

My comment on this is pretty much the same with those who were searching for the truth before me; i could not believe that Umar (known as the one of the greatest leaders amongst the majority of Muslims) had played such a dangerous role! Though it made me realize why Prophet didn't assign one of his 'senior' companions like Umar or Abu Bakr to lead the army. Simply because they didn't obey Prophet! It has been prooved in many occasions before.

I'd like to ask you one thing tho. What is your opinion on Umar Al Khattab claiming that Prophet saaw had delusions when he (Prophet) ordered Umar to get a paper and pen?

Furthermore, Umar said, "you have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient for us being the Book of Allah."

Do you really think that he (Umar) knows the Qur'an better than Prophet, for whom it was revealed? And if you really believe that Quran is sufficient, you would also have to believe in whatever Prophet has said and done because these two could never be separated as clearly stated in the Quran.

The Sunnis tend to defend Umar by saying that he had nothing but good intention, but then again, this kind of reason doesn't match with Prophet's reaction after that. And do you really think that Prophet wouldn't know the good will of Umar and thank him for that? Of course he would, but instead, Prophet was so angry at him and finally told all of them to leave his house.

Again, all of this small amount of stories are written and taken out from Sunni's books for i never took Shia's references.

Even in the presence of Prophet at that time, people were already divided into two parties: one agreeing with the Messenger of Allah about writing that document, while the other agreed with Umar "that he was talking nonsense".

Which side would you choose?

It is essential for us to choose which side we'd want to be. Don't tell me that it happened in the past and therefore it is not important. No, my friends, it is very important as it was the beginning of devisions of Muslims! Allah says in the Quran to be on the right side when 2 parties are fighting for one of them is wrong. Now use your common sense please. You don't need to be a scholar to take such action.

What kind of excuses could we forward for Umar?? I failed to find one because it would be against the Quran that orders them and all of us to OBEY and NEVER QUESTION Prophet's every single word for he is the most knowledgeable and whom which the Quran was revealed to. All of his words and actions were inspired by Allah. If we questioned Prophet, we would at the same time question Allah. A'udhubillah.

Ma'asalam

Salaam Tod

My Urdu isn't that brilliant but I get the jist this is about Ghadeer.

Sazishe aqba hey mujrim kal karaingay apna kaam
Aaj jhoontey naraey bakhkhin lagaye jaingay

' Bakhin mein Chhupaata hai koiee apna Sharaarat... Yeh Kaun Ajaaib ka Mazhar, Kaun Valli hai? Yeh Maula Ali Maula Ali Maula Ali hai. Yeh Maula Ali hai. Yeh Maula Ali hai. '

Why are people unable to see clearly, the alterior motives of Umar?

Thankyou Seyyed. The poem was beautiful. Is it your own?

May Allah bless the poets who write in the love of Aale Mohammed, with Palaces in Paradise.

Wassalaam

W/S brother Ameem

Yes it was about Ghadeer and I wrote it for a Mehfil as I do every year. It was a bit longer but I gave you last few shairs. If you send me e-mail I will be glad to send you the whole.
Btw...thanks for your dua.

You wrote a nice one too...hahaha good one.
Yes right! only blind people can follow Umar...LOL

sallam brother in islam

all the same bullshit,lies,hyprocy and no truth.
Allah is the judge not man that thinks with his dick.
Mohammad (pbuh) gave sallam to ALSIDDAQ which the prophet named him that you diseaed people say he was a bad man,The prophet gave Umar sallam you evil people so why dont you give sallam to these great men,why because the shia were the first to divide the ummah and what does ALLAh say about the people that divide the Ummah Iam sure you know boys.

Ali AMMEM i have answerd every question that you have given me,but the shaytan of yours does not accept my answer.

How can a muslim be muslim ad say bad words about the people that the prophet walked with,trusted,married his daughters.ate with,prayed with,gave sallam to,whent to Battle with,HOW YOU EVIL PEOPLE WASNT THE PROPHET SINLESS YOU DUMB BLIND PEOPLE.
brother Ali Ammem why did Immam Ali marry his daughter to Immam umar?
Why did The Prophet mary Abu bakr duaghter aicha You dim wits tink hard you morons.
Why did The prophet mary 2 of his daughters to Uthman,why,why,why,why,why,why to show shia are the enimes of the truth ISLAM.

Translations of the Qur'an, Chapter 110:
AN-NASR (SUCCOUR, DIVINE SUPPORT)
Total Verses: 3
Revealed At: MADINA
Maududi's introduction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

110.001
YUSUFALI: When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory,
PICKTHAL: When Allah's succour and the triumph cometh
SHAKIR: When there comes the help of Allah and the victory,

110.002
YUSUFALI: And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
PICKTHAL: And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
SHAKIR: And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

110.003
YUSUFALI: Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).
PICKTHAL: Then hymn the praises of thy Lord, and seek forgiveness of Him. Lo! He is ever ready to show mercy.
SHAKIR: Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy).

allah says WHEN people come to crowds(muslims) you so called muslims,is a very very very small miniorty does your punie sect prove this verse wrong?????????or is it that the 1.5 billion muslims made up of 85 percent ad ill give a bit more than the truth 15% shia and aliwe whats is bigger i crowds so called muslims???????????????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam
oh ye how do the shia knows what the prophet was goig to wright,oh through the Immams Ok thats a good answer.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

About The Detatchment of Usama

Thankyou for your last post Dee. If it is possible could you please give the Hadith Refferences in relation to the above, to clarify the truth of the incident further to the Sunni Qaum.

It reminds me of the medieval movies, of Sheakespear, Macbeth.

In the days of old the great Kings used to head the battles on horseback. I mean they were actually THERE not just in spirit but at the VERY least, on the battle field giving the troops support.

I mean they took the role of the politicians as well as of the soldiers, they were complete all rounders, that's what made them leaders in the eyes of men.

If we are to go by the false notion that Abu Bakr's ascension to the Caliphate was based upon him leading the prayers, then what about The Prophet's CLEAR designation of the 18 yr old USAMA
to lead Abu Bakr and Umar in Battle?

Excuse me, but by virtue of your own base for the succession of Abu Bakr, doesn't that make Usama the Leader of YOUR first two Caliphs?!

We CONSTANTLY hear from The Sunni's about the supposed 'Last Sermon of the Prophet', but when the very real evidences from their own Sahih Hadith's come to light about the ORDERING of Battle Detatchments, and requests for the writing of a WILL we find them ( the Sunni's) going into a heavy sense of denial.

It is typical that they wish to once again hold on to this 'non controversial' rosy coloured ideal for the sake of preserving their own selfish arguments, rather than see the truth of conspiracy in the broad daylight.

In view of the evidences, I sincerely pray for Allah to open their eyes.

Wassalaam

Dear Amer

You still haven't answered my question.

Why have you considered the Hadith of Umar having denied the command of Mohammed to bring paper and pen ,to be FABRICATED when Al Bukhari has considered it to be SAHIH?

Wassalaam

On That Day

On that day the left hand of
'those three' will be quite strained
by the weight of deeds for which
the Masoomeen were pained.

And Fatimah tu Zahra
the mother of them all
with palms raised high upon
'the three' for justice she will call.

What will be their answer for
the stealing of the land
known to us as Fidak
did they then not understand

The land that they were stealing
from the mother of Hussayn
was given by The Prophet
and the evidence was plain.

Whosover hated Fatema
they hated too
The religion of Allah
I forward this to you

That the voting in
for Abu Bakr was a scheme
to cut the head of Al Hussain
and raise their own esteem.

Open up your eyes
clearly see the lies.

The Point of Unity
Revolves upon Ali.

Do not take the other
for The Prophet's brother.

The Truthfully appointed
By Allah is annointed

as being PURIFIED.
All the others lied

when they said they couldn't see
The raised hand of Ali

at Ghadire Khumm.
You have to go to Qum

or Najaf just to find
The Knowledge. They are blind

if they STILL cannot see
THE Successor is Ali.

No matter how you try
to answer, asking WHY

We shall not stand defeated
THE MISSION is completed

via blood within the vein
that leads from Al Hussein

unto The Twelfth Imam
THE SAVIOUR OF ISLAM.

Umar cannot take
the place of our Imam

IMAM! HUSSEIN !
LABBAYK YA IMAM!

Wassalaam

sallam

I did not say the hadith is fabricated please read carefully dude.
YOU still have not answrd my question how do YOU know what the prophet(pbuh)was going to wright.
Please answer islamically not shaytanny.
Was the prophet dumb for hanging around these great men Immam Abu bakr and so on?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST

sallam

I did not say the hadith is fabricated please read carefully dude.
YOU still have not answrd my question how do YOU know what the prophet(pbuh)was going to wright.
Please answer islamically not shaytanny.
Was the prophet dumb for hanging around these great men Immam Abu bakr and so on?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Dear Amer

I did not say I know what The Prophet was going to write.

It is not the issue ( although it is blindingly obvious ) as to what Mohammed was going to write. The more pressing issue is WHY did Umar deny him from writing it?

Can you please answer the question.

Salaam All,

The question remains, why Umar did not give or let anyone give the pen and paper to the Prophet (pvuh) who ordered for it because he wanted to write and said “bring me a pen and paper so I can write something for you by which you will never stray from right path”. Denying Prophet (pbuh) of anything he orders is kufr.

Let’s analyse the situation what Prophet (pbuh) wanted to write for people as his last wish.
Obviously when the Prophet (pbuh) had asked for pen and paper, the answer would have been “Yes Sir” by the people. But Umar said no “kitabullah is enough for us”. What kind of an answer was that? He should have said “sorry Sir the pen and paper is not here”.

Now there are few things here;

1. Prophet (pbuh) knew well that “kitabullah” was not enough for some of the people like Umar. So he wanted to write something in addition for the people that his writing would have become like a seal and people would have no choice but to follow it and stayed on the right path.

2. Umar did not want to stay on the right path so he said “No Sir, kitabbulah is enough for me”.

3. The addressees were all the people gathered around the Prophet (pbuh). Then, why only Umar spoke up against it. He should have listened to the other people as well who were in favour of giving the Prophet (pbuh) the pen and paper.

4. Umar knew exactly what Prophet (pbuh) was going to write so he said “Kitabullah is enough for us” otherwise only a person insane would have denied the Prophet (pbuh) of pen and paper.

5. Umar’s own answer tells us that the Prophet (pbuh) had told them what he was going to write on a piece of paper. If Prophet (pbuh) did not tell them then why he said “kitabullah is enough for us” and started fighting with the people gathered around the Prophet’s (pbuh) bed. Giving pen and paper to the Prophet (pbuh) was not worth fighting with the people, but Umar knew the CONTENT of the writing which was about to be revealed by the Prophet (pbuh) so he resisted that. The Prophet’s (pbuh) writing would have been “Ali (as) is your Khalifah, Maula, Imam, Wali after me, follow him and you will never stray from the right path”.

It’s like Prophet (pbuh) was offering him and all the people an additional writing or essence of all his preaching during his Prophet hood but Umar did not accept that, if I may say “sure thing”, Prophet (pbuh) was about to write.

Hence, Islam was hijacked by Umar!!

sallam

Tod shia must be so Dumb and blind.
Answer the question you (antiislam nazi shia)the fisrt sect to divide Islam.
What was the prophet(pbuh)going to write?????????????,as many times use make up lies and fabrication against people better than you and me and better then all you so called perfect Immams other Than IMMAM ALI and his Sons R.A.
When Prophet (pbuh) was alive the azthan was origiall till now called by the "SUNNIS" but with Shia it as changed yous didnt obey Allah and the prophet so are use KAFFIRS????????OR AHAL ALBIDA????????

Out of all these hadith about the great Immam Abu Bakr (alsiddiq)that the prophet named is the truthful one and about Umar and uthman do you think that their all lies?????????

If the prophet can write,why didnt he write the Holy Quran more Important then any Of your so called sinless perfect prophets oops i mean Immams.
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

How can a muslim be muslim ad say bad words about the people that the prophet walked with,trusted,married his daughters.ate with,prayed with,gave sallam to,whent to Battle with,HOW YOU EVIL PEOPLE think like tis, WASNT THE PROPHET SINLESS YOU DUMB BLIND PEOPLE.

brother Ali Ammem why did Immam Ali marry his daughter to Immam umar?

Why did The Prophet mary Abu bakr duaghter aicha You dim wits tink hard you morons.
Why did The prophet mary 2 of his daughters to Uthman,why,why,why,why,why,why to show shia are the enimes of the truth ISLAM.

Translations of the Qur'an, Chapter 110:
AN-NASR (SUCCOUR, DIVINE SUPPORT)
Total Verses: 3
Revealed At: MADINA
Maududi's introduction

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

110.001
YUSUFALI: When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory,
PICKTHAL: When Allah's succour and the triumph cometh
SHAKIR: When there comes the help of Allah and the victory,

110.002
YUSUFALI: And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
PICKTHAL: And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
SHAKIR: And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

110.003
YUSUFALI: Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).
PICKTHAL: Then hymn the praises of thy Lord, and seek forgiveness of Him. Lo! He is ever ready to show mercy.
SHAKIR: Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy).

allah says WHEN people come to crowds(muslims) you so called muslims,is a very very very small miniorty does your punie sect prove this verse wrong?????????or is it that the 1.5 billion muslims made up of 85 percent ad ill give a bit more than the truth 15% shia and aliwe whats is bigger i crowds so called muslims???????????????

Ali Ammem And Tod STOP AVOIDING MY QUESTIONS JUST SIMPLE AND ISLAMIC QUESTIONS VERY EASY EVEN ARE KAFFIR CAN FIGURE IT OUT

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam
this question is to deeeeeeeee
Lets put islam aside.
Mutha is it good in sceince terms??????????????
dont think so,its only for the evil,dirty,horney,horney,horney,antimuslim.
Can i do mutha with yours sisters(sorry to be discussting)but that is the question horney sunnis guys are saying to our shai brothers,does it sound wright in islam.
I think the scholars that you talk about a another lie trying to justify ZINA.

allah knows best
amerislam

sallam

Would it be fare,if i do mutha with a muslim chick because i and her were horny,then all of a sudden a couple of months down the track she is pregnant oh nooooooooo.
We have the child and one day the child would grow and the child would ask "dad how did you and mum meet and when did you and mum decide to have me".
I would reply with the truth as a muslim should do and say"child one day i and your mother were horny so we relived our desires and POP here you are.
Know does that sound fare from a islamic and unislamic view Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

MAY ALLAH BESTOW HIS WRATH ON THOSE THAT THE PROPHET(PBUH)GAVE SALLAM TO AND WERE HIS STUDENTS.
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salaam brothers.

The Usamah ibn Zayd incident is written in Al-Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'ad Vol. 2, Tarikh Ibn al-Athir Vol. 2, Al-Sirah ai-Halabiyah Vol. 3, and Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 3.

Maasalam

sallam

254. O you who believe! Spend of that with which We have provided for you, before a Day comes when there will be no bargaining, nor friendship, nor intercession. And it is the disbelievers who are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers, etc.).
255. Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter . And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursî[64] extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursî.]
256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût[65] and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Were is our Immams(sinless ones)on that day???????

allah kows best
amerislam

Geez, you two, get your own blog and quit hijacking Michael's bandwidth with your conversation! Or just send each other e-mails!

AmeerIaslam!! I have doubt that you understand simple English. Read what I wrote above and you'll get answer to your question. (God willing)

All lies, Ali (as) never married any of his daughters to Umar. (See my post earlier.)
Prophet (pbuh) never married any of his daughters to Uthman...because he did not have three daughters...he has only one. The daughters you were talking about were adopted ones by Khadijah (sa) before her marriage to the Prophet (pbuh) since being a rich woman and on the “Deen-e-Ibrahimi” (Islamic religion) she used to support may.

Btw…Abu Bakr, Umar and all “big names” used to get loans from Khadijah (sa) for their businesses and they owed her money until their loans were forgiven by Khadijah (sa) as they accepted Islam.

Umar made “Tawafun-Nisa” HARAM for you. Tell me do you do it during Hajj?
As far as I know whoever (Sunni) goes to Hajj does not do “Tawafun-Nisa” then spouse of that person becomes HARAM on him and he/she can’t keep husband wife relations. If he/she does keep the relation (adultery) without “Tawafun-Nisa” then the children born out of that will be bastards.
His/her spouse does not become HALAL until he/she does “Tawafun-Nisa” but most Sunnis don’t do it since they consider it HARAM so imagine what they are….

It was asked from Umar that why he did “Tawafun-Nisa” HARAM?
He said I have heard from Prophet (as) that he said “O’ Ali only a bastard will hate you”. (It is simple fact that who ever hate Ali (as) will never love Imams coming from Ali’s (as) progeny as well… that’s why most Sunnis hate all 12 Imams (as))
Umar said that Prophet (pbuh) can’t be wrong. Since Umar hated Ali (as), he wanted all people would hate Ali (as) too. Umar found a way by making “Tawafun-Nisa” HARAM, that most people become bastards so they would hate Ali (as).
The majority of people (who are Sunnis now) have become bastards and they all hate Ali (as). Umar’s desires were full filled.
Umar did a number on you Sunnis…LOL

Quran says that “Waduz-zina” (born out of adultery) will never smell the fragrant of Paradise. Here we go…you decide where majority is going now…. hahahaha

If you know what is a Marriage then you will know what is Mutah is. Most Sunnis don’t understand Marriage so how come they understand Mutah?

WHAT IS A MARRIAGE, CAN YOU DEFINE THE MARRIAGE?

Dear Amer

I did not say I know what The Prophet was going to write.

It is not the issue ( although it is blindingly obvious ) as to what Mohammed was going to write. The more pressing issue is WHY did Umar deny him from writing it?

Can you please answer the question.

Also Umar was the first to devide Islam at the side of the Prophet's (pbuh) bed there and then when the Prophet (pbuh) asked for a pen and paper. Shias were never left the Prophet (pbuh) and his family. So SHIAS are on Islam the way Propher (pbub) wanted them to be.
Eat your heart out...AmeerIslam....LOL

Salaam Brothers in Islam

Thankyou Dee for providing us with the referrences pertaining to The Detatchment of Usama.

Al-Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'ad Vol. 2, Tarikh Ibn al-Athir Vol. 2, Al-Sirah ai-Halabiyah Vol. 3, and Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 3.

We hope Amer seeks to find the status and authority of these great Sunni Historians, to realise the truth behind the disobedience of The Supposed Great Sahabah, as they were time and again repulsed to obey the simple commands of our Holy Prophet especially toward his last days.

Thankyou Tod for once again answering Amer who it still seems is unable to get his head around who the Prophet's real daughters actually were.

It is not a defence for Ayesha that she was a wife of The Prophet and therefore free from comitting acts of overwhelnming sin and atrocity. Once again it is very clear from The Quranic evidence about the wife of Nuh, that the Greatest of Prophet's were indeed DISTURBED and HINDERED by their own wives - so I shall humbly ask Amer to drop the argument in favour of Imam Ali's sworn enemy at The Battle of The Camel.

Wassalaam

sallam

you say all of this nonsense,but no reply to my answer(simple questions).
OUT OF 100 PEOPLE(MUSLIMS) 85 PEOPLE SAY THAT THE PROPHET HAD MARRIED HIS DAUGHTERS TO uTHMAN AND UMAR AND ALI R.A,BUT ON A FEW SMALL SMALL SMALL AMOUNT ABOUT 10 ALL GIVE A BIT MORE 12 OUT OF A HUNDRED SAY THE PROPHET(PBUH)HAD ONLY ONE,now who you belive????????????????????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
AMERISLAM

sallam
marriage in basic terms for Knew muslims.
when one another acceptes each other as husband and wife that are willing to love,respect,commit,provide to each onthers needs.
Must Inform parents and others publicly.
Must be done in front of a sheick with 2 witness.
People must know that you are married to one onther.
Must be done accordingly as the Quran states.
Must stay away from Haram(zina,alchole,etc).

I hope Tod thats enough if more needed plse ask

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam
dee plse infrom me the rules of Mutha

Tod plse inform me of the rules of mutha

Ali plse inform me the rules of mutha

Assalaam un alaykum Amer

Although we are not quoting directly verses from the Quran, it is assumed by OVER 85% of all Muslim sects, that within it there are guidelines that expressly state for the command of The Prophet to be followed.

Or should we say that following 'The Sunnah' comes in categories.

. acting as The Prophet acted.
. objecting to what The Prophet objected.
. allowing for what The Prophet allowed.
. being instructed by What The Prophet had instructed.

Hazrat Aadam has been referred to as KHALIFA in The Quran, Hazrat Ibraheem has been referred to as IMAM ( as well as Shi'ah ). Aside from this The Progeny of Ibraheem have been referrred to in the same light.

There is NOWHERE in The Quran where either Abu Bakr OR Umar have been given these honorific titles so WHY have you falsely accredited them to Sahabah who were unable to even attend The Prophet Mohammed's Burials?

Was it not ' The Sunnah ' of the Prophet Mohammed to attend Burials?

You maintain that you have answered all our questions, but that the shaytaan in us does not wish to accept your answer.

Yet still you have not answered the vital query in relation to the denial, via the standard instruction of Mohammed, by Umar, for a pen and paper.

Once again.

It is not the issue ( although it is blindingly obvious ) as to what Mohammed was going to write. The more pressing issue is WHY did Umar deny him from writing it?

Can you please answer the question.

You are laughing stock AmeerIslam!...hahahahaha

Think this way and you'll see your statistics fail.
90% of people get an information from an unreliable source but 10% get it from a reliable source. Who will you consider right? 90% ones or 10% ones?

Secondly if the information is coming from the horses mouth then how you feel about it as being reliable?
Don't forget whatever the Sunnah of prophet is known to people is what he did outside of his house but whatever he did inside only his family knows. Like how he delt with his chidren, his wives and other household affairs. This information is only available to his family so family (Ahlal Bayt) are the best source. I don't know why people keep running after Abu Hurirah who was not even a Muslim most of his life.

Go read your history books and come back to argue...we are tired of teaching you your own history...

sallam
Oh Tod was the prophet(pbuh)usinf taqqiya.ha ha ha you goose,the prophet was open with evey one .
Brother Ali Ammem do you have a beard????
Brother Ali Ammem is your favorite food palm date well its not mine,does that make me not love the prophet (pbuh).
When my mother may ALLAH have mercy on her,when she was passing away 19 months ago,she was asking for ALLAH say "ya rubb" "ya rubb" do act on that or you leave some one that is passing way leaving them in peace.
If it was so important why didnt the prophet(pbuh)wright earlier in his days(pbuh)???????????????.
Why didnt he wright the QURAN ALSO???????????
DONT JUDE ANY ONE ALLAH IS THE JUDGE,OTHER THAN ALLAH IS A KAFFIR

answer my other question people plse about MUTHA?
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

SALLAM
Tod use a better senireo then that champ.
I gave a quote from the Holy Quran understand it,beilve it,follow it.

110.002
YUSUFALI: And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
PICKTHAL: And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
SHAKIR: And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

allah knows best
AmerIslam

sallam
Know the majority of shia,is that what ALLAH call crowds,companies,troops.
I dont think so

MAY ALLAH GUIDE US INSHALLAH(QURAN AND MOHAMMAD
)IS ENOUGH GUIDENCE

Allah knows best
amerislam

sallam

durig other prophets days where their Immams in their times?
And dot give Ibrahim pbuh his children where Prophets.Immam Means Leader to his people,so dont think Immam means higer status than Prophets.

WHO HAS BEEN YOUR IMMAM FOR THE LAST 300 TO 400 YEARS,bROTHER Ali Ammen said that ALLAH never leaves us without a immam,WELL

Allah Knows Best
Amerislam

Amerislam,

Imam Mehdi(a.s)is our imam from last 1,000 years.And what about you,Usama bin Laden or Sadam???
Quran says WA KALILAN MIN IBADIA SHAKUR.And very few(MINORITY) are remembering me.Who is the minority in islam????Shia or Sunni???

sallam
walla brothers i think you should talk for your self.
Immam MEHDI comn dude wake up smell the coffe where is he,where man???????
Miniority means from all of mankind brothers in islam plse understand islam and the quran.

OK,MEHDI IS YOUR IMMAM WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNT FROM HIM????????????
110.002
YUSUFALI: And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
PICKTHAL: And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
SHAKIR: And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

hahahahahaha....Amerislam...I have seen stupid people but not that stupid... OMG...hahahahaha...can't stop laughing...hahaha

"Prophet (pbuh) was open to everyone" ...yeah right... as if he did not have a private life with his family or his grand kids...

Amerislam, Prophet (pbuh) had told people on may occasions time after time that “follow Ali (as) after me”. There are hadiths to prove it from your SUNNI books. Yet you people did not know he said that or your people were hiding what Prophet (pbuh) had said or your Kahifahs had beaten the shit out of your forefathers so badly that they did not remember anything, their beating took its toll and their generations were born retarded... feel sorry for you… LOL

If you want to quote Quran then quote fully…

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
إِذَا جَاء نَصْرُ اللَّهِ وَالْفَتْحُ {1}
[Shakir 110:1] When there comes the help of Allah and the victory,
[Yusufali 110:1] When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory,
[Pickthal 110:1] When Allah's succour and the triumph cometh
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 110:1]
The pagans of Makka opposed and persecuted the Holy Prophet from the day he openly preached the religion of Allah to them. Then he migrated to Madina. All the conspiracies, intrigues and plots of the Makkans and their allies to destroy the Holy Prophet and his mission recoiled on their own heads. Gradually all the people of Arabia rallied round him and the bloodless conquest of Makka was the conclusion of his patient and constant striving in the cause of Allah-a promise made by Allah ultimately fulfilled. Those who had hitherto held aloof, then hastened to offer their allegiance to the religion of Allah. Delegations flocked from near and far to offer obedience to the Holy Prophet. Gibbon refers to it as "one of the most memorable revolutions which have impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe". The expansion of Islam is the most miraculous of all miracles. Polytheism yielded to monotheism.
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
In the spiritual state of realization the Holy Prophet saw every being in submission to the will of Allah in the light of verse 84 of Ali Imran.

وَرَأَيْتَ النَّاسَ يَدْخُلُونَ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ أَفْوَاجًا {2}
[Shakir 110:2] And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,
[Yusufali 110:2] And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
[Pickthal 110:2] And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 110:2] (see commentary for verse 1)
فَسَبِّحْ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّكَ وَاسْتَغْفِرْهُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ تَوَّابًا {3}
[Shakir 110:3] Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy).
[Yusufali 110:3] Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness: For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).
[Pickthal 110:3] Then hymn the praises of thy Lord, and seek forgiveness of Him. Lo! He is ever ready to show mercy.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 110:3]
Refer to the commentary of Mumin: 55; Fath: 2 and Muhammad: 15 and 19 for the meaning of the phrase "wastaghfirhu" whenever it is used for the infallible Holy Prophet and his Ahl ul Bayt.
After the bloodless conquest of Makka, the Holy Prophet stood at the entrance of Ka-bah and said:
"There is no god save Allah. He has fulfilled His promised and helped His servant."
Inside the Ka-bah he pointed to each of the 360 idols with his staff reciting: "Truth has come and falsehood has vanished"-Bani Israil: 82-and the idol fell down on its face. The great idol named Hubal was fixed on a high position beyond reach. To destroy it, the Holy Prophet asked Ali to mount on his shoulders. Ali mounted as was desired and standing over the shoulders of the Holy Prophet wrenched the idol and threw it, to the ground. It crashed to pieces. Refer to Madarij al Nabuwa, Habib al Siyar; Sharh Mawahib, Rawdat al Ahbab.
As stated by the Holy Prophet to Ibn Abbas this verse gave a hint to his departure from this world.

Amerislam, now you yourself try to understand the above Surah which came for the victory Makkah. It has nothing to do with your majority now at this time.
You can see in commentary, Ali (as) was still there…How you can avoid him now hahahahahaha

eat your heart out...

One more thing Amerislam, have you seen Shaitan? If not then how come you believe on Shaitan?

Show me the Shaitan and I will show you the Rehman.
Smell the coffee?

Points to ponnder...

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّيْنَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَابٍ
وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُواْ أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُواْ وَأَنَاْ مَعَكُم مِّنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ {81}
[Shakir 3:81] And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom-- then an messenger comes to you verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of witness with you.
[Yusufali 3:81] Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."
[Pickthal 3:81] When Allah made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 3:81]
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
Mithaq (covenant) in this verse refers to an individual's accountability for his actions. It is argued by some commentators that wherever mithaq is used in the Quran reference is made to the era prior to the existence of man in general and the prophets in particular. As there is no possibility of retaining any kind of conscious state prior to the physical birth of man, this assumption will be discussed when ruh (soul) and nafs (self) are dealt with.
Whatever is the grammatical implication (whether the phrase lima or lama is relative or conditional) the meaning remains as under:
Allah had made a covenant with each of His prophets, as an individual and as the leader of his respective followers (saying)-that which I have given you of the book and wisdom, (and) when a prophet will come to you confirming that which is with you, you shall surely believe in him and help him. All the prophets accepted the conditions of the covenant and promised and witnessed that their followers will carry out the terms of the covenant. This promise was fulfilled by every prophet concerning his succeeding prophet (and every succeeding prophet confirmed his predecessor), so all the prophets and their followers have to believe in the last prophet and help him. A true follower of Musa should fulfil the covenant Musa made with his Lord by believing in Isa; likewise a true follower of Isa should fulfil the covenant Isa made with his Lord by believing in Muhammad. If the Jews and the Christians do not believe in the last prophet of Allah, they render the covenant, Musa and Isa made with the Lord of worlds, null and void. They will be punished for breaking the covenant, not Musa and Isa, who fulfilled their promise in letter and spirit. Please refer to the commentary of al Ma-idah: 67 for the last covenant Allah took from the Muslims through the Holy Prophet about the wilayah (authority) of Ali ibna abi Talib at Ghadir Khum. It was the last divine guidance made available to man through the grace of the merciful Lord, so that an Imam after Imam, in the progeny of Ali, should guide mankind in every age till the day of resurrection.
Every human being perceives his coming into the conscious state from an insensitive condition through the agency of an active will, dominating him and his environment, which stimulates natural submission. In these verses (preceding and succeeding) the Quran introduces the universal religion (based upon reason and facts) prescribed for mankind which not only awakens positive response but also demolishes the myths fabricated by the Jews, the Christians and the pagans.
The old and the New Testaments, though not the original Tawrat and Injil (see "The Tawrat" and "The Injil" at the end of al Ma-idah), yet contain enough material to establish the fact that Musa and Isa fulfilled their covenant made with Allah. See Deuteronomy 18: 15, 18, 19; Acts 3: 22 to 24, 7: 37; John 1: 19 to 21; 14: 16, 17; 15: 26; 16: 7 to 14. (Text of these have been mentioned in the commentary of al Baqarah: 40). The advent of the Holy Prophet had been made known in clear words by Musa and Isa. In John 1: 19 to 21, it is stated that when Levites asked John the Baptist who he was, he confessed that he was not the Messiah nor Elijah. "Are you the prophet we await?" "No", he said. It shows that the people remembered the prophecies about the last prophet made by the previous prophets, and eagerly awaited his advent.
In John 14: 16, 17; 15: 26 and 16: 7 to 14, Isa refers to the Holy Prophet as comforter and spirit of truth, who will guide mankind into all truth. And "who will be with you for ever" implies that there shall always be a representative of him (his flesh and blood) on the earth, identical to him in purity (Ahzab: 33), who will carry out his mission.
The Holy Prophet has said:
The first of us is Muhammad,
the middle of us is Muhammad,
the last of us is Muhammad,
everyone of us is Muhammad.
In every age, one of his sons (his descendant), in the progeny of Ali and Fatimah, will guide mankind as an Imam of the time till the day of resurrection. The Holy Prophet, Ali, Fatimah and the eleven holy Imams are of the one and the same divine light, manifesting the glory of the Lord of the worlds.
A sincere seeker of truth, in his quest, comes to the conclusion that the divine source of guidance is Muhammad al Mustafa, the last prophet of Allah, and the Imams among his Ahl ul Bayt, whom the merciful Allah has particularly chosen to show the path of love, harmony and salvation to mankind.

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ {67}
[Yusufali 5:67] O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith.
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:67]
The followers of "Muhammad and ali Muhammad" are quite certain that this verse descended about the wilayah (regency) of Ali on the day of Ghadir Khum, and the traditions in our records on the subject are numerous and consecutively transmitted through the Imams of the holy posterity of the Holy Prophet, whose reporting is enough for us, and should also be so for the Muslims, because they alone are the truthful (sadiqin) as per verse 119 of al Tawbah (refer to Hafiz Abu Nu-aym; Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad; and Ibn Hajar in his Sawa-iq al Muhriqah, chap. 11, p. 90).
Ibn abi Hatim quotes Abu Sa-id Khudri and Antara; Ibn Marduwayh quotes Abdullah bin Masud and Abu Sa-id Khudri; Ibn Asakir quotes Abu Said Khudri; Abu Bakr Shirazi, Muhammad bin Talha Qarshi and Sayyid Ali al Hamdani quote Abdullah bin Abbas; Nizamuddin Nayshapuri quotes Abdullah bin Abbas, Abu Sa-id Khudri and Bara bin Azib, to say that this verse was revealed about the wilayah of Ali ibn abi Talib; and Sabbagh Maliki in Fusul al Muhimma; Badruddin Ayni in Umdatul Qari, Muhaddith Shirazi in Kitab al Arba-in; Shahabuddin Ahmad in Tawdih al Dala-il; and Mu-tamad Khan Badakhshani in Miftah al Nijat also confirm it.
Hafiz Abu Bakr bin Marduwayh in Manaqib quotes Abdullah bin Masud that during the life time of the Holy Prophet they used to recite this verse with Inna Aliyyan Mawla al mu-minin (Ali is the master of the faithful).

Asalaam un alaykum

Dear Amer

To refresh your memory, I quote from The SAHIH of Al Bukhari
(please refer to the chapter ‘The Words of the Patient’ “Get up and leave me,” in the ‘ Book on the Patient,’ in Sahih Al Bukhari vol.4 p.5).

According to Ubaydullah ibn Mas’ud, ibn Abbas said:

“ When the time of the death of The Messenger of Allah s.a. approached , there were many persons present in the house. Among them was Umar ibn Al Khattab. The Prophet s.a. said: ‘BRING TO ME WRITING MATERIALS SO THAT I MAY WRITE FOR YOU A DOCUMENT AFTER WHICH YOU WILL NEVER GO ASTRAY.’ Thereupon Umar said: ‘Certainly the Prophet has a strong fit of illness on him. There is the Quran with you and the book of Allah is sufficient for us.’ SOME OF THOSE PRESENT IN THE HOUSE DIFFERRED WITH UMAR and THERE AROSE A DISPUTE. There were SOME persons who said; ‘BRING THE WRITING MATERIALS to The Prophet s.a . so that he may write for you the document which will KEEP YOU FROM GOING ASTRAY after him.’ OTHERS, WHO WERE IN THE MAJORITY SUPPORTED UMAR. When HOT words began to be exchanged and THE QUARREL PROGRESSED in the prescence of the Messenger of Allah s.a. he said to them: ‘GET UP AND LEAVE ME.’ “

Furthermore in his Sahih, Al Bukhari, in ‘The Book of Jihad and Travelling’ in the chapter on “ The Permissibility of Deputation’ (vol 2, p 118.) it is narrated that ibn Abbas said;

“… ‘ The Thursday! Oh what an unfortunate Thursday it was!’ and then he (ibn Abbas) wept so much so that his tears made the ground wet. Then he said: ‘ On Thursday the illness of The prophet took a serious turn. He said bring to me a piece of paper so that I may write down for you a document that shall keep you from ever going astray.’ The persons who had gathered in the house began to QUARREL, although they ought not to have quarrelled in the prescence of the Prophet (s.a) They said: ‘THE PROPHET HAS TALKED NONSENSE’. The Prophet said. ‘LEAVE ME AS I AM. The condition that I am in is better than the condition you wish me to be in’….”

Amer.

It is not the issue ( although it is blindingly obvious ) as to what Mohammed was going to write. The more pressing issue is WHY did Umar deny him from writing it?

After several correspondences, in attempting to guage an answer from you for the question above it is seemingly clear, that your reply is insufficient and unconvincing, not only to myself I believe, but to the general seeker of knowledge or historian – regardless of race or religion.

I quote

‘If it was so important why didnt the prophet(pbuh)wright earlier in his days(pbuh)???????????????.
Why didnt he wright the QURAN ALSO???????????’

DONT JUDE ANY ONE ALLAH IS THE JUDGE,OTHER THAN ALLAH IS A KAFFIR’

You have also expressly stated that anyone who believes the Quran is NOT enough for us is a Kaafir?

Then what of those Sahabah who disagreed with Umar at the bedside of Mohammed when Umar pronounced his verdict, INSPITE of Mohammed’s command?

Are THEY kaafir as well?

You presume that The SPOKEN Request by THE FINAL MESSENGER OF ALLAH is not so important, whilst The Holy Quran says

‘YOUR COMPANION DOES NOT ERR NOR IS HE DECIEVED AND HE DOESN’T SPEAK FROM DESIRE OR WHIM. IT IS AN INSPIRATION INSPIRED, TAUGHT TO HIM BY ONE STRONG OF POWER. (53:2-5)

WHY did the MAJORITY of companions (Umar’s party) at the bedside of Mohammed say that ‘THE PROPHET HAS TALKED NONSENSE ’ ?

Does this PARTY of UMAR belong to the same company, crowd or troop of Muslims to which Allah has alluded to in the verses (below) which you use without sense, to defend your own position?

YUSUFALI: And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
PICKTHAL: And thou seest mankind entering the religion of Allah in troops,
SHAKIR: And you see men entering the religion of Allah in companies,

The crowds, the troops, the companies of Yazid, Muawiah and Umar – are THESE The Muslims, the majorities to which you wish for the Muslim Ummah to align themselves with?

Muawiah also used The Quran out of context, when up against defeat at the battle of Siffeen, cleverly, like Umar HE also stated ‘ Let the Quran decide’ creating a DISPUTE, when Imam Ali had already decided with his own sword what was to be done.

Where is the Zikr of Muawiah in the Quran and where is the Zikr of Ali?

If Allah IS the Judge as you so rightly presume, then what as Umar doing making a Judgement infront of Allah’s Apostle?

If you yourself are QUESTIONING the importance Mohammed’s SPOKEN request, sorry, COMMAND ( he wasn’t asking – he was telling ) for pen and paper - then you may wish to answer these questions first;

You quote your own mother ( may Allah rest her soul ) saying ‘you leave some one that is passing way leaving them in peace’

Then do you think then decision of Umar was one that enabled Mohammed to feel PEACEFUL in LIGHT of his audacious denial of a command that was inspired by none other than Allah himself?

Were the other Sahabah wrong then for breaking the peace of Umar’s decision, by siding with the decision of Mohammed?

If the whole incident of the paper and pen was so unimportant as you suggest, then why did The Prophet expressly state that the document written would be one for which the community would be prevented from going astray?

Was the Prophet’s saying ‘leave me as I am…’ an implication to the fact that he HAD been talking nonsense (astaghfirullah)! and he wished to remain in that same state?(!)

Or was it a refutation of Umar’s ill Judgement and disobedience?

‘The condition that I am is better than the condition you wish me to be in’.

What can we assume about the position that Umar WANTED Mohammed s.a to be in? A state whereby he was unable to write or record for the people messages? The type of which would be composed to prevent them from straying?

WHY the QUARREL?

Why the HOT words?

And YOU argue over it’s importance.

Well my friend THE SAHABAH argued over it’s importance also.

So tell me Amer. Once again.

At the BATTLE of Jamal, who is your leader – Is it Ayesha or Ali?

At the DISPUTE by the bedside of The Prophet, who is your leader – is it Umar or Mohammed?

Would you GIVE the pen or would you DENY it?

MAJORITY Sahabah or MINORITY Sahabah?

Whose argument do YOU side with?

Please answer the question.

sallam

At the BATTLE of Jamal, who is your leader – Is it Ayesha or Ali?
A.who ever was khalifha at the time.

2.

sallam

Tod stop talking crap dude plse man,Immam Ali is more important to me than you dude,why becuase i will not talk on his behalf.
Tod how does mutha work/rules
Ali how does mutha work/rules.
Immam Alhedi is your immam A,prove it!

Umar r.a was a companion of the prophet (pbuh)true or false,did the prophet pray with him,go to battle with him and gave sallam to true or false.

Tod if the majority goes to war with the miniority the miniority will lose does mean islam is gone for ever.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullah Dear Brother

Habibi, the Incident of the Pen and Paper is one which has been exaggerated to such a great extent that one is easily bewildered when people of debate and arguementation bring it forward. Dr. Tijani has done a poor attempt in his book to show the Sunni view of things, rather, it seems that he was not acquainted with Sunni scholarship at all prior to writing this book. Allah knows best though and May He forgive our faults.

Before addressing the issue I would just like to clarify to Br. Hussain that I am giving the *Sunni* interpretation of this hadith, and note that the Ulema of Ahly Sunnah were and are aware of these hadith. So if a Shia brother comes up later on to you and states "Well this hadith states so and so" then make note of what I mentioned above. Coming to conclusions requires balancing out the evidence.

Firstly your post states:

Quote:
The incident is correct and there is no doubt about its authenticity, for it was cited by the Shii scholars and their historians in their books, as well as by the Sunni scholars and historians in their books. As I was committed to consider the incident, I found myself bewildered by Umar's behaviour regarding the order of the Messenger of Allah. And what an order it was! "To prevent the nation from going astray", for undoubtedly that statement would have had something new in it for the Muslims and would have left them without a shadow of doubt.

Yes there is no doubt about the authenticity of the event itself, although the view of Sayyidina Ibn Abbas that it was a "Calamity" is at most his personal view.

Secondly, the statement of the Prophet "prevent people from going astray" is an expression. It does not necessitate that if the order was not given, the people would be ruined, for if the Prophet of Allah saw such an injunction as necessary for the preservation of his Ummah he would not hesitate to write down what he had willed regardless of whatever anyone else thought.

Thirdly, in the hypothetical event that it was, as claimed above, a statement that "had something new in it for the Muslims and would have left them without a shadow of doubt" then what do the Shia make of the hadith of Ghadir Khum, after which they allege the Qur'anic verse "Today I have completed for you your religion" was revealed? For if the religion had been completed, and the divinely appointed Imam chosen, then the question of "leaving them without a shadow of a doubt" should not have arisen, nor is this a plausible explanation from the view point of Nuzul Al Wahy (Coming down of revelation).

Lastly, as the author states himself:

Quote:
"Now let us leave the points of view of the Shia, that is that the Messenger wanted to write the name of Ali as his successor, and that Umar realized this, so he prevented it."

So thus according to Al Tijani, the Shia viewpoint regarding this incident is that it was to appoint Sayyidina Ali as the Imam and leader of the Muslims after him. A few points should be noted:

1. What was the significance of the event of Ghadeer Khum, which the Shias say was witnessed by thousands? Was it not sufficient as an appointment?

2. If the original appointment of Sayyidina Ali was at Ghadir Khum, and if the Shias believe that he was to be appointed again by the Prophet during the Pen and Paper incident then how is this a statement that "had something new in it for the Muslims" as Tijani claimed, for it had nothing new but was the exact same thing "revealed" at Ghadir Khum.

3. If appointment of an Imam was a must, and if his appointment is divine in junction, then why did the Prophet abstain from from appointing Sayyidina 'Ali knowing full and well the consequences that would happen if he did not? Did the Prophet - God forbid - not deliver the message?

It was then stated:

Quote:
But can we find a sensible explanation to this hurtful incident which angered the Messenger so much that he ordered them to leave, and made Ibn Abbas cry until he made the stones wet from his tears and called it a "great disaster"? The Sunnis say that Umar recognized that the Prophet's illness was advancing, so he wanted to comfort him and relieve him from any pressure.

As a matter of fact it seems that the author of the above is not familiar with Hadith literature, for their are a number of hadith in which the Prophet was "angered" by specific actions.

In the Sunan of Abu Dawud, it is narrated from Amr ibn Abi Qurran:

-- Hudhaifa ibn al Yaman was in Mad'ain. He used to mention things which the apostle said to some people from among his Companions in anger. The people who heard from Hudhaifa would go to Salman Al Farisi and tell him what Hudhaifa had said and Salman would say, "Hudhaifa knows best what he says." Then they would go back to Hudhaifa and tell him, "We mention what you say to Salman but he neither testifies for you, nor falsifies you." So Hudhaifa came to Salman who was in his vegetable farm and said, "Salman, what prevents you from testifying for me from what I heard from the Prophet?" Salman replied, "The Prophet sometimes would become angry, and said in his anger somethings to some of his Companions; he would sometimes be pleased and said in pleasure something to some of his Companions. Would you not stop until you create love of some people in the hearts of some, and hatred for somepeople in the hearts of some, until you generate disagreement and dissension? You know that the Prophet said, 'If I abused any person of my people, or cursed him in anger then I am one of the children of Adam : I become angry as they do. He, Allah, has sent me as a mercy to the worlds and Oh Allah make my anger and abuse a blessing for them on the Day of Judgement.'

(end quote)

Sayyidi Qazwini, A Shia student and scholar said regarding the Prophets emotions, such as fear, anger and so forth:

-- As the Qur’an states in 4:16, the Prophet [s] is a human being, having all the human qualities we all have.

(end quote)

Thus, for the Prophet to get angry is "natural" and not against the concept of Shia infallibility.

Thus, whoever states that believing the Prophet got emotionally angry is disrespectful, then we will ask him to see the reply of Sayyid Qazwini.

The post then states:

Quote:
This type of reasoning would not be accepted by simple-minded people, let alone by the scholars. I repeatedly tried to find an excuse for Umar. but the circumstances surrounding the incident prevented me from finding an excuse. Even if I changed the words "He is talking nonsense" - God forbid - to "the pain has overcome him", I could not find any justification for Umar when he said, "You have the Qur'an, and it is sufficient being the Book of Allah."

Simple minded people do not understand much. As for the Ulema, then not only did they understand, but they explained the incident quote indepth without finding any fault in Sayyidina Umar.

Secondly, the statement "He is talking nonsense" was *not* uttered by Sayyidina Umar. This is an intentional manipulation aimed at degrading Sayyidina Umar. In Sahih Muslim, Bab Tarak Al Wasiyah, it states:

فقالوا إن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏يهجر

- And they said the Prophet is speaking no sense.

From above we can see that:

[1] It was said by a group of people

[2] No single person is identified as uttering the above statement.

So what does this statement mean and why was it uttered?

Imam Nawawi in his Sharh states:

( أهجر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ) هكذا هو في صحيح مسلم وغيره ( أهجر ) على الاستفهام وهو أصح من رواية : هجر ويهجر ; لأن هذا كله لا يصح منه صلى الله عليه وسلم ; لأن معنى هجر : هذى , وإنما جاء هذا من قائله استفهاما للإنكار على من قال : لا تكتبوا , أي لا تتركوا أمر رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتجعلوه كأمر من هجر في كلامه ; لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يهجر

That those that wanted to *fulfill* the Prophets request without discussion asked those who were delaying, rhetorically, "Are you saying that the Messenger of Allah does not know what he is saying?" This, is perfectly acceptable and in accordance with the Arabic language.

The article then states:

Quote:
Did he know the Qur'an better than the Messenger of Allah, for whom it was revealed? Or was the Messenger of Allah - God forbid - unaware of what he was? Or did he seek, through his order, to create division and disagreement among the Companions - God forbid. Even if the Sunni reasoning was right, then the Messenger of Allah would have realized the good will of Umar and thanked him for that and perhaps asked him to stay, instead of feeling angry at him and telling them to leave his house.

The author of the above is confused regarding the order of the Prophet being revelation or it being something in which the Companions were given a choice. Sayyidina Umar thought it was something in which the Companions were given a choice, whereas Ibn Abbas thought otherwise, and as Imam Nawawi states:

فكان عمر أفقه من ابن عباس وموافقيه

- Umar possessed more Fiqh then Ibn Abbas.

Secondly, the Shia tend to forget the most authentic versions present in the Sahihayn and the Musnads in which the people state "Confirm it with the Prophet" at the end, thus they had settled in letting the Prophet decide whose ijtihad was correct - the group who said the Qur'an was enough and the Prophet was sick or the ones who thought otherwise -. However, by that time the Baraka had been lifted and the Prophet had decided not to tell. Similar was the case regarding the date of Laylatul Qadr.

Thirdly, the author assumes that it was only Sayyidina Umar who was told to leave. Rather, it was everyone arguing, which included both Sayyidina Umar and Sayyidina Ibn Abbas.

We turn this around and say: If the Prophet had wanted to convey a message, then what made him 'kick out' those people who agreed with him in writing down what he had wished? For the Prophet clearly said:

قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : قوموا

- Leave me!

He did not say "Leave me Umar" or "Leave me those who are stopping me" but told everyone to leave him.

The author then states:

Quote:
May I ask why did they abide by his order when he asked them to leave the room and did not say then that he was "talking nonsense"? Was it because they had succeeded in their plot to prevent the Prophet from writing the document, so that there was no need for them to stay any longer? Thus, we find them creating noise and difference in the presence of the Messenger, and divided into two parties: one agreeing with the Messenger of Allah about writing that document, while the other agreed with Umar "that he was talking nonsense".

We see clearly from above that the claimant is purposely trying to find fault with the Companions of the Prophet who thought they were given a choice in the matter. We say:

[1] As to the question why they abided by the Prophets order when he said 'Leave me' and not said antyhing in oppisition then we state 'Why did the peopel who wanted the Prophet to write not refuse and say "no Rasul Allah write for us'?

[2] The author forgets that the people at the end said "Confirm it with the Prophet" meaning they had left their personal opinions and had agreed to allow the Prophet to decide on which he said "leave me'. Thus, the final decision was that the Prophet *did not* wish to write anything down.

As for the claim that it was a "plot" then once again this is mere wording used to decieve people. If the people who had stated that the Prophet was ill really wished to cover up what the Prophet wanted to say, why would they state "Confirm it with the Prophet" at the end of their arguementation? Were they sure that the Prophet would refuse to write what he had wanted? And if so what is the proof of this?

Lastly, once again we reiterate that it was not Sayyidina Umar who stated "He is speaking nonsense". Rather, this was a rhetorical statement spoken by those who *wanted* the Prophet to write, towards those who thought they were given a choice in the matter.

Quote:
I think the majority of the Companions were with Umar, and that is why the Messenger of Allah found it useless to write the document, because he knew that they would not respect him and would not abide by the command of Allah by not raising their voices in his presence, and if they were rebellious against the command of Allah, then they would never obey the order of His Messenger.

See Oh People the clear lines "I think" for the thought process is very unique and strange. Some think based on prejudice and biased views, and Al Tijani seems to be that type of person, for he does not have any sort of evidence to prove that the "Majority" of the Companions were with Umar. How could they be when there were over 114,000 Companions of which only a dozen or so were probably present at this incident?

And then the author claims that the Prophet saw it as useless to convey a message through which people would remain on the right path. La Hawla Wa La Quwwata Ila Billah!

The manipulation of the Shias is astonishing - yet at the same time it is so easily noticeable that one wonders what they were thinking while making up these lies.

Do we remember the event of Ghadir Khum? The Shia claim that before it occured the following verse was revealed:

- - Oh Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people... (5:67)

And do we remember the inciident of the Prophets marriage to Sayyidah Zainab:

- - And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed. (33:37)

After these verses does this author dare say the Prophet did not convey a message due to the "people" for the "people were against him, according to the Shia, when he was about to proclaim Ali as the Imam at Ghadeer! The "people" were against him when he was too marry Zainab!

If what Tijani claims is true, that the Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor when Umar stopped him, then we ask:

[1] Why did the Prophet not to do so because of the peoples oppsoition although Allah had said, 'nd Allah will protect you from the people.'

Quote:
I ask Allah for forgiveness, and renounce what has been said in the presence of the holy Messenger, for how could I convince myself and my free conscience that Umar ibn al-Khattab was acting spontaneously, whereas his friends and others who were present at the incident cried until their tears wet the stones, and named the incident "the misfortune of the Muslims". I therefore decided to reject all the justifications given to explain the incident, and even tried to deny it so that I could relax and forget about the tragedy, but all the books referred to it and accepted its authenticity but could not provide sound justification for it.

Yes, and we ask Allah to forgive us also, and guide you for you have slandered the Companions with such deceit that it astonishes people as to how low one would stoop, how many bends one cuts, to degrade those who fought at Badr, and Uhud and Khandaq - who were driven out of their homes and their families killed - for the sake of the religion!

And then the author goes on with his usual exaggerations stating "others were present cried until their tears wet stones" and "named the incident...." but who are these others? For the only name mentioned was that of Sayyidina Ibn Abbas and no one elses!

Quote:
I tend to agree with the Shii point of view in explaining the incident because I find it logical and very coherent.

I still remember the answer which al-Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr gave me when I asked him, "How did our master Umar understand, among all the Companions what the Messenger wanted to write, namely the appointment of Ali as his successor- as you claim - which shows that he was a clever man?".

May Allah guide us - for the view presented by Sayyid Al Sadr is merely a supposition not backed up by explicit proof. It is odd that one would say Sayyidina Umar stopped the Prophet because he anticipated the appointment of Ali when:

[1] Ali had already been supposedly appointed.

[2] Some of the scholars of Ahly Sunnah actually stated that this was to appoint Abu Bakr!

Imam Nawawi states in his Sharh:

قال البيهقي : وقد حكى سفيان بن عيينة عن أهل العلم قبله أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم أراد أن يكتب استخلاف أبي بكر - رضي الله عنه

that Sufyan ibn Uyana stated that some of the Ahly 'Ilm stated that the Prophet intended to appoint Sayyidina Abu bakr as Caliph.

Imam Nawawi then states:

ثم ترك ذلك اعتمادا على ما علمه من تقدير الله تعالى ذلك

- The Prophet left this because he trusted in his knowledge of Allahs decree (to make Abu Bakr Caliph).

Further, the statement of the Prophet regarding Sayyidina Abu Bakr and his other statements at the end of his life and his appointment as leader of the prayers:

وقال : يأبى الله والمؤمنون إلا أبا بكر , ثم نبه أمته على استخلاف أبي بكر بتقديمه إياه في الصلاة

So how does one blindly say that it was to appoint Sayyidina 'Ali and so Umar opposed it? And how can this be when Sayyidina Ali himself denied sucha thing?

- Rizqullah Ibn Musa, Abdullah Ibn Rawh Al Madaini, Ismail Ibn Abi Al Harith all narrated from Shubabah Ibn Siwar: Shuaib Ibn Maymun told us, Husayn from Abdur Rahman from Al Shabi from Abi Wail: It was said to Ali Ibn Abi Talib," Would you not appoint your successor over us?" He said: "The Messenger of Allah did not appoint a successor, so I will not, but if Allah wished good for people he would gather them upon the best amongst them just as he gathered them upon the best after their Prophets death."

(Mustadrak by Al Hakim, Dalail Al-Nubuwa by Al-Bayhaq (7:223), Al Sunna by Ibn Abi Asim #1192)

(end quote)

Imam Nawawi states:

-- Qadhi Iyad said: Bakr the nephew of Abdul Wahid differed and claimed that he specified Abu Bakr, and Ibn Al-Rawandi said that he specified Abbas, Shia and Rafidites said he specified Ali, and these are false claims, an impudent forgery, and an audacious obstinacy against senses, for the companions unanimously agreed upon Abu Bakr and fulfilling his testament towards Umar and then fulfilling Umar’s testament towards a Shura, and no one differed with this regards, for neither Ali, nor Abbas, nor Abu Bakr claimed that there was a will (i.e from the Prophet image008.gif regarding one of them being a successor) at any point of time. Ali and Abbas have agreed upon all of this without a necessity preventing them from mentioning the will had it existed. The one claiming that any of them had a will then he had ascribed to the Ummah gathering upon what is wrong and continuing to do so. How is it permissible for any one from the people of Qibla (i.e Muslims) to ascribe to the companions that they would agree upon falsehood in all of these circumstances. Had it happened it would have been reported, for it is one of the important matters.

(end quote)

Finally, to shut the case we will give you the saying of Sayyidina Al Hasan ibn Hasan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of Imam Zainul Abideen, and the senior member of the Ahly Bayt in his time who said:

قال فقال له الرافضي ألم يقل رسول الله عليه السلام لعلي من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه فقال أما والله أن لو يعني بذلك الإمرة والسلطان لأفصح لهم بذلك كما أفصح لهم بالصلاة والزكاة وصيام رمضان وحج البيت ولقال لهم أيها الناس هذا وليكم من بعدي فإن أنصح الناس كان للناس رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولو كان الأمر كما تقولون إن الله ورسوله اختارا عليا لهذا الأمر والقيام بعد النبي عليه السلام إن كان لأعظم الناس في ذلك خطئة وجرما إذ ترك ما أمره به رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يقوم فيه كما أمره أو يعذر فيه إلى الناس

- A Rafidhi (a person who rejects the Khilafa of Abu Bakr and Umar) said to him (Al Hasan ibn Hasan), "Did not the Messenger of Allah say to Ali 'If i am Maula of someone , Ali is his Maula?'" He (Al Hasan) replied, "By Allah, if he meant the by that Amirate and rulership, he would have been more explicit to you in expressing that, just as he was explicit to you about the prayer, Zakat and Hajj to the House. He would have said to you, 'Oh people! This is your protector after me.' The Messenger of Allah gave the best good counsel to the people. If the business (of Imamat) had been as you say it is, and Allah and His Messenger had chosen Ali for this matter after the Prophet, then he would have been the person with the gravest error and wrong action since this would mean either that he ignored what the Messenger of Allah commanded him to do, or he would have made excuses to the people for having done so."

(Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Volume 5)

And Allah knows best

PS:

Imam Nawawi also states:

اعلم أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم معصوم من الكذب , ومن تغيير شيء من الأحكام الشرعية في حال صحته وحال مرضه , ومعصوم من ترك بيان ما أمر بيانه , وتبليغ ما أوجب الله عليه تبليغه , وليس معصوما من الأمراض والأسقام العارضة للأجسام ونحوها مما لا نقص فيه لمنزلته

That we know the Prophet is Masum, and we know that the Prophet delivered the Message whether in a state of good health or sickness. This was an obligation on him from Allah. So if the pen and paper was indeed a Wahy, then the Prophet would have never gone against conveying it regardless of who opposed it.

This is also proven by the fact that the Prophet lived on for three more days and did not return to the topic, although he specified much and gave instructions during those three days.
__________________
May My Soul be sacrificed for your soul, my beloved, my master Muhammad - peace and blessing upon you- !

روحي لروحك الفداء يا حبيبي يا سيدي محمد
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salam Amer,

You asked me if you could marry my sister in mut'a? Well, it's all up to her and my father of course. It has nothing to do with me really. It's similar to a permanent marriage, you would need permission from my father because my sister has never been married before (virgin). If my father permits and she accepts, then i guess she's all yours, brother. Nevertheless, i should remind you to be very careful with taking every privillege given by God, you must know its rules and conditions, and you must never misuse it in any way. Remember that God knows very well what's in your heart and mind. You and each one of us will be held accountable on the judgement day. If you have bad intentions like many brothers do (unfortunately), you would have to deal with consequences - in the hereafter certainly and this world too perhaps.

Many rich Saudi men marry girls in misyar, which is very similar to mut'a (as i explained in my previous post) except that the wife in misyar doesn't have the same equal rights as the husband does so the husband can end the marriage anytime he desires since there's no agreement needed between the two of them. With mut'a, the girl can demand some conditions from the man before the ejab kabul takes place and they both have to commit to what they have agreed on. Allah is All Knowing, All Wise.

As i said before, there are many people (mostly men) abuse the purpose of these types of marriage (mut'a and misyar). But then again, we find many permanent marriages being abused as well. The purpose of each privillege, whether but not limited to permanent or temporary marriages, given by God is pure and good but it's us (human beings) who abuse it out of ignorance. You and me know what Quran says about ignorant people. No excuses will be accepted whatsoever. So you better find out all about it before you proceed.

Ma'asalam

Amer,

Here's an interesting article about misyar marriage practiced in one of the biggest Sunni countries. So please don't point your finger at Shia for practicing mut'a. In both misyar and mut'a, there are pros and contras. This article is written against it. Please read it carefully.

--------------------------
Somayya Jabarti, Arab News

JEDDAH, 5 June 2005 — To some, it’s an unthinkable act; for others, it’s better than loneliness, but in what is otherwise a conservative culture, misyar marriage goes against the grain.

Misyar marriage is a legal alternative marital arrangement more Saudi men and women are using to offset prohibitive marriage costs and the stigma unmarried women face.

In a misyar marriage the woman waives some of the rights she would enjoy in a normal marriage. Most misyar brides don’t change their residences but pursue marriage on a visitation basis. Some marriage officials say seven of 10 marriage contracts they conduct are misyar, and in some cases are asked to recommend prospective misyar partners.

Most of the women opting for misyar either are divorced, widowed or beyond the customary marriage age. The majority of men who take part in such marital arrangements are already married.

“All the misyar marriage contracts I conduct are between men and women remarrying,” said Abu Fawaz, who’s been a marriage official for four years. “For a misyar marriage all you need is witnesses, her dowry and the acceptance of both parties. Usually the woman either has her own place or lives with her family. Most of the time the woman’s family knows while the man’s family is in the dark about it, be it his first wife or any other family members.”

Arab News surveyed 30 Saudi men and women aged 20-40 regarding misyar marriage. Over 60 percent of the men surveyed would consider misyar marriage for themselves with the majority of the respondents in their 20s. Those who would not consider it for themselves would not allow it for kin, be it sisters, brothers, sons or daughters. However, among the men who would consider it themselves, only two would find such a marriage acceptable for a female relative.

“If I allowed myself to marry another man’s sister or daughter ‘misyarically’ then it would only be fair to accept the same for my own female kin,” said Mohammad H. “It’s a double standard for men to accept it for themselves and other men but not the females. After all, if we all took up the same policy then who would we marry — each other?”

The reasons men gave for favoring misyar most often related to cost, with some asking “why not?” “I get to maintain all my rights, but I don’t have to take care of her financially and don’t even have to provide a house for her,” said 25-year-old Rayan Abdullah, an unmarried medical student at the city university. “It’s a great solution — isn’t it? It costs less than having a girlfriend — doesn’t it?” Or is it a male convenience in a male-dominated culture?

“What are the things most of us married men complain about?” asked Ghazi Ahmad, a 38-year-old husband and father of three children. “Don’t all of us constantly complain about the financial burdens, the lack of personal freedom — the routine patterns? Then this is the best marriage ever as far as I’m concerned. Married but not married — perfect.”

The opinions of women respondents about misyar marriage were a sharp contrast to the males’. More than 86 percent of the women 20-40 would not even consider such a marriage for themselves. Only four women — all in the over-40 category — would consider such marriages for themselves or relatives.

Most of the women respondents called it “legal prostitution” or objected to the lack of women’s rights in misyar marriages.

“I’m set in my ways,” said a 42-year-old bank manager who chose to call herself Muna Saad. “I live with my mother and couldn’t tolerate the idea of leaving her to live alone, and I’m comfortable financially. At the same time, I’d love to get married,” Muna said. “I also think it would be amusing for the roles to be reversed and sort of ‘own’ the man for a change and having him owe me rather than the other way around.”

Despite optimistic expectations, such marriages are not always blissful. Former and current misyar spouses said it can become a nightmare if pregnancy results from the union or if there are already children from former marriages. With most misyar marriages rooted in secrecy, the husband is only a ghostly figure occasionally seen. Once a child is conceived, the luxury of secrecy disappears.

“My second misyar marriage was doing fine despite my hawk of a first wife,” said Abu Abdul Rahman. “But that was only until my second wife got pregnant, and then the real nightmare began. She wanted to announce our relationship publicly because it put her in bad situations societally — you can’t be single and pregnant. I had to tell my family and my wife, and all hell broke loose. Now both marriages are on the rocks.”

There can be other unforeseen consequences of secrecy. “I’d been married misyarically for almost a year when members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice paid me a terrible visit accusing me of prostitution,” said a 35-year old divorcee and mother of two who chose to call herself Warda.

“They wanted to drag me to the police station even though I kept shoving the marriage contract in their faces. I had to call my brother — with whom I wasn’t on speaking terms. It was terrible. I hated myself and hated all men — my children were 6- and 7-years-old.”

A social worker who frequents the courts denounced misyar marriage. “The courts are overflowing with problems from regular marriages regarding financial obligations that husbands ignore, custody problems and alimony,” she said.

“There is a horrible, growing problem in enforcing the law upon neglectful husbands and fathers. How can anyone legalize a procedure such as misyar marriage that will make room for more irresponsibility?” the social worker asked.

“Unfortunately, misyar marriage has made it easier for irresponsible, immature individuals to enter a relationship that is supposed to be based on credibility, reliability and respect,” said Abu Zaid, an elderly marriage official. “This isn’t the case. It’s treated as a temporary solution for lust. That’s not what marriage is all about. In regular polygamy all wives have exactly the same rights over the husband, be it financial, be it regarding time spent together or being public. Women think that misyar marriage is for their benefit when in fact on a long-term basis, they pay the price and not just from their pockets but from their emotions, as well.”

Many parents and children of misyar wives stated that they felt the woman as being sold short in such a marriage. Parents mostly said that the only reason they accepted the situation was in recognition of their daughters as adult women with their own needs and their right to respond to such needs. “I begged my divorced daughter not to marry a suitor who proposed a misyar marriage,” said Abu Fahda. “At the end, I gave in because I didn’t want to be the reason for her having an unlawful relationship with a man. I’m an adult, and I know she has her needs, but I’d be lying if I said that I have any respect for this stranger who comes to my house for intimacy with my daughter. I even have trouble looking her in the face,” he said. “My neighbor’s niece was married misyarically for a while, and then when the husband was done with her he just left her — just like that.”

Abu Fahda’s grandchildren share his sentiments — especially sadness. “I don’t know who this man is — this man who comes to our house and spends time with my mother,” said the 6-year-old boy. “He’s not my father, and he can’t be her husband because fathers and husbands live with their families.”

For sociologists, misyar marriage is a head-scratcher. “What are we telling others about our self-worth, and what are we telling our children about the significance and meaning of family?” asked Dr. Nahid L. “Marriage is about in-depth relationships — not just copulation. Why are more women willing to forgo what is theirs just to be ‘called’ or falsely feel married?”

When marriage was created it was to ensure that no one gets anything for free. “Each, husband and wife, has duties and rights — and even in regular marriages women are already taken for granted. Marriage isn’t just about sex. Misyar marriage is only going to make things worse as far as I’m concerned.”

Some say society msut consider other alternatives. “If they want to really solve the issue of unmarried women instead of making it easier for men to marry repeatedly and cheaply, they should make it easier for Saudi women to marry non-Saudis,” said a school teacher.

“Years ago in college, I overheard one of my son’s friends talking about marriage and girls, and he asked ‘why buy the cow when the milk is free?’ They were talking about loose girls and there not being any need for marriage with them around,” said a university professor. “With misyar marriage, haven’t we just legalized the ‘why-buy-the-milk-when-the-cow-is-free’ syndrome? And we’re supposed to be civilized?”
----------------------------------------------

Maasalam

Salam Amer,

Another article for you to read but this one is one of the advantages of misyar marriages. A couple of my best female friends are still happily married in mut'a. They both have exactly the same way of thinking as the misyar-married girl mentioned in below article. Indeed, my friends' husbands are among the few ones who have good intentions, know the rules and fear God.

Happy reading!

Ma'asalam

--------------------
A Happy Misyar Union
Somayya Jabarti, Arab News

JEDDAH, 5 June 2005 — Shaden Fahd and Omar Zain — as they chose to call themselves — are in their sixth year of misyar marriage and consider themselves fortunate and happily married. Both of the middle-aged twosome have successful businesses in various fields while leading co-independent private lives.

“For decades and especially in the Arab culture, women have disheveled and restructured their lives around men or children,” said Shaden Fahd. “She’s always been expected to subordinate her life to others. It doesn’t matter what she is — a doctor or a teacher — when and if she gets married, she’s got to uproot herself.”

Fahd enjoys her roots.

“Of course, there are those who have been obliged to fall in line because the woman have been dependent on others so they have not had the option,” she said. “Well, I was fortunate to have the option, and I can afford to give myself the option — the option of being married and keeping my personal space: To have a partner to share my life and not become my life,” she said. “I didn’t want to have to shift my life around. I wanted to add to my current life and not have to take anything away. Sure, it may sound selfish to many, but it’s about knowing yourself and knowing what suits you best.”

Shaden and Omar met more than seven years ago through mutual friends and found that they had more in common than they could imagine. They were middle-aged, unmarried, financially independent and free-spirited. Despite their unusual or unique ending, their beginning was familiarly patterned in the takeoff of male-female relationships.

“At the beginning of getting to know Shaden, I thought to myself ‘She’s just putting on the Miss Independent or the no marriage interest just to trap me’,” Omar said. “Modesty aside, I was considered in my day and age to be an eligible bachelor. You can’t imagine how pleased and amazed I was when I found that she totally meant it. She was all that she said she was. It was interesting and even intimidating at times to meet a Saudi woman who wasn’t interested in me because she wanted financial security or social status or a family.”

When they realized there was mutual attraction and interest in taking their connection further, the option of a misyar marriage was communicated through mutual friends, directly discussed between them — yet initially rejected by Shaden’s family.

“Our father — may he rest in peace — wouldn’t hear of the option of a misyar marriage,” said Abdul Rahman, Shaden’s 37-year-old brother.

“Coming from a tribal family with most of our relatives still living in Riyadh, my family was outraged that she would even think of such a matter. In fact, my mother blamed my father telling him that this was all the result of letting her have her way in too many things,” said Abdul Rahman. “It didn’t matter to my father that Omar was from a rich, well-established and prominent family, and he wasn’t outraged about being from the Western Region. It was Shaden wanting to get married the ‘misyaric’ way that angered him. To him misyar marriage meant a woman giving herself for free.”

After a near two-year unofficial engagement period, Shaden and Omar tied the knot in March 2000 celebrating with an exclusive and very private dinner in the company of very few friends and a number of family members.

After a brief honeymoon in Europe and Lebanon, they both returned to Jeddah to resume their single, yet married, lives.

“I remember the first thought that came into my mind that day when I walked through my front door after coming back from our honeymoon. ‘I’m married, but I’m free!’” said Omar laughing.

“Marriage is always referred to as the ‘golden cage’, but we managed to beat the cage part this way. I’m addicted to my bachelor lifestyle and have avoided marriage up until Shaden because I knew I couldn’t fit into the traditional stereotypical marriage,” he said.

“I’ve always known that misyar marriage would be perfect for me, but I couldn’t find the woman who’d agree to it — especially as I wasn’t married — currently or previously — and misyar marriage is mostly associated with second-marriage status.”

Shaden and Omar currently live in separate houses in different districts of the same city. They see each other at each other’s residencies depending on their mutual circumstances, moods and plans. Both agree that with each of them not having children in mind, misyar marriage is much more suitable.

Shaden also said such a marital arrangement was for the emotionally independent, free-spirited and self-confident. “If a woman is the kind who needs constant reassurance that she’s loved, or if she needs a man around most of the time to make her confident of her womanhood, then misyar marriage isn’t going to work for her,” said Shaden.

“Some of my family members still think it’s a degrading and disrespectful arrangement that makes me look wanton or selfish. And why is that? Because he doesn’t house me? Doesn’t pay for my expenses? If in regular marriages a husband takes care of his wife and children financially it’s not because that’s what she’s worth or it’s out of respect. Women ought to know that their worth can’t be measured by a husband or, any man taking care of her — financially or not. I know my worth, and whether Omar takes care of me financially or not is irrelevant. Furthermore, financial independence gives a person freedom — why should I lose this freedom by getting married?”

Among the advantages of getting married the misyar way, Shaden and Omar agreed that not being an out-in-the-open traditional couple enabled them to dodge the social baggage that comes with being married. They believed that one of the factors that was a catalyst for their successful marriage was that they were spared the social appearances and familial obligations that come heavy within the Saudi community of the married.

“Many go for misyar marriages as a means of fleeing problems or failed relationships,” said Omar. He gently nudged Shaden’s hand, and she smiled back at him as he said: “Instead our marriage is a haven we escape to instead of escaping from. It suits us and our kind of personalities.”
---------------

Dear Amer.

I understand from your last post sent, July 4, 2005 12:35 AM, that it is a quote, from other than yourself, addressing a person by the name of 'Brother Hussain'.

Although it is detailed, and admits the validity of The Narration by Al Bukhari with regard to The Sahabah accusing Mohammed of having 'Talked Nonsense', it still is unable to justify the act of Umar's decision to go against the argument in favour of Mohammed's spoken request, for Writing Materials.

In view of the Quranic verse (81:19-22)

'Surely it is the WORD of an Honoured Messenger, Mighty, established in the prescence of The Lord of The Throne, (one) to be OBEYED, and trustworthy; and YOUR COMPANION IS NOT MAD'

What justification did The Sahabah, inclusice of Umar have, to state that Mohammad had 'Talked Nonsense'?

Can you please answer the question.

sallam

Thankyou for your reply dee,Walahe its the first time ive heard of it.
Mysar,what i understood is like marriage,its in the open witness are avaliable so how and whats the differnce to a complete marriage.

what i have been informed about mutha through shia freinds,that you can commit mutha in a brothel and such places,to me that is anti-islam and not islamic at all how can some one with a normal mind think that in the name of ALLAH that it is hallal!
I hope that we have a normal mind and sense to see why iam against this mutha business.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam
Brother Ali,Immam Ali didnt Obey the prophet pbuh when he told him put another name,Immam didnt obey the prophet pbuh,does that mean that he is not a muslim,NO,does mean Immam Ali is evil,NO you get my drift.
comn Bro Ali its all be ansewrd but yous deny the truth.

Brother Ali,How much evidence do you need man.
Umar R.a a companion walked,ate,battled,loved,cried,prayed,married his to daughter and shaked the hands of the beloved prophet(pbuh)for 23 years and never in that time did the prophet(pbuh)digrace,hate,call him evil names So Wright do man have(shia people).

MAY ALLAH FORGIVE US AND THE MISGUIDED INSHALLAH BEFORE OUR DEATH INSHALLAH
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salaam Amerislam!...tell me something, what a Muslim man has to do with a brothel?
What kind of a Muslim are he who does not understand wrong and right in his religion?
He must be a Sunni.....hahahahahaha...kidding

Mutah has same general conditions as a marriage except;
• Mutah can’t be performed with a married woman and “Makrooh” with a virgin.
• Mutah has to be for a certain agreed time and “Seghas” are recited. (if time is not mentioned then it becomes permanent marriage)
• The “Mehar” (dowry) has to be paid by the husband before consummation.
• The woman does not inherit from husband
• The woman has to spend “Iddah” time as in divorce after Mutah period is over. She can’t do another Mutah or marriage until Iddah time is over.
• The children born of relation are responsibility of the Man.
• Mutah can’t be performed with a woman who sits in the bazaar for business like brothel.
• The remaining conditions are same as Nikah.

I guess you should find out the truth if someone tells you anything and investigate before you start condemning it.

Oh! Amerislam, very smart....hahahaha

I guess you are pointing to the incident of treaty of Hudabiah where Ali (as) wrote the document and at the end wrote “Mohammad-ur –Rasool Allah”. Kafirs disagreed with this and said this is the main issue that we don’t recognise you as Rasool. So Prophet (pbuh) asked Ali (as) to cross it off. Ali (as) said that he can’t cross it off, he recognise Prophet (pbuh) as Rasool and said “you are Allah’s Prophet”. It showed that Ali (as) was basically reciting the Kalimah “Lailaha Illallah, Mohammad-ur-Rasool Allah”. It was the Kalima-e-haq (the ultimate truth). How could he deny the truth?
Where is the disobedience there?
Perhaps he also wanted to tell people that Prophet (pbuh) knew how to write and prophet (pbuh) did write his name with his fathers name on the document. The prophet was not illiterate as some ignorant people think so.

In the case of “pen and paper” it was clear disobedience by Umar when prophet asked to bring the pen and paper.

Don't forget "Surah-e-Munafiqoon" was for the people and companions who walked, ate, battled, loved (not sure of that), cried, prayed, and shake the hands of the beloved prophet(pbuh) for 23 years and never in that time did the Prophet(pbuh) disgrace, hate, call them evil names. But Allah did condemn them in the “Surah Munafiqoon” and that was enough for Prophet (pbuh). So your argument is not valid and like a sitting duck…hahahahaha

Only a "Munafiq" (hypocrite) can do things like that....

After the demise of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), those who heed what the Messenger of Allah ordered them such as Ammar Ibn Yasir, Abu-Dhar al-Ghafari, Miqdad, Salman al-Farsi, Ibn Abbas, and others such as al-Abbas, Utbah Ibn Abi Lahab, Bara Ibn Azib, Ubay Ibn Ka'b, Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas ... etc., all gathered in the house of Fatimah (AS). Even Talha and al-Zubair were loyal to Imam Ali at the beginning and joint the others in the house of Fatimah (AS). They assembled in the house of Fatimah as a place of refuge since they were opposing the majority of people. According to the authentic traditions in Sahih al-Bukhari, Umar confessed that the Imam Ali (AS) and his followers OPPOSED Abu Bakr.

Al-Bukhari narrated: Umar said: "And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr." Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v8, Tradition #817

Other Sunni traditionists narrated that on the day of Saqifah: Umar said: "Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Zubair Ibn Awwam and those who were with them separated from us (and gathered) in the house of Fatimah, the daughter of the messenger of Allah." Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p55 - Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Hisham, v4, p309

They demanded confirmation of the oath, but Ali and al-Zubair stayed away. Al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, "I will not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to Ali." When this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, "Hit him with a stone and seize the sword." It is stated that Umar rushed (to the door of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly. History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189

Sunni historians reported that: When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said: "By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)." History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120 - History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325 - al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975

Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him." History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187

In the footnotes of the same page (p187) in the English version of the History of al-Tabari the translator has commented: Although the timing is not clear, it seems that Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimah's house. Abu Bakr and Umar, fully aware of Ali's claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatimah was furious. (See Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his , v1, pp 582-586; Tarikh Ya'qubi, v2, p116; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20).

Abu Bakr said on the authority of an authentic report that, after the demise of the holy Prophet when the people had paid fealty to him, Ali and Zubair used to go to Fatimah al-Zahra, daughter of the Prophet, for consultation. When this fact was known to Umar, he went to Fatimah and said: "O' daughter of the Prophet! I didn't love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire." History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH - Iqd al-Farid, by Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik, v2, chapter of Saqifah

Also it is reported that: Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): "I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you." Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140

"From Umar's irritable and peevish temperament such an action on his part was not improbable." al-Faruq, by Shibli Numani, p44

It is also reported that: Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): "I wish I had not searched for Fatimah's house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a shelter." History of Ya'qubi, v2, pp 115-116 - Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586

The historian named the following people among those who attacked the house of Fatimah to disperse people who sheltered there: Abu Bakr - Umar Ibn al-Khattab - Khalid Ibn Walid - Abdurrahman Ouf - Thabit Ibn Shammas - Ziad Ibn Labid - Muhammad Ibn Maslamah - Salamah Ibn Salem - Salamah Ibn Aslam - Usaid Ibn Hozair - Zaid Ibn Thabit

Everybody came out of the house except Imam Ali (AS), who said: "I have sworn to remain home until I collect the Quran." Umar refused but Lady Fatimah's remonstration caused him to return. He instigated Abu Bakr to pursue the matter, and he send Qunfuz (his slave) several times but received a negative reply each time. Ultimately, Umar went with a group of people to the Fatimah's house. When she heard their voice, she cried loudly; "O father, O Messenger of Allah, how are Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Quhafah treating us after you and how do they meet us."

The Sunni scholars, Ahmad Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book 'Saqifah', Abu Waleed Muhibbuddin Mohammad al-Shahnah al-Hanafi in his book 'Rawdhat al-Manadhir Fi Akhbaar al-Awayil wal-Aawaakhir', Ibn Abil Hadid in his book 'Sharh al-Nahj', and others have reported the events to the same effect.

Also refer to the esteemed Sunni historian Abul Hasan, Ali Ibn al-Husain al-Mas'udi who in his book 'Isbaat al-Wasiyyah' describes the events in detail and reports that: "They surrounded Ali (AS) and burned the door of his house and pulled him out against his will and pressed the leader of all women (Hadhrat Fatimah (AS)) between the door and the wall killing Mohsin (the male-child she was carrying in her womb for six months)."

Salahuddin Khalil al-Safadi another Sunni scholar in his book 'Waafi al-Wafiyyaat' under the letter 'A' while recording the view of Ibrahim Ibn Sayyar Ibn Hani al-Basri, well-known as Nidhaam quotes him to have said: "On the day of 'Bay'aat' (paying allegiance), Umar hit Fatimah (AS) on the stomach such that child in her womb died."

Why do you think an 18 year old young lady was forced to walk with the help of a walking-stick? Unbelieveable acts of cruelty and oppression had led Hadhrat Fatimah al-Zahra (AS) to lament: "Such calamities have visited me that had they descended on the day it would have darkened it." She fell into bed till she was martyred as a results of these calamities and injuries while she was just eighteen years old!

During her last days, when Abu Bakr and Umar sought the mediation of Imam Ali (AS) to visit the ailing Hadhrat Fatimah (AS), as quoted by Ibn Qutaybah, she tured her face to the wall when they greeted her and in response to their plea for appeasement reminded them of the prophetic declaration that one who displeases Fatimah (AS) has displeased the Prophet and finally said: "I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (PBUH&HF) I will complain about you two." (al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p14).

For the same reason, she willed that those who have hurt her should not participate in her funeral rites and that she be buried at night. al-Bukhari in his Sahih attests to this fact that Imam Ali (AS) complied with the will of Lady Fatimah (AS). al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that: ... Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of "The battle of Khaibar", v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383

Howsoever they tried, people failed to locate her grave. It was known only to a handful of Imam Ali (AS)'s family members. And to this date, the grave of the daughter of prophet is unknown which is another sign of her unhappiness from some of the companions.

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) had frequently said: "Fatimah is a part of me. Whoever makes her angry, makes me angry." Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v5, Traditions #61 and #111 - Sahih Muslim, section of virtues of Fatimah, v4, pp 1904-5

According to al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Messenger of Allah has testified that Fatimah is the best of the ladies of the worlds: Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.819: Narrated 'Aisha: The Messenger of Allah said to Fatimah (who was crying at her father's deathbed): "Are you not satisfied that you are the chief of all the ladies of Paradise or the chief of all the believing women?"

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: Four women are the mistress of the worlds: Mary, Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), Khadija, and Fatimah. And the most excellent one among them in the world is Fatimah." Ibn Asakir, as quoted in Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor

Allah, Exalted He is, said in Quran:"(O Prophet) tell (people) I don't ask you any wage except to love my family." (Quran 42:23).

Dear Amer

The ANSWERS to 'The Calamity of Thursday' as ibn Abbas himself describes it, are in the very quotes of Tijani as Samawi which you have emailed - the retaliations to which are once again insufficient and unconvincing.

Even if the Shia people do not curse, then we are assured that Allah does.

'Verily those who annoy Allah and his Messenger (Muhammad), Allah has cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and has prepared for them a disgraceful chastisement'. Surah Ahzab vs57

You cannot compare Umar with Imam Ali as The Quran has testified that Imam Ali is PURIFIED as part of Mohammed and his Ahlul Bayt. At the same time it is impossible for Umar to hold the same status, no matter how hard you attempt to disguise or justify his obvious disobedience.

They say: " We believe in Allah and the Messenger , and we obey." Then a party of them turn back even after this; and these are not believers.

Surah Ahzab 47

And Allah knows best

Wassalaam

sallam
response:
Don't forget "Surah-e-Munafiqoon" was for the people and companions who walked, ate, battled, loved (not sure of that), cried, prayed, and shake the hands of the beloved prophet(pbuh) for 23 years and never in that time did the Prophet(pbuh) disgrace, hate, call them evil names. But Allah did condemn them in the “Surah Munafiqoon” and that was enough for Prophet (pbuh). So your argument is not valid and like a sitting duck…hahahahaha

Who Tod who??????????????/

Bro Ali;They say: " We believe in Allah and the Messenger , and we obey." Then a party of them turn back even after this; and these are not believers.

WHO DUDE WHO?????????????
please you half to do better than that.
The quran also quotes"WOE TO THOSE THAT SLANDERS AND BACKBITTES,SO WOE TO ANY ONE THAT SLANDERS AND BACKBITTES ANYONE TOD!THATS HOW YOU USE THE QURAN NOT THE LIE THAT SHIA SPREAD AND USE VERSE THAT HAVE NO CONNECTION.
It states in quran that ALLAH named our religon ISLAM,tod and others call your selves shia openly and taqqiya way,so you must be disobeniant to ALLAH,does that mean that yous are not muslim NO!

Tod wake up man,if shia was correct surley the deen of Allah swt and mohammad pbuh has failed walahi,and all of the Immams have failed to is the wright.yalatif why are people narrow minded why ya allah.
QURAN ALSO STATES THAT ALLAH WILL JUDGE man kind.

Tod are you judging man,no a good muslim does not judge,oh i forget you were their at the time,oh you saw it in a dream ok
ha ha ha Tod that funny not your boring things that you post

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

But Tod i will still fight for you,and if i half to lay my life down you brother even know we have differnt heros that goes for Brother Ali Ammem to.
O ye who belive fear Allah,so that you may earn my mercy and remember me.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Dear Amer

To Quote

Bro Ali;'They say: " We believe in Allah and the Messenger , and we obey." Then a party of them turn back even after this; and these are not believers'.

I did not say WHO this verse is about.

It is ABOUT those who TURN BACK from belief in Allah and his Prophet, AFTER having CLAIMED OBEDIENCE to him.( Even IF Turning Back means 23 years later ).

I have to do better than what? Quote the Quran?

Who did YOU THINK I was talking about?

Well, people put 2 and 2 together for a reason my friend.

To Quote

'Tod wake up man,if shia was correct surley the deen of Allah swt and mohammad pbuh has failed'

This is a proposterous statement, which seems to make little sense.

If Allah has referred in The Quran to The Prophet Ibraheem as SHI'AH then how can SHI'AH be incorrect and how can the deen of Allah and His Prophet be failed?

If the Deen of The Prophet Mohammed is CORRECT in the same way that The Deen of Prophet Ibrahim is CORRECT then we can only assume that THE SHIAH as it were, have SUCCEEDED, not failed.

Wassalaam

Salaam Tod,

Your messages are brilliant, not boring. Unfortunately they are being wasted upon people who are still unwilling to grasp the obvious truths within their own literature. Your research - your quotes hold a practical use, Inshallah. I pray that they continue to remain a source of refference for at least us.

Wassalaam.

Salam all,

It is clear to me, as written in many history books, that in the beginning Imam 'Ali a.s refused to give his oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Had the prophet chosen Abu Bakr to be the leader of Muslims after his death, i believe Imam 'Ali would've been the first to acknowledge its validity and Umar Al Khattab wouldn't have had to go to the house of lady Fatima tu Zahra and force everyone to come out and give the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr.

Imam 'Ali a.s finally decided to go along with the majority because after witnessing such an ugly scene at the door step of his own house, he knew that if he went against Abu Bakr, Umar and all of the Muslims who supported them, a civil war would've broken out and the unity of the Ummah built by Rasulullah saaw with all his life could've been destroyed. He knew better not to trigger such dangerous situation as he had been advised by the messenger of Allah to put the unity of the Ummah above his own rights. Nevertheless, he continued standing up firmly for the true teachings of Islam through his preaches as written in the famous 'Nahj al Balagha'.

He didn't have many followers at that time indeed, but this very small number of his followers was the true believers. The majority of people chose to follow advices from the caliphs who surely were politically much more powerful than him.

I think we all should follow the foot steps of Imam 'Ali adopted from his own cousin and the man who raised him - Rasulullah saaw.

We have every reason to embrace his pure teachings and leave all other teachings beside his for he was and still is the most knowledgeable man after the messenger of Allah.

We must condemn only those who do not have respect for and hate Ahlul Bayt (the family of Rasulullah saaw) and i suggest that we should forgive, though we can never forget, those earlier caliphs for what they've committed themselves into. We must acknowledge their evil conducts so that we can throw them all out along with the false rules they created, and (also) recognize their some good deeds.

Let us trust Allah swt for He is sufficient to be our witness on the judgement day.

Ma'asalam

Onlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Ali(as)is islam , Ali (as) is namaz Ali (as) is Quaran Ali (as) is hajj Ali (as)is zakat May Allah curse all those which dont believe this.

sallam
bla bla bla and more bal bla bla.
all lies and and no evidence.
In THE quran it also states that Imbrahim was from the Hanifya,so hy not call your selves Hanifiya????
Yes if Shia was correct 100% then how does that befit islam when yous are only 10-12 percent does that sound like islam is coming in herds or companies????
All you have are false claims,WAKE UP yous are only a very small amount think about it man.
You are telling me that 85-90 percent a muslims are wrong,and majaority of aluma scholars are wrong,DONT THINK SO,yous your bloddy brains shia men,wake up 85-90 PERCENT ARE wromg serioulsy man.
I wonder why alazhar just accepted shia in 1998,doesnt that make yous wonder why is the islamic world just accepted the shia???????????.

Yes If the shia is the correct way then surley the deen of ALLAH AND MOHAMMAD HAS FAILED,why what is the differnce since the beloved prophet past way in numbers of muslim,and compared to the shia numbers know,a very very small increase.
Does that sound like deen of mohammad that has staggard NO.

MUTHA i have figured it out it is excatly the BOY FREIND AND GIRLFREIND please correct me.

MAY ALLAH CURSE AND MAKE THE DWELLERS OF THEM OF HELL FIRE THAT DOES ACCEPT THE PROPHETS COMPANIONS AND HIS SUCSESSERS AFTER HIM INSHALLAH

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

I hope this will guide the astray souls,and if not surely they are zulimoon wrong doesrs.

1. Whether we can assume that all the fundamentals of Islam has to be in Quran in an explicit and strong way:

Actually I am sorry that when it comes to referring to Quran, few Shia friends prefer to even sacrifice Quran for their own belief. They prefer to put the authority of Quran under question rather than their own opinions. Truly the most serious complain of the holy Prophet on his Ummah in the day of judgement (that has been mentioned in Quran) is about people who have put this book away.
"... and the messenger saith: O my lord lo mine own folk make this Quran of no account" (Furqan, 30, trans. Pikthall)

(by the way, according to Shia, the biggest misguidance of Muslims after the death of prophet was that they left Ahlalbayt. I wonder why then the complain of the holy prophet is about leaving Quran, not Ahlalbayt, let me guess, because leaving Quran resulted in leaving Ahlalbayt, how complicated. But this is another issue!!!)

Now here I am trying to some how prove to my Shia brothers/sisters that we need to look for explicit evidences of our belief in Quran.

Dear brothers, unlike what some of you are saying, I haven't put any assumption from my own. I think the fact that our fundamental belief needs to be directly and strongly backed by Quran is part of Badihiat (crystal clear facts), I still try to prove it to you via 4 ways:

a. By verses of Quran:

Quran itself says that it is the book of guidance.
Quran itself says that it is including every thing (which in the context of Quran it means every thing for our guidance)
Quran itself says that it is a clear and easy book (except the Moteshabeh verses).
Quran itself says that it is directing to guidance, cure, Rahmat, straight way, and Haqq.
Quran asks isn't revealing Quran enough for you (Ankaboot, 51)
Quran introduces itself as Allah's guidance (Anam 88)
Then it also tells us that the real guidance is from Allah (Baqarah 120), and that even the holy prophet cannot guide any one he wish (Baqarah 272, Qesas 56), and that even the prophet himself is being guided by Quran (Saba 50).
Quran challenges people if they can bring ANYTHING that could be better source of guidance than Quran (Qesas 49)

I cannot see how Quran can satisfy all the above characteristics and yet it does not include enough explicit and strong verses on the fundamental beliefs of Islam. How can we say that Allah is implicit about some of the fundamentals and explicit about some others after reading the above verses.

b. By looking at contents of Quran:

If Quran was only giving us stories of prophets or Fiqh or only advise to follow the prophet maybe the case was different, but Quran clearly gives us explicit criteria for our salvation (what at the end of the day every one of us is looking for):

Quran itself talks about the criteria for salvation in the day of judgement:
According to Quran the criteria is Iman and Amale Saleh (good deeds). In Quran itself we can see the definition for Momen (e.g. first verses of Sura Momenoon).
When I read in numerous places in Quran that believe in Allah and his prophet and doing good deeds are the criteria for being saved in the day of judgement, that's the only criteria for me to look for (note that every fundamental issue, commanded by the prophet is also supported by Allah, in other words even the prophet learns from Quran).
If believing in anything else was necessary, Allah would have added it in those numerous verses, and if you say why, you are questioning the guidance function of Quran.
Look at the cases where Allah tells us the criteria for salvation. Can you find even one verse where believing and following Imam (in Shia definition) has been mentioned as one of the criteria?

Now Shia says that all these criteria are nonsense if you don't believe in Imamah. And when you ask for explicit evidences they say why you think there should be explicit evidences in Quran.
Excuse me but do you believe the Quran to be the book of guidance or the book of misguidance?! (God forbidden).

c. Shia sources of Hadith:

If you refer to your own Ahadith you can see that Quran had been introduced as the main source of guidance.

Hadithe Seqelayn (which Shia is very found of) introduces Quran as the Seqle Akbar (the bigger Seql). Shia seems to just stick to their own specific interpretation of the second part of hadith (and even there only the versions that suits them) on the smaller Seql (Ahlebayt) with no notice to the first part.

Also from Shia sources:

Imam Ali says in Nahjul Balagha.:
Quran is Hujjat of Allah for his servants (No. 183, or one before or after depending on the edition)
... it is the basis of Islam ... and the guidance for anyone who follow it and justification for any one who take it as his approach and the evidence for any one who take it as his supporter in his discussions and winner for any one who use it for making his arguments (No. 198)
(how can Quran be hojjat, while it is not consisting strong explicit references to the main beliefs of Islam?)

Ahadith fi Quran, Bab Fazle Quran (a Shia book):
Holy prophet says (my translation): when fetnah comes to you like the darkness, stick to Quran ... it directs you to heaven if you follow it and it's your guide to the best way ...

Mizanol-Hekmah, Babe Quran:
The holy prophet was informed about the Fetnah of his people in future, People asked him how can we be safe from it and he replied: By Quran ... any one who look for knowledge in any were other than Quran Allah will misguide him.

Same source form the holy prophet:
Allah has not advise people in any way like when he advises them by Quran.

Imam Sadiq (same source):
Any one who comes to recognise the truth from any sources other than Quran will not be prevented from Fetnah.

Also:
Same source from Imam Ali:
It's the book of Allah by which you hear, see and talk ...

Same source from holy prophet:
Put Quran as your main leader and director

Same source, Imam Ali:
Best statements, clearest advises and best stories are in Quran.

Same source Imam Ali:
The superiority of Quran to others is like superiority of Allah to others.

All the above are Shia sources.
Again I cannot see how Quran can fulfil all the above and still it can be without explicit evidences of some of the most important parts of Islamic belief which is necessary for your guidance.

d. by rational thinking:

Quran is the textbook and guidebook of Muslims.
When a teacher gives a text book to his students, he choose a book that reflects the main subjects that the teacher wants students to learn. If in the exam students find that the questions with most significant marks are those that the text book has not refer to them or has very briefly and indirectly talked about them, they can put the justice of the teacher under question.
Allah is the best teacher and the absolute Just and he says in Quran that he never punish people unless he has given them the reasons and proof. Allah is giving certain credits to some issues in Quran by his emphasis on it, thus Muslims try to be good at those issues. He is far greater than asking people about something that he has not given it the same credit in Quran.

Why is that only when talking about Imamat, we start arguing about the degree of guidance in Quran?!
Why only when talking about Imamah, we need to prove that we need Tafsir and hadith as well?!

My question was a simple and rational one.
It's up to Shia to justify why Quran is not referring to Imamah in the same way (emphasis, strength, being explicit, command) that it refers to other things (things that to Shia are less important than Imamah?)

Note that I am not a Quranist and I do not reject the importance of Ahadith, however the main point is that if Quran (as the main source of guidance) had talked about Imamah in the same way that it talks about Oneness of God, Nabovvat, Salat, etc, then Muslims were encouraged to seek hadith and tafsir to know more about imamat.

I advise myself and all fellow Muslims to accept Quran as their Imam and not to put themselves Imams of Quran. Please do not put the complete authority of Quran under question to prove your points.

Let us not be among those who the holy prophet will complain of in the day of judgement. Those who have ignored Quran.

2. Is it accurate to say Quran has commanded obedience of the holy prophet and therefore we can refer to Hadith in order to prove Imamah?

It's true that we are commanded to follow the holy prophet.

However it's very very strange that as for less important issues (according to Shia) like Nabovvat and Ma'ad and Salat and Zakat, Allah has not left us only with the holy prophet. He has given us lots of verses in Quran to command us about these issues. However when it comes to Imamat, we are being referred to the holy prophet. Are you suggesting inconsistency in Quran?

The holy prophet IS NOT the volume II of the book of guidance. He is a messenger who delivers and teaches us the guidance that Allah has given us in Quran. . The prophet himself was learning Islam through Quran.

Besides, I would argue that even in the (authentic) words of the holy prophet there are no evidence for the doctrine of Imamah (and not in the words of Imam Ali, and Hassan and Hussain and Ali-ebnel-Hussain, up to Imam Baqir -RA,HM)

3. Some Shia brothers say: Prove that Aboobakr (RA) should be the khalif after the holy prophet from Quran:

This only shows the misunderstanding of some brothers about the belief of Sunnies. Believing in Kholafaye Rashedin is not a fundamental element of Islam. According to Sunnies, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 pillars of Islam and believing in khelafat of Aboobakr is not part of either of them.

Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Aboobkar was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that's your opinion and you might be able to prove it to be true. But it has nothing to do with looking for evidences on Quran about it. It's just a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.

Having said that, once the Sahabeh of the holy prophet agree on a great Sahabi like Aboobakr (RA) to become the Khalifah, then it is the duty of all Muslims to obey him for the sake of Islam and unity.

If you ask me what is your proof about this, I will give you a source that Shia holds as a very strong proof:

Nahjolbalaqah, letter No. 6 of Imam Ali to Mo'aviah (note that in some versions of Nahjul balagha. This letter is few numbers before or after):

"People who did Beyat to Aboobakr and Omar, did beyat with me in the same way. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for Kahlifah and the one who is absent cannot disobey people in their selection. Shora belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imam this is to the satisfaction of Allah. If any one disapprove them on this or innovate something about it he should be taken back to the people who he has left (by accepting the appointed Khalifah), and if he refused to do so people has to fight with him as he is going to a path other than of Muslims."

Now it's up to you brothers whether you want to attribute Taqyah or lie or politics or what ever to your Imam and whether you like to justify his comment in the same way that you justify verses of Quran.

(also please beer in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Quran that says "va amrohom shoora baynahom", (and their affairs are done by consultancy between them). Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won't use this verse to prove anything about Khelafat in Islam. Unlike you Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)

Please note:
All the idea of this message is that the credit that we give to things needs to be the same level of credit that Quran gives to them, if we are to follow Quran.

4. whether the way Quran talks about fundamentals are enough for us to understand all their details:

I have said this before and repeat it again here:
As Quran said, it's the book of guidance. Quran teaches us all the main things that we need to know for salvation and by putting emphasis on the issues it also encourages us to know more about them by referring to the holy prophet and by thinking. Only after finding the emphasis of Allah on Salat in Quran (98 explicit and strong verses) a Muslim will get an idea to refer to Sunnah for more details.
It's not like Quran only talks very implicitly about an issue and when you refer to the holy prophet you find that the issue is the most important issue in Islam after Tohid!. If it was like that Allah would never asked us to read Quran and to think about it. Then it wasn't really a book of guidance and the prophet would not advise us to refer to it in the state of confusion.

5. Why not obeying the Shia Imams, they were very pious and knowledgeable, why first looking for evidences from Quran:

I don't think any reasonable sunni has any problem with obeying Shia Imams. If you have found your Imams to be the most knowledgeable and pious people of their time then of course you like to follow them and this has nothing to do with Shia Sunni debate. There are some groups of Sunnies in an Arab country (can't remember where) who follow Imam Sadiq in Feqhe.
However the problem starts when Shia begins accusing others of being misguided and looking at their Imams as people with a rank higher than most of the prophets and start cursing and hating any one that they think some how disagreed Imams. The problem begins when they define the obedience of their Imams as a fundamental of Islam thus believing that all others are misguided.

6. The Verses that Shia refers to:

Finally and after all these arguments we reach to the verses that Shia brothers refere to in their arguments. Let us see the verses and realise how strong they are in proving Imamah.

Before this, let me discuss about few introductory concepts:

a. Let us first review the concept of Imamah in Shia:

According to 12er Shia (and not all Shia):

-Imam is the only Khalifah of Allah in the earth.
-Imam is the tool for obeying Allah, any acts of obedience without accepting the real Imam is useless.
-The world will be destroyed without Imam (Imam is the balance of the world).
-There were always Imams in the history.
-Imams have a rank that is higher than of prophets (unless prophet himself is an Imam, e.g. our holy prophet or Sayyedana Ebrahim).
-Imams are certain people that are appointed by God.
-Imams are infallible.
-Imams have access to a knowledge that normal people do not have an access to.
-After the holy prophet there are only 12 Imams with the above conditions.
-Only these 12 know all the things about true Islam and true interpretation of Quran.
-The existence of Imam is that important that it can happen that an Imam exists but is hidden for more than 1200 years (like Imam Mahdi).
-Concluding remark: The pre-requirement of any act of worship and any belief in Islam is believing in these 12 Imams. Muslims are not considered Momen (true believer) unless they are 12er Shia. Also any understanding of Islam that is not in agreement with the understanding of these 12 Imams is wrong.

I am sure anyone with a minor study of Imamah agrees with the above as the main belief of Shia on Imamah, any doubts or complains, I suggest people read the works of Mofid, Sadooq and Kolayni and Khomaini.

Now I don't mean that we need all the above to be proved by Quran. However the above shows the credit and weight that 12er Shia gives to the concept of Imamah. Now we can see whether such a weight and credit is also given to this concept by Quran.

b. Another important point:
There is a concept in Osoole Feqhe (common between both Shia and Sunni) that is called Haqiqate Shar'ie (Religious Identity) and Haqiqate Lafzi (Literal Identity) .
I need to explain this before looking at the verses:
I explain it by an example to make it easy to understand:
Salat by word means prayer, i.e any sort of. So they say that Haqiqate Lafzi (Literal Identity) of Salat is general prayer.
Now in Quran whenever we read Salat we don't get it as a general prayer, we get it as the five specific forms of prayer that a Muslim needs to perform daily. This other meaning of Salat is its Shar'iee (Religious) meaning and as they say, it is basically the Majazi (not-direct) meaning of the word.

However the word has been repeated in Quran and has been elaborated by Quran and holy prophet and has been practiced and put into action by Muslims so strongly that the Majazi meaning soon took over the Haqiqi meaning and this happened in the time of the prophet. From that time on, if a Sahabi hears Salat in Quran or from the mouth of the holy prophet he would never take it as a general prayer but he would take it as the specific meaning that we understand from it today.

In other words the importance of the concept has swapped the position of Haqiqate Lafzi (literal Meaning) with Majazi (indirect) meaning. They call the new meaning of the word (that once was Majazi) "Haqiqate Shar'ie" (Religious identity). That means Shar'ea (religion) has given a specific meaning to the word.

Zakat and hajj and Saom also have Haqiqate Shar'yee.

Even Resalat has a Haqiqate Sharyee. When you read Rasool in Quran you never think that it is talking about a postman. You know that it is talking about some one coming to us by the command of Allah. You realise the haqiqate Shar'ie of the word.

Now Imamh has a Haqiqate Lafzi.
According to all the books of Loqat it means leader.
(In common between Shia and Sunni mofassrin in some occasions it also means book)

So when we see the words Imam in Quran, we cannot simply attribute it to the 12er Shia understanding of Imam. There are lots of differences between a simple leader and what we saw as the belief of Shia on Imamah. Same goes with the word Kahlifa.

c. By an explicit and clear and strong and direct verses, I mean just the same way that Allah talks about other fundamental issues in Quran. To understand a verse of Quran by means of another verse of Quran is one of the strongest ways of interpretation of Quran. However this approach is far different from mixing verses of Quran and playing with them. If we get a verse and compare it to other one, and get the results to compare it to the third one and with the help of hadith and tafsir mix a concept with the results and apply it to the forth one for our final conclusion, we are dangerously playing with Quran and this is not what I mean by explicit, direct, clear and strong evidence. This is not the way that you would look for proof for other fundamentals of Islam in Quran. Quran is not a book of chemistry brothers, it's a clear book of guidance.

Okay now let us see the verses one by one:

****************************************
"And thy Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no right to choose; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate! (28:68). "

The Shiite Brother who raised this verse then said:
"This clearly shows that man has no right to make any selection; it lies entirely in the hands of Allah."

Then he proceeded to say:
"Before creating Adam (as), Allah informed the angels:

... "Verily I am going to make a caliph in the earth ". . . ( 2: 30).
And when the angels demurred politely at the scheme, their protest was brushed aside by a curt reply: "Surely I know what you know not" (ibid.). If the ma'sum (infallible) angels were given no say in the appointment of a caliph, how can fallible humans expect to take the whole authority of such an appointment in their own hands?""""""""

Brother, I beg you, for your own sake, go and read some of the Shia Tafasir like Tafsire Almizan or Majma'Olbayan to see if at least your own scholars have understood these verses in the same way that you are understanding them.

Please use a search engine and search for the word Khalifa to see its meaning in Quran. If you do so you will find that Khalifa does not mean an Imam. Human being is God's Khalifa in world because he has the most complete qualifications among the whole creators, including angels.

This is exactly what Allameh Tabatabayee says in tafsir of this verse. He explains in detail that here Khalifa does not mean only Adam. It means the human being from his generation as well. Allamah then refers to other verses in which the word Khalifa or Kholafa has been mentioned to support his comment (a comment that is not exclusive to him but is a common understanding by almost all the Shia and Sunni scholars). He then says that God never said in reply to the angels that this Khalifa will not do what they suggested. He only said that he (God) knows something that they do not know.
In fact the question of the angels itself shows that Khalifa here does not have that specific meaning that the brother says.

As for the second verse please read your Majmaolbayan to see what does the "Choice" refers to in this verse and what was the story behind it.

You said "Man has no right to make ANY selection".

Firstly it is interesting that you suddenly changed the word Choice to the word Selection to make it closer to the context of 12ers Imamat!

Secondly this is a very weird comment I have ever heard and I am not sure if your scholars agree you on this.
So on what basis in Iran, the Majles of Khobregan selected Khameneyee to be the leader? In what way could a Shia select a Marja for himself? In what way do you select an Imam to lead the prayer? Haven't you ever vote for any election which is a way to selection and is a choice? Have you never chosen any thing in your life, how do you want to get married then Ensha'Allah?! Why then in another verse God says "Wa Amrohom Shoora Baynahom"? When you use the word "ANY" you are making generalisation from this verse. If you are going to say these do not included in the word Choice then I will ask on what basis you include Imamat in this word.

This is while if you read the verse and your own tafasir you will find that it has a specific meaning by Choice. In Majmaolbayan the most popular reference of the Shia Tafsir it is stated that Koffar were saying why the prophet could not be one of our bosses and in response God says in this verse that Allah choose who is going to be the prophet. The prophet that Allah talks about came with many evidences with HIMSELF to show he was chosen by Allah. And you are comparing this with choosing an Imam after the prophet. Nice!

On what authority brother you give yourself a right to ignore all the reasonable tafasir to this verse, apply your own pre-assumptions to it, interpret it in a way that it suits you and then generalise it to the issues that you like?

For further references about the meaning of Khalifa in Quran please see the next part.

(By the way, Shia says world is not empty from Imam, who was the Imam after Jesus? Who was the immediate Imam before Ibrahim and the immediate Imam before the prophet of Islam? Have the prophet ever met him?!)

*****"O Dawud ! Verily; We have made thee (Our) caliph on the earth ..." (38:26)

Sayyedana Dawood was a prophet and he was appointed by Allah to lead his people as the representative of Allah in this vesre.
Not sure how do we want to conclude Shia Imamah from a verse that is about a prophet.
First Dawood was a prophet, he had the advantage of receiving revelation, he is in no way comparable to people who are not receiving any revelations. Secondly according to Quran any one and any group of people can become Khalifah of Allah. They only need to believe in Allah and do good things.
Refer to:Noor-55
Also see:Fater: 39;Naml: 62;Yones: 14

*****And We made them Imams who were to guide by Our command ... (21:73)

Sorry that brothers often delete the first part of the verse when they refer to it, Allah warns us about those who change the words from their position (Yoharrefonal-Kalema An Mavaze'ehi).

If you read the verses before this, you will see that it's all about prophets. Has nothing to do with non-prophets and you cannot derive anything from it for non prophets.

***** "Surely I am going to make you an Imam for men." (Ibrahim) said: "And of my offspring?" He said: "My covenant will not include the unjust. " (2 : 124)

Again the verse is about a prophet and it's simply talks about the concept of leadership in general. In other verses of Quran like 21:73 you see that all of those who were from the generation of Ibrahim and are referred to as Imams are prophets.

*****... "Verily I am going to make a caliph in the earth ". . . ( 2:30).

And when the angels demurred politely at the scheme, their protest was brushed aside by a curt reply: "Surely I know what you know not" (ibid.).

If you even refer to your own tafasir you will see that even your own scholars (mostly) say that by Khalifah here it means human being in general and specifically those who believe and do good things, as the verse 55 of Sura Noor says and like the other verses I gave earlier about Sayyedana Dawood .

*****32:24 Sura Sajdah Ayat 24
"And we assigned from among them some Imams who guide by Our authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs."

The vesre again has nothing to do with the Shia definition of Imamah. You can consider Aboobkar and Omar and Osman and Ali as Imams who Allah put them for people.
This is because "Jaalna" in Quran does not necessarily means that God has put something by command. If you read the uses of the word "Ja'alna" (which here has been translated un-accurately as we Assigned) in Quran you will see that in almost all the cases the word Ja'alna in Quran does not have an exclusive Tashre'yee meaning (i.e some thing that has been put in action by a REVEALED command of Allah), in Quran it has generally used for the Takvini meaning (i.e something that has put in action by a will of Allah without necessarily revealing a command about it), by Ja'alna it does not mean that a revelation or a command has come from Allah to appoint someone as the leader. The above verse only means that from Bani Isra'yeel, those who were qualified for leadership became leaders for their people by the will of Allah. Interestingly enough there are no mentions of infallibility as a qualification for Imams in this verse. Refer to your main source of Tafsir (Majma'olbayan) and see if there you can find any tafseer for this verse to the benefit of Shia. The author in Majmaolbayan even says that some of the scholars believe that A'emma in this verse means prophets.

To understand this verse better, I invite you to look at the other verse that includes the word Imam and interestingly enough is often EXCLUDED from the Shia argument when they talk about the use of the word Imam in Quran.
The verse is related to the debate as it has the same expression that the above verse has.
Forqan 74:
"... Those who say in their prayer: `O lord grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and assigned us as Imams for the righteous ".
The last part of the verse uses the same impression, i.e. Vaj'alna lelmottaqina Imama.
Obviously the Imam in this verse is not the same Imam that Shia believes in (read the Shia tafasir to see they agree this). An Imam according to Shia never prays to become Imam (they are appointed divinely from the beginning). This verse shows that every normal human being, even those who have sins in the condition that they truly repent (refer to the few verses before the above verse), can become an Imam for Muslims. He does not need to be infallible and he does not need to be directly appointed by Allah. By the same token, the word "Ja'alna" in verse 32:24 has nothing to do with being directly appointed by Allah. Hence the verse is simply talking about the general meaning of Imamat which is leadership.
It is really sad that we read in Shia sources that a Shia is narrated from Imam Sadiq that the verse 74 of Forqan was not: "and assign us as Imams for the righteous", but it really was "and assign FOR us Imams FROM the righteous. It is sad to see a Shia narrator attributes the idea of Tahrif to Imam Sadiq just to justify a verse of Quran that is opposed to his belief.

Having said all the above, even if for the sake of discussion we accept that the verse is saying that Allah really appointed Imams for Bani Israil by revelation or so, still there is no indication from the vesre that Allah will also appoint Imams for Muslms by revelation or so and that this is the Sunnah of Allah. We can see that any nations with their own prophets had certain conditions that were excluded to themselves.

***** 17:71] (Remember) the day when We will call every people with their Imam; then whoever is given his book in his right hand, these shall read their book; and they shall not be dealt with a whit unjustly.

The verse above only says that at the day of judgement every one will be called with their Imam. The verse is very sensible and logical as naturally every one has a leader in his life and he/she follows that leader. Even an atheist has a leader. Quran simply says that in the day of judgement every one will be called with his leader. The question is that what does this verse have to do with Shia definition of Imamah? Allah knows best!
If you refer to the Shia popular Tafsir (Majma'olbayan), you will see that the author discusses 5 possibilities for the meaning of Imam in this verse. Interestingly enough none of them are specifically infallible Imams. I asked brothers for explicit verses and they give me a verse that even their own scholars are not taking as a proof!

*****"And We made them (but) Imams inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We continued to curse them; and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the hateful. (Quran 28:41-42).

Absolutely not an explicit verse on Imamah. The brother thinks any verse that has the word Imam in it is an explicit verse for Imamah by the Shia definition!

*****"0 Messenger! Make known that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, for if you do it not, you will not have conveyed His message and Allah will save you from the (mischief) of people." (Surah al-Ma'idah, 5:67)

The verse is irrelevant to the discussion. I asked verses that explicitly and with no need to Hadith proves Shia definition of Imamah and a brother is suggesting a verse that Shia use, with reference to some Ahadith to prove Ali (RA) was appointed by Allah.
First even if for the sake of discussion we agree that the verse is referring to Qadire Khom and appointment of Imam Ali, it has nothing to do with 12er's concept of Imamah. Technically one can believe that Imam Ali was appointed by the holy prophet but he can still be Sunni. Zaidies are another group of Shia, they believe in this verse in the way that 12ers interpret it but they don't accept the 12 Imams. According to 12ers they are misguided, cause 12ers have Hadith that says if some one even denies one of the 12 Imams it's like denying all of them. The distance between what Shia concludes from this verse and the doctrine of Imamat in 12er Shia is too far to call this an explicit verse for 12er Shia Imamat theory.

As I said the verse is out of the context of this discussion, however for the respect of the brother who suggested the verse let me only point out that it doesn't make sense that the verse refers to the appointment of Imam Ali.
The word "Onzela" (revealed) by default means a verse of Quran that has been revealed to the holy prophet. There are no verses of Quran on appointment of Imam Ali !
Also according to Sunnies Qadire Khom was not exclusively about appointment of Imam Ali, so again the verse does not make any sense. Also if you read Sunni tafasir you will see strong arguments to show this verse did not revealed in the HajjatolWeda. Moreover you cannot see a single reference to Qadire Khom in Nahjolbalaqah, even in the ceremony of Sheqshaqyah where Imam is talking openly. In fact it seems that even Imam Ali never interpreted Qadr in the way that Shia interpret it as there are no authentic hadith from Imam Ali in which he uses the event of Qadir as a proof for his right to be the only Khalifah. Where ever he has referred to this event it is to show his merits and to encourage people to support him.

As a whole, to be brief I can only say here that the verse is not at all explicit about Imamah.

***** "And everything We have detailed for you in a clear Imam." (36:12)
The brother who suggests this verse, has not any idea of the tafsir of this verse according to Shia Scholars. Almost all the scholars (Shia and Sunni) agree that the word Imam here refers to Lohe Mahfooz (the secured book of deeds). There are other verses in Quran where the word Imam is explicitly used as "book", like: Hood 17.
The way our brother is trying to interpret the verse with Imam being meant a Shia Imam is very senseless and unreasonable and his comments are even not in agreement with the comments of the most celebrity Shia Mofassers like Tabrasi and Allammah Tabatabayee.

***** "O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination." (4:59)

Shia often says that this verse shows that AFTER the prophet there are CERTAIN INDIVIDUALDS who it is obligatory to obey and who possess an INTRINSIC authority worthy of obedience.
I ask Allah to forgive us for interpreting his verses in the way that we desire.
All the elements of this verse are against what Shia is saying:

The verse is talking generally about those who are given a responsibility of the affairs of Muslims, these could be heads of army, head of a group, etc. The verse does not specify these people to certain individuals.
Last part of the verse explicitly shows that at the end of the day it's only Allah and his prophet who are the main references. So there are no INTRINSIC authority.

The question is that if the verse means the 12 infallible Shia Imams, why people are advised to go back to the Allah and his apostle as the final referee, why not going back to the infallible Imams?
Interestingly enough before the revolution in Iran almost all the Shia scholars were agreed that Olelamr here ONLY means infallible Imams. After the revolution however many of them started arguing that Olel'amr means Imam or his deputy (to prove their theory of Welayate Faqih). A clear example of putting one self as the Imam of Quran!

The other question. According to Shia, the holy prophet himself was an Imam and we cannot have two imams in one time. However the verse is suggesting obeying the holy prophet and those in authority at the same time.

I wonder how should a Muslim understand from this verse or combination of this verse and other verses that there are certain infallibles in the generation of the holy prophet that should be followed and despite the explicit point of the verse, Muslims do not need to refer their problems to Quran and the holy prophet if they follow these Imams cause they are already the talking Quran and their words are the words of the holy prophet!

The verse simply advises Muslims to obey those who are in authority. This is a very civilised advice that prevents the Islamic society of becoming a mess. The last part of the verse directs people that to whom should they refer if they had problems in obeying those authorities. They should refer to Allah (Quran) and the prophet (Sunnah).

If you refer to Tafasir (even Shia Tafasir) you will see the occasion for which this verse was revealed. It was about an incident in following a commander of an army that the prophet (PBUH) had sent.

Another interesting point is that if this was a general rule we needed to see it in other verses of Quran with the same context. There are 16 verses in Quran that command Muslims directly with the word "Ati'oo" to obey Allah and/or the prophet. Only two verses add another reference to Allah and prophet (Olelamr). Again see the weight that Quran gives to a concept and the weight that Shia gives to it. Are they equal?!

***** "And God only intends to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to purify you with a complete purification." (33:33)

First the verse itself proves nothing for Shia. They need hadith to prove something from it.
Second, let us avoid being among those who have been complained by Allah for taking his words out of its context (Yoharrefonal Kalema An Mavaze'ehi).
After and before this verse is about the wives of the prophet. It is not nice to include something completely irrelevant in between a group of verses that are talking about a solid subject.
Brothers might say that the verb is for male not for female. Well of course, because the holy prophet himself is included here and according to Arabic grammar, when even one male is among females, we should have the verb for male. Refer to verse: 11:73 (Ebrahim was included in Ahlalbayt, thus we have a verb for male. Also refer to 28:29.
Another important point is that whenever in Quran God says :Yoridollah (God Intendeth), it doesn't mean that God really (literally) do that, it means that God likes to see you in that position thus he gives you such commands, it is rather an encouragement to obey. See this verse:
"Allah does not intend to place you in a difficulty, but intends (Yorido) to make you purify, and to complete his favour upon you , that ye may be grateful. Quran 5 : 6
So can we use the same analogy and say that all sahabah are infallible?!
There are lots of other difficulties in the interpretation of this verse in Shia way, like the meaning of Rejs and whether being purified from Rejs means to become infallible.

The verse is a simple advise to the wives of the prophet to make them more pure and with the help of Hadith we can also conclude that other members of the family of the prophet, specifically Imam Ali, Lady Fatimah and Hasanain (RAHM) were included in the verse.
The verse proves nothing about the concept of Imamah and has nothing to do with the Imams of Shia from the forth Imam to the last.

***** "Didn't you turn your vision to the chiefs of the children of Israel after Moses? They said to a Prophet (that was) among them: `Appoint for us a king that we may fight in the cause of Allah.'" (Quran 2:246)
The above verse actually is against the Shia doctrine of Imamah.

First the verse shows that Allah has appointed Taloot upon the request of people themselves, . Second there is no evidence that Taloot was infalliable.
Also Taloot was only appointed as a king and for the purpose of fighting, while they already had a prophet who would advise them on religion.
The discussion is not that whether we need to follow the one that God appoints for us (of course we need to), but the discussion is that weather in Islam God has appointed certain people for us to follow after the holy prophet.

*****
And make for me a vizier from my family, Harun (Aaron) my brother" (20:29-30). And Allah said: "You are indeed granted your petition, O Musa!" (ibid., 36).

This is again comparing Apple with Orange.
Haroon was himself a prophet, capable of receiving revelation.
He died before Musa and thus never was his successor after him.
This is the only occasion that we are aware of when a prophet asks God to be granted a deputy to share the prophecy. Generalising this to make conclusions for Imam Ali and eleven other Imams is really strange.
Imam Ali never shared the prophecy with the prophet.
The only occasion where the prophet compares Ali with Haroon is when he is leaving the city for a fight without Ali (RA) and finds Ali to be sad about it. The comparison refers to the incidents where Musa left his people and appointed Haroon as his rep. In his absence. It is worthy of notice that it wasn't only Ali who was occasionally appointed as the prophet's rep. Some other Sahabah too had the same privilege in other occasions, including Aboobakr.

*****
Say I do not ask you for any reward other than kindness to my kinship. (Shoora 23)

Firstly even in Shia Tafasir like Majmaolbayan you can read how many possibilities have been discussed about the meaning of Qurba. If we had Zelqurba instead of Felqurba then the Kinship was surely the best meaning but as it is just now, kinship is only a possibility.
Secondly, the verse is in a Sura that is Macci which means has been revealed in Macceh. In Macceh Imam Ali had not yet married with lady Fatimah and there were no Hassan and Hussain!
Thirdly it is very strange that the prophet says to Koffar that I want this reward from you while they even do not accept his message.
Thirdly, if the verse means to be kind to Ahlalbayt (and we believe that Qurba means the 12er's definition of Ahlalbayt) this again has nothing to do with the 12ers doctrine. All the sects and groups of Islam apart from Nasebis love Ahlalbayt.

Conclusion and discussion:

1. There are no explicit verses or groups of verses in Quran to prove the Shia concept of Iamamah.

2. Shia brothers say that just as we have verses in Quran on important issues like Salat and the details are in ahadith, we also have verses on Imamat and the details are in ahadith.
The above is a mixed of wrong assumptions and statements. First, comparing to issues like Salat, Imamat is much more important issue. Yet while we have 98 strong and explicit verses on Salat that has changed this general term for prayer to a specific meaning in Islam (and about the same for other important issues), as for Imamah we see that Quran is (in comparison to other issues) very general.
On the other hand, even when comparing Salat for example with Imamah in ahadith, we see the same difference. Brothers say that we have the details of Imamah in Ahadith. This is not true at all. The details of Imamah can only be found in the ahadith that are attributed to Imam Baqer or Sadeq (unless we want to go for unreliable ahadith). How many ahadith do we have from the holy prophet with detailed explanation about the Imamat? Even in Shia sources there are not that much. And comparing to an issue like Salat, what is the percentage of these ahadith? Except one vague hadith in Muslem, how many other AUTHENTIC ahadith can Shia show from Sunni sources about the number of Imams? How many about their names? How many about their infallibility? How many about the obligatory of following them? And what is the percentage of these ahadith comparing with the ahadith about Salat? So what I am saying is that even in Hadith side of the story, 12ers have no better condition in terms of proof.

3. There is another very important point that Shia often ignores. We have been told in Quran that truth and false are clearly revealed for us (the verse in Ayatalkorsi) and that God do not expect any actions from his servants unless it is clearly stated for them. We only need to follow certain Imams after the prophet if there are verses to COMMAND us to do so. From all the verses of Imamah that brothers suggest only one or two are giving direct commands to Muslims. (Yet as I discussed at the above even these verses are not clear about the 12ers doctrine of Imamat). This puts the obligatory of belief in this concept in a serious question. At the same time we see serious commands of Allah about issues like oneness of God, Nabovvat, Salat, Fasting, etc.

4. While the weight of Shia concept of Imamah is very strong in their belief, to the contrary the mood of Quran is not the same. In Quran Taqva has been defined as the only criteria to be the best to Allah. Belief and good deeds are defined to be the criteria for being safe in the hereafter. Momen has been defined explicitly in certain verses of Quran, including the first verses in Sura Momenoon.

5. Not only Quran does not support the belief of Imamah in Shia, it also disagrees with this belief. Quran is full of the verses that says only Allah can help you and only he can guide you and you only need to call him and that those who you call beside him have nothing to do with your destiny. Quran emphasis that no ones deeds are to be ignored and that no relation or friendship can help people in the day of judgement. Quran shows that even the prophets were not sinless and that some times even they were doing mistakes, let alone non-prophets. Quran indicates that the holy prophet is nothing but a Rasool and a good example for obedience. He does not have any extra knowledge and before revelation of Quran he too was lost. Let alone the non-prophets. Quran encourages us in the verse that I referred to, to ask to be an Imam for pious Muslims.

6. The fact is that the question that why Quran is not in-line with Shia belief is a very annoying and difficult question for 12er Shia. Among the old times scholars of Shia many like Jazayeri, Tabrasi, Majlesi, Ayyasi, Qomi, Feize Kashani, etc believed in Tahrif of Quran (changes appeared in Quran). They used to base their arguments on numerous ahadith that they had about Tahrif. This was the defense of Shia against the question: You cannot find any explicit verses about Shia in Quran cause Quran has been changed!
After many centuries now the Shia scholars have realised the effect and danger of this claim for themselves. Thus they are now using another approach. They say that Quran has not been changed but "we cannot interpret Quran by ourselves" or that "Quran itself is not enough for guidance", etc. These are again to defend themselves against the question above.

7. The holy prophet has said that his Ommah will go to all the wrong paths that other people have gone to. Maybe one of the examples of this is exaggerating about certain people and putting them in between people and God. The same wrong path that Christians went about Sayyedana Eisa and his pure mother.

8. Brothers have got used to some verses in Quran and they think these verses are quite clear about Imamah. Why don't they experience a very easy experimental learning? Give a simple translation of Quran to a Non-Muslim and ask him to read it and write down for you 5 of the most important principles of Islam. Is there really any chance that he writes anything close to the concept of Imamah?

With all due respect, the brother's belief in having explicit verses in Quran about Imamah is just like the belief of Bahayees in having explicit verses in Quran about their holy book, and like the belief of Ahmadiah in having explicit verses in Quran about the continue of prophecy after the holy prophet, and like the belief of followers of Rashid Khalifah in having explicit verses in Quran about his coming. They and 12ers all have one thing in common. Only they (themselves) are able to understand your belief from Quran.

I really remind all of us to put Quran as our leader and not ourselves as leaders of Quran. I have quoted few verses of Sura of Kahf at the end of this thread. Let us all read it and think about it, maybe it also has something for us to learn.

May Allah put all of us in the right path.

******************************************
"We have explained in detail in this Quran, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of similitude, but man is in most things contentious.
And what is there to keep back men from believing now that guidance has come to them, nor from praying for forgiveness from their lord, but that (they ask that) the ways of the ancients be repeated with them, or the wrath be brought to them face to face?
...
the unbelievers dispute with vain arguments, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat my signs (verses of Quran) as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned.
And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the signs (verses) of his lord but turns away from them. ... "
(Kahf, 54-57)

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

I remember a shia said the quran is not enough.
Tod was you or Ali or dee arrrrrrr doesnt make a differnce a shia said it.

may Allah guide us
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salam Amer,

You have brought exactly the evidences that are followed by the Shia - holy Quran. Why did i say that? Because Shia teaches its followers to be very careful when receiving hadiths (sunnah of Rasulullah saaw). Hadiths must never contradict the Quran. If a hadith says anything being legal/illegal, while in the Quran it states the opposite, then we must ignore the hadith for it is false.

You see, Ali Ameen and Tod have presented you evidences from the Sunni hadith books (Al Bukhari, Muslim, etc.). Many written in these books contradict what the Quran says. There are also false hadiths in the Shia books. The difference between the Sunni and Shia ulamas is that, Shia scholars acknowledge the false hadiths in their books, leave them and use only hadiths that don't contradict the Quran as advised by the messenger of Allah swt (be the Quran your main guide). However, the Sunni scholars refuse to admit false hadiths in their books because their great great grand father had labeled these books as 100% correct. The current generations rather choose to defend it correcting it.

The Shia scholars continue learning and learning from all the sources. They compare all the materials from both Sunni and Shia to the Quran.

None of them ever said that the Sunni teaching is all wrong because they too believe that many practices in Sunni are correct. On the other hands, most of Sunni scholars have drawn a conclusion and even strongly suggested their followers and others that the Shia teachings are all wrong and therefore, they are ALL kaffir. They ban peole from reading Shia books, which clearly means that they're afraid people may find out the truth that their own books have so many contradictions in them.

It is wrong for anyone (especially scholars) to tell others not to learn from other sources because you limit their knowledge and by doing so, their faith would easily fall apart along with their confusions when they later find out that there are people out there practice some of the things differently. No wonder so many of my Sunni brothers and sisters or even teachers don't have much knowledge. One (only) Shia follower has more knowledge than these people. I remember thinking at the beginning of my study, "Masha Allah, my knowledge is nothing compared to these Shia students! Not only they all know their own books, they also know my books inside out!" while i knew only little from my books and nothing from theirs.

Furthermore, by limiting your sources of knowledge, it could easily lead you to an extremism. You would believe that your practice is the ONLY correct one and thus any other practices are immoral. Look around us, brother! All these extremists and terrorists killing innocent people and believe that they are doing the right thing in the name of Islam??? This is the worst result of mislead teachings by some of the Sunni scholars who have even suggested killings of the non-believers and killings of the Shia. Did the messenger and Quran teach you to do this??? Of course not! You will never find this kind of evil spirits in the Shia community. Yet, the Shia never says that all Sunnis are wrong just because of these few extremists clamied to be Sunni.

The above example i gave you also indicates the worst misintrepretation of the Quran. They took one verse from the Quran to justify their EVIL conducts. YOU and your smartest scholars don't say anything about it but when the Shia takes Quranic verses to support their GOOD deeds, you call them as those who have gone astray. It's a joke!

Wasalam

Salam brother Ali Ameen,

I noticed from your earlier post that you reside in UK. I don't know exactly where you live but i heard the news of terrorist attacks that took place yesterday morning in London. I hope you, your relatives and friends are all right.

May God grant forgiveness and strength to you all.

May God protect the harmony relationship among different faiths in London and every part of the world as the Prophet Muhammad saaw set an example during his life time to respect those who have different beliefs.

I also pray to Allah swt for my Muslim brothers and sisters who reside in London/UK in particular and also those who reside in other countries for their security after this horrible incident took place as there may be anger people who blindly blame our innocent Muslim brothers and sisters for what happened.

God is with the patient ones.

Ma'asalam

Dear Amer

Empty pots tend to want to make the most noise.

Out of the billions of Muslims that exist within the variety of schools of thought that they have, why have YOU excluded the Shi'ah as part of that mass?

There is Guided and there is Misguided.

Can you say for certain that you are guided on the sole basis that you belong to a majority and nothing else?

Then should we not ALL FOLLOW YAZID if you think your argument makes sense? Infact, why not follow the Christians instead, for they are even greater in number.

Once again, EVEN IF The Shi'ah have included Imaamat as a fundamental in their belief, EVEN IF The Shi'ah have believed that the TWELFTH IMAM is the living son of Imam Hassan Al Askari, AND is also THE MEHDI, EVEN IF The Shi'ah have rejected the half baked concept of Khilaafat that Sunnis has adopted, for a SOLID belief in the concept of IMAMAT, The Saudi /government, our STAUNCHEST enemies cannot and have not been able to refuse us entry into the holy cities of Mecca and Medina - on the argument that we are not muslim.

EVERYBODY seems to think that they are right.

Where one sect says it is halaal and Quranicaly acceptable to marry Christian or Jew, the other will say it is a sin, impossible, invalid and therefore punishable as an act of Zinna.

Your sects have their differences as well.

But the point that I have been trying to stress all along, is that the diferrences during and immediately after the demise of The Prophet Mohammed were much more damaging than the one's we have today.

You can break the top of the tower and the building will still be standing, but once you start to hack at the foundations then everything you've spent your time and effort into is going to collapse.

If we decided to disobey The Prophet's command in todays day and age it could hardly be considered surprising, especially in view of our mixed up cultural climate.

But if you disobeyed him while he was alive, infront of his face, with witnesses to match, then brother, do not blame the people at the top of the tower for creating the instabilities of Fitnah. Blame the people who started cracking the stonework at the bottom.

We do hajj with you, we pray with you, we marry your women, our women marry your men we eat the same halaal meat as you.

Why? because no matter how much we dislike it we know you are muslim - and if you have an ounce of humanity for Iraq, you will know the same of us.

Still. We do not hack each other to pieces as a general rule, in the same way that Ayesha and Ali did.

The matter therefore is to do with right and wrong.

Becoming A SHI'AH cannot mean that you have converted to a faith outside the fold of Islam.

Infact, I believe that if you truly felt we were not Muslim, if we were Agha Khani for example or Qaadiani, you would never had bothered debating with us for such a lengthy amount of time.

But your own belief in the importance and status of the people who claimed The Khilaafat for themselves, is being challenged - and it is the emphasis within your own teaching and belief from your own community and peers that has fed you with the concept of their greatness since childhood.

You don't want to believe that they are wrong, even if they are.

If I said or did something wrong, contrary to the faith of Islam you could accuse me of being hypocrytical, or even being A HYPOCRYTE. So What, I could say the same thing to you.

It is when we find HYPOCRISY within the realm of the company of The Prophet himself, that you decide to have a brain block and shut your eyes and ears.

In as much that a person can be commended for being within the Company of Mohammed and following him and believing in him, a similar gravity of chastisement can follow the one who claimed belief but openly tricked him and betrayed him.

And it is why Imam Ja'afer us Sadiq (as) had stated that - 'Every day is Ashurah and every place is Karbala'.

In every time and situation there is a right and there is a wrong. There is a minority being oppressed by a majority.

The Muslims are helpless and powerless to help each other, as the rest of the world clasps it's fist around our necks... WHY has YOUR majority not cleared the world of these corruptions.

And we could never expect the mass of Muslims to truly unite now, when they were unable to unite against the forces of Yazid, for the sake of the same Imam Hussain whom you, without realising your own contradiction, claim to love so much.

Wassalaam

PS

'The unbelievers dispute with vain arguments, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat my signs (verses of Quran) as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned.

And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the signs (verses) of his lord but turns away from them. '

Indeed.

Salaam Dee

Thank you for your sympathies for the state of terrorisation that has bewilderingly hit our City of London.

All I can say is may Allah Curse Usamah bin Laden AND Zarqawi AND the Luminous forces that support their cardboard cut out images to serve their own political means and ends...

...to bewilder us with their circus of horrors, this live stage show that has been timed crucially for the media to run their rally.

Mirror mirror on the wall - whose the cleverest of them all.

When the planes of nine eleven went down all but all were burnt to cinders, barring miraculously however, three passports that the angels of death decided to salvage.

If it wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.

Which PAKI (sorry) in the UK at that time hadn't thought that the whole scenario was a set up planned by the Western powers themselves, to serve their own political games and purposes?

You don't listen to what the people are thinking.
We are not stupid.

I guarantee you, even if they don't say it Michael Williams, their isn't a single Muslim in the UK who believes that 'The Powers That Be' were not behind this.

British Muslims had already expected that a similar STUNT would be pulled off here next.

Tony Blair was telling us in our faces it was going to happen.

And now that it has, George Bush's laughably Pathetic interview with Trevor Mcdonald, the night before the London bomb blasts, suddenely seems to be so much more credible.

Bushes Evangelistic Prophecies of the day.

The Americans are so stupid they believe their own hype - everthing has to be so fantastical, Hollywood Movies have just got to have that happy ending - Like that film National Treasure, when they turn it into a blasted Disney Movie at the end.

In 'AVENGING' the terrorists half the bloody Muslim world has to be taken over.

I can understand if they wish to 'FIGHT TERROR' on British soil but FOR GOD'S SAKE America and Britain GET THE HELL OT OF IRAQ: IT IS NOT FOR YOU!!

Ya Allah open the doors of Najaf and Karbala again, for the sake of the ulama, for the seekers of knowledge, for the followers of your blessed Servants - Imam Ali & Imam Hussain.

Wassalaam and Peace.

Condolences to all families, credit to all Police and Medical peoples who were involved in sorting out the mess of this politically motivated media shambles of a story line.

Allah Hafez.

Dear Amer

To quote

'MAY ALLAH CURSE AND MAKE THE DWELLERS OF THEM OF HELL FIRE THAT DOES(not)(?!)ACCEPT THE PROPHETS COMPANIONS AND HIS SUCSESSERS AFTER HIM INSHALLAH'

Who didn't accept Ali, (Karamallah o wajj ho).

Ans: Ayesha.

May Allah make your Du'a Qabool.

Oh. And may your sword continually be raised against her.

Illah il Aalemeen.

sallam
Bro ALI wake up man,you can question your prophet pbuh on judgemnet day on why did he marry The mother of belivers and why The Shia curse her.

Bro Ali why dont you finish the verse man,so tipical of shiiates.
I have no sympathy for Iraq,why so many so called muslim men and soliders and they accept The invaders invade again.
Where is Karbala that they mourn every year,where is Immam hussein Love???????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

Absurdities of Ithna Ashari works.

Here we have Usool al- Kafi that is a collection narrations and traditions attributed to the Shiite Imams, Ahlul Bayt and the Prophet. The author of this compilation is Mr. Muhammad ibn Yaqoob al-Kulyanee who is regarded Thiqaat al-Islam by Shiite scholars. Some Shi'ites scholars believe usool al kafi was presented to the legendary Imam Qaem who liked it and said: "It suffices our Shi'ites" (al-Tharee'ah ela Tasaneef al-Shi'a: Agha Buzurg al-Tahraani; vol.17, p.245 )

Ironically we find Mr. Mulla Baqir Majlisi stating in his commentary on al-Kafi, named Mir'at al-'Uqul, that 9,485 out of the 16,121 narrations in al-Kafi are unreliable! Now here we reach two conclusions, either Imam Qaem made a mistake to authenticate a book, 60% of whose contents would later be discovered to be unreliable or Mr. Mulla Baqir Majlisi (the most reliable and respected Shia Scholars ever existed) did not know what he was talking about.

Ironically we find the Mulla Baqir slanders Ali, Fatima and the Prophet in such disgusting ways: It was narrated that [Imam] Ja`far Ibn Muhamad said : The prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h used to put his face between the breasts of [his daughter] Fatima before going to sleep" (Bihaar al-Anwar, vol. 43, p. 78)

Ali Ibn Abi Talib said that he once slept with the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h and his wife Ayesha in one bed, and under one cover, then the prophet woke up to pray, and left them together [Ali and Ayesha] in the same bed, under the same cover" (Bihaar al-Anwar vol. 40, p. 2)

Only a Satanic filth who believes in those narrations would compile and report them. We would not stop but we would like to go even further in showing more absurdities!

Allah [swt] said, in several places in His Glorious Book: 24:30 Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do yet we read in the authentic al-Kafi: "Narrated Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, from Ali bin al-Hakam, from Ali bin Suwaid said: I said to Abu al-Hasan: I have the problem of looking at the pretty woman, so I (keep) looking at her. He said: Laa Ba's (No Problem) if Allah knows that your intention is true, but beware of Zina, it causes the blessings and faith to perish (al-Kafi (fil Furoo') al-Kulainy, Book of Nikaah, Chapter of Zina, vol.5, p.542, narration 6.)

so according to this narration Gazing lewdly at women is okay. What is more Ironic and funny is that the prominent and respected Ayatollah Fadallah of Lebanon gave a fatwa permitting to gaze lewdly on naked women!!!!!

Ayatollah Fadhallah of Lebanon states in his book an-nikah vol.1, p. 66 that if the woman comes out with a swimsuit then it is permitted to look at her..........and regarding the same matter the permission also includes gazing at the "Auwra" when the woman exposes it, just like in some nude districts or at swimming spots in the beach in some countries.

What kind of a religion is this??!!! Astagrfirulla al Azeem may Allah protect and guard us from such filth and absurdity!!!!

The Shiite authentic works also permits homosexuality and sodomy: "(Narrated) Muhammad bin Yahya, from Ahmad bin Muhammad, from Muhammad bin Yahya, from Talha bin Zaid, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: The Messenger of Allah [pbuh] said: Whoever voluntarily let others sexually molest him, Allah will invest him with women's lust." [al-Kafi (fil Furoo') al-Kulainy, Book of Nikaah, Chapter: Who Let Others Sexually Molest Him, vol.5, p.549, narration 1.]
Comment: May Allah curse the liars who lie on the Apostle of Allah [saw].

"(Narrated) Ali bin Ibraaheem from his father from al-Nufaly from As-Sukoony from (Imam) Abu Abdallah [as] said: Amierul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as] said: (al-Luwaat ma doon ad-dubur, wad-dubur huwal-kufr) Sodomy is in (anything) other than dubur (anal sex), for dubur [has multi meanings] is actually the Kufr (disbelief)". The commentator on al-Kafi wrote: "It is possible to understand (from the statement) that Sodomizing (a man) is permissible" al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): Book of Marriage: Chapter of Sodomy, narration 3, vol.5, p.544

Comments: May Allah keep us away from such filth.

"(Narrated) Muhammad bin Yahya , from Ahmad bin Muhammad, from Ali bin al-Hakam said: I heard Safwaan bin Yahya saying:
I said to (Imam) al-Rida : a man among your followers requested me to ask you about a matter, which he feared and embarrassed to ask you (directly). He said: What is it? I said: For the man to use the woman's anus. He said: He may. I said: Do you personally do that? He said: We do not do that."
al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): al-Kulainy, Book of Nikaah, Chapter: Women's anuses, vol.5, p.540, narration 2.

Comments: Typical Hypocrisy condemned by Allah [swt] when He said:61:03-04 ...Why say ye that which ye do not? Grievously hateful is it in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not. And is typical to the Devil Iblis' behavior 59:16 Like Satan when he says to man "disbelieve": but when (man) disbelieves, Satan says: I am free of thee: I do fear Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.

"(Narrated) al-Hussain bin Ali bin Yaqteen said: I asked Abul-Hassan about the permissibility for the man to have anal sex with women, he said: It was made halal (permissible) in the Book of Allah, when (Prophet) Lot said: 11:78 Here are my daughters, they are purer for you and he knew it was not the vagina they were after." [Tafseer al-Ayyashi, vol.1, p.157; Bihaar al-Anwaar vol.21, p.98; Tafseer al-Burhaan vol.2, p.230]

Narrated Abdullah bin Abi Ya'foor: I asked Abu Abdullah about approaching women thru their anus, he said: No Problem. He then recited: 2:223 Your women are as tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when (or how) ye will ." [Tafseer al-Ayyashi, vol.1, p.110; Bihaar al-Anwaar Baqir al-Majlisi, vol.23, p.98; al-Burhaan fee Tafseer al-Qur'an: Hashim al-Bahraani, vol.1, p.219; Wasaa'il al-Shi'a: al-Hur al-Amily, vol.3, chpater 73: An-Nikaah wa Aadabuh]

Comments: This is another evidence on how mentally sick these Shiite Priests are, and how Satanic they get to distort the Words of Allah or their meanings to lead their followers to behave as the people of Prophet Lot, whom Allah has condemned in all Scriptures.
What is even more Ironic is that Ayatollah Khamenai gave a fatwa that promotes manipulation of the honor of women: This book entitled "The Answers to Questions" is written by Ayatullah Ali Khamen'ei, the current supreme leader of Iran and the highly respected Shia scholar. Read the question first, and then read the answer that Ayatullah Khamen'ei provides: quoted Below:

-----------------------------------------------------
Question: Is it permissible to fertilize the woman's eggs whose husband is sterile by the sperms of a foreign man through putting the sperms in the woman's vagina?

Answer: Jurisprudently, there is no harm in fertilizing the woman's eggs by the sperms of a foreign man. However, the woman and the foreign man should avoid anything that leads to haram like looking, touching, and alike.

Nevertheless, if a child is born through this method, then the child will not belong to the husband, but will belong to the man who provided the sperms and to the woman who provided eggs and womb. It is highly advisable in such situations to be aware of the matters of inheritance ...
-----------------------------------------------------
Well we are not finished yet. There are more amazing statements for Presentation: We have now here quotations attributed to the Imams that all non Ithna Asharis are children of Adultery:
Abi Hamza reports that he said to imam jaffar as sadiq that some of his fellows fabricate regarding those who preceded them. Upon that Imam Jaffar told him to stop taking about them, for the whole mankind except their Shia, are children of adultery (or in other words they are illegitimates)! (Usool al-Kafi, vol.8)
Here is the image of the Original Arabic Text:

It was narrated that [Imam] Abu Abdullah said : No infant is born but a certain Satan is in his presence. If Allah knew that he would be of our Shiia, He protects him from that Satan, if he wouldn't be of our Shiia, Satan sticks his finger in his anus, thus becomes a catamite, If it was [the infant] a female, he sticks his finger in her vagina, thus becomes a whore. Allah then afterwards clear what He desire or affirm, for with Him is the book of Knowledge." (Tafseer al-Ayyashi, p. 218 ,Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol.2 p. 1319 ,Tafseer al-Burhaan, vol. 2, p. 300)

While Allah [swt] says: 49:13. O Mankind, We created you from a single (pair) of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each others. Verily the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you", we find that those "Infallible" , who are the Deputies of Allah, preach racism in its ugliest form. While the following reports are sad, yet you will find them funny, so here we go:

"(Narrated) Ali bin Ibrahim, from Haroon bin Muslim, from Mas'adah bin Ziyad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as] said:
Beware of marrying the Negros (zunj) for they are a distorted creation." al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): Book of Nikah, Chapter: Whom (the Imam) Disliked for Marriage Amongst the Kurdish, Negros and Others, vol. 5, p. 352, Narration 1

Narrated Ali bin Ibrahim, from Ismael bin Muhammad al-Makki, from Ali bin al-Husain, from 'Amr bin Othman, from al-Husain bin Khalid, from whom he mentioned from Abu Ar-Rabi' al-Shami said: Abu Abdullah [as] said to me: Do not buy anyone who is a negro, but if you must, then (buy) the Nubians, for they are amongst those whom Allah the Exalted said about them: 5.14 From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent them . Surely, a time will come when they will remember that portion, and when the Qa'im (Mahdi) arise, a group of them will come to his support, but never marry anyone of the Kurdish (people) for they are part of the Jinn (demons) whom the screen was lifted from them" Ibid, narration 2

Comments: by "whom the screen was lifted from them" he meant, the screen or divider which Allah has created between us human and Jinn, where we are unable to see them but they can see us. The Kurds, according to this narration, are a type of demons which we are enabled to see. What an absurdity.

(Narrated) Several of our fellows from Sahl bin Ziyad, from Musa bin Ja'far, from 'Amr bin Sa'eed, from Muhammad bin Abdillah al-Hashimi, from Ahmad bin Yousuf, from Ali bin Dawood al-Haddaad, from Abu Abdullah [as] said: Marry not from the Negros nor the Khazar, for they have uteruses indicate they are unfaithful. He [as] further said: India, Sind and Qind not a single one of them is smart, meaning Qandaharis Ibid, Narration 3.

Comments: Khazar is the area around the black sea, and Qandahar is in Afghanistan Not to mention that the women are depicted very low and worthless in the Shiite scriptures.

"Narrated to us Ali bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Abi Abdillah al-Barqi: Narrated my father, from his grandfather Ahmad bin Abi Abdillah, from his father, from Muhammad bin Abi Omair, from more than one person from the Truthful Ja'far bin Muhammad from his father, from his forefathers, peace be on them, said: One of the companions of Amirul-mu'mineen (Ali) complained to him his women. He [as] thus stood to address the public saying: O people, Obey not the women in any case, nor trust them with money, nor let them be in charge of the children, for if they are left to do what pleases them, they will lead (you) to troubles and aggress the rights of the lords. We found them to be unhesitant when they are in need, impatient when their (sexual) lust at peak, wasteful spending is part of them even if they are old, and self admiring follows them even at their senior age. They don't appreciate the "much" when they are prevented the "little". They forget the good and recall the bad. They rush to falsehood, insist on arrogance and follow Satan. So deal with them at any how, address them well that their deeds be well (as a result). al-Amaali: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, the 37th council, narration No. 6, p.172

Narrated few of our friends on the authority of Ahmad bin Abi Abdillah, from his father, from Wahab, from (Imam) Abu Abdullah [as] said: Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as] said: Men were created from Earth, and all they care for is the land. As for the woman, she was created from the man, and all she cares for is men, O Men, lock up your women". al-Kafi ( fil Furoo' ): al-Kulainy, Kitaab al-Nikah, Chapter What's Recommended for Women Who Reached pubery...; vol.5, p.337, narration 6.

Narrated Muhammad bin Omar bin Salamah bin al-Baraa' al-Hafiz al-Baghdadi: Narrated to us Ahmad bin Abdallah al-Thaqafi Abul-Abbas saying: Narrated to us Issa bin Muhammad al-Katib saying: Narrated to me al-Madayini from Ghiyath bin Ibrahim from the Truthful Ja'far bin Muhammad from his father from his grandfather, peace be on them, said: Ali bin Abi Talib [as] said: The brains of women are in their beauty, and the beauty of men is in their brains". al-Amaali: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, the 40th Council, narration No. 9, p.189

Narrated Muhammad bin Ali Majilwaih: Narrated to us Muhammad bin Yahya al-'Attaar saying: Narrated to us Sahl bin Ziyad al-Adami saying: Narrated to me Othman bin Issa from Khalid bin Nujaih from Abu Abdallah [as] saying: Bad luck was discussed in his presence, he [as] thus said: Bad luck are to be found in three things: in the woman, vehicle (horse, mule, camel, donkey, etc) and house. As for the bad luck in the woman, it is due to her high dowery and her disobedience to her husband, the vehicle is due to its attitude, and the house is due to its narrowness, its bad neighbor and its defects". Al-Amaali: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, 42nd Council, Narration No.7, p.199, and in his al-Khisaal, Chapter of the Three, narration 53,p. 100
[A shorter version of this narration is also found in al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): al-Kulainy, Book of Nikaah, Chapter: Nawadir, vol.5, p. 567, narration 51]

Following is an interesting narration that induces us to ask whether Ali [ra] treated Fatimah [ra] as he advised the others:

Narrated to us Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Yahya al-'Attaar saying: Narrated to us my father from Muhammad bin al-Husain bin Abil-Khattab from Muhammad bin Sinaan, from Abi al-Jarood from Abu Ja'far al-Baqir [as] from his father, from his grandfather [as] saying: Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as] said: He who places himself in a suspicious position, let him not blame who misjudges him; and he who conceals his secret holds the choice. Any conversation surpasses two (people) will be spread around. Think well of your brother until you see of him otherwise, and think well of a word said by your brother if it is possible to be interpreted as such. Choose the truthful brothers and make lots of them, for they are your ornament in times of peace and your fort in times of need. Consult in your affairs those who fear Allah, and love the brothers according to their level of righteousness. Try to avoid the bad women, and ever be watchful of the best of them, if they enjoined good on you, disobey them so they won't have a hope to have you obey them in that which is no good". Al-Amaali: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, 50th Council, Narration No.8, p.250

Narrated to us Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Mutawakkil [ra] saying: Narrated to us Abdullah bin Ja'far al-Humairi, from al-Fadl bin 'Aamir, from Musa bin al-Qasim al-Bajaliy, from Thuraih al-Maharibiy, from Abu Abdullah [as] from his forefathers [as] saying: The Messenger of Allah [sawa] said: Three (types of people) if you don't wrong them, they will still wrong you: The low class, your wife and your servant". al-Khisaal: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, Chapter of the Three, narration 15, p.86

Comment: May Allah's wrath be upon the liars who lie on Allah's Apostle.

Narrated to us my father [ra] saying: Narrated to us Sa'd bin Abdallah, from Ahmad bin al-Husain bin Sa'eed, from Abu al-Husain al-Hadramiy, from Musa bin al-Qasim al-Bajaliy, from Jameel bin Darraj, from Muhammad bin Sa'eed, from al-Muhariby, from Ja'far bin Muhammad, from his father, from his forefathers, from Ali [as] saying: The Messenger of Allah [saw] said: Three (type of situations) are good lie in them: Trickery in a war, promising your wife, and reconciliation between people. There are three (types of situations) where telling the truth becomes ugly: snitching, telling the man something he may dislike about his wife, and to disbelieve the man over the rumor. He further said: And there are three (types of people) sitting with them kills the heart: sitting with the low class, talking to women, and sitting with the wealthy people". al-Khisaal: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, Chapter of the Three, narration 20, p.87

Several of our friends narrated, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa, from al-Husain bin Sa'eed, from al-Husain bin 'Alwaan, from Sa'd bin Tareef, from al-Asbagh bin Nabatah said: Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as] said: Allah created the lust in ten parts, and has placed nine parts in women and one part for men. If it wasn't for the shyness that Allah gave them according to their lust parts, each man would have had nine women hanging to him." al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): al-Kulainy, Kitaab al-Nikah, Chapter The Virtues of Women's Lust Over The Men's, vol.5, p.337, narration 1.; al-Khisaal: Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi, Chapter of the Ten, Section: Lust Is Ten Parts, p.338, Narration 28

Please read the narration once again. Does it make a sense? What is more interesting thou, is the commentary of Ibn Babawaih al-Qummi on this narration. He wrote in the footnote: "Allah the Exalted, created lust in ten parts: Ten for men, and one for women. But that is specifically for Bani Hashim and their Shi'ites. And for the women of Bani Umayyah and their supporters, the lust is ten parts: nine for women, and one for men"

Several of our fellows narrated, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Khalid, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abi Nasr, from whoever narrated to him, from Ishaaq bin Ammaar said: (Imam) Abu Abdullah [as] said: Verily, Allah made for the woman the patience of ten men, but when it hits her, she gets the lust power of ten men." al-Kafi (fil Furoo'): al-Kulainy, Kitaab al-Nikah, Chapter The Virtues of Women's Lust Over The Men's, vol.5, p.337, narration 2; al-Khisaal: Ibn Babawaih alQummi Chapter of The Ten, Section: Woman Has Patience of Ten Men, p.339, narration 32

Several of our fellows narrated, from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa, from Muhammad bin Sinaan, from Abu Khalid al-Qammaat, from Durais, from (Imam) Abu Abdullah [as] said:
I heard him (i.e the Imam) saying: Women were given an intercourse power of twelve (men) and the patience of twelve (men)." Ibid, p. 339, Narration 3.

Comments: Please compare to the previous narration. Any discrepancy on the part of the "Infallible"? Inspite of all the nonsense and things out of morality we went through, yet we find Many Prominent and Respectable Shiite Scholars praise Usool al Kafi: Muhammad Sadiq AlSadr said : "Although The Shia are on the unanimity of that The four books (Alkafi , AlITibSaar , AlTahzeeb and Mun La YahduRuHu Alfaqeeh) are accepted and *all* the narrations in them are accurate (Saheeh), But they did not call them by the name (Sihaah) like AhlSunnah did " [The Book of shia "Kitab alshia" page 127]

Sharaf'Deen AbdulHussain Mosawy said : "Alkafi , AlIsTibSaar , AlTahzeeb and Mun La YahduRuHu Alfaqeeh are *MutawaTirah* and agreed on the accuracy of its contents (the Hadiths) , and Alkafi is the oldest , greatest , best and the most accurate one of them " . [The book of AlMuraja'aat , Muraj'ah number 110 ] ..... MutawaTirah = accurate 100% because it was narrated by many narrators.

AlTabRassy said : "Alkafi among the four shia books (AlTahzeeb , Alkafi , AlIsTibSar , mun la YahDuruhu Alfaqeeh) is like the sun among the stars , and who looked fairly would not need to notice the position of the men in the chain of hadiths in this Book , and if you looked fairly you would feel satisfied and sure that the hadiths are firm and accurate "[MusTaDrak AlWasa'el , volume 3 , page 532]

So according to Shiite scholars, all the above filth we came across is authentic and reliable. So my dear Reader don't you see how much absurd are the Ithna Ashari works? Think about it.

May Allah guide us inshallah
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Dear Amer

Within the paragraphs of the lengthy quote to which you have repeated for us on this second thread (again)!, I have found THIS sentence, and I quote it is the view of the writer...

'Quran shows that even the prophets were not sinless and that some times even they were doing mistakes, let alone non-prophets'.

I hope you will agree with me on this occasion that he is misguided in his belief and understaning of the very concept of Prophethood.

It would not be insulting to suggest to this man that Umar quite possibly shared the same view, and would be an answer as to why he disobeyed the commands of his prophet, as we have noted.

It is not unlikely that Umar, on many occasions, due to pride, assumed that HE was right whilst Mohammed wrong.

What then is the point of Prophethood Amer, if we are not going to listen to the simple instructions on the one hand, how can we be expected to obey the more complicated instructions on the other?

And it is indeed the character of Umar who created much bid'ah within the faith itself, innovating elements upon his own whim, such as the the Tarawih en Masse, and the folding of the arms in prayer, AND the banning of Temporary Marraige.

It would not be surprising to understand that due to the one small evidence of his denying his own Prophet's instruction and audaciously favouring his own view in light of it, that Umar would conjunture later on to change even the times of the prayer, the means by which Sajdah in Salat is accepted and so forth.

THIS is what the Sunni mass populace has followed, in the light of the greater empire that was governed by the same man that denied Mohamed ul Rasoolallah the paper and pen, they have taken to the belief that Our Prophet was a mistake maker.

May Allah destroy, punish and put to hellfire the disbelieving hypocrites of Mohammed's time, for the disease that still attempts to influence the masses - up until the present.

Illah il Aalemeen.

Dear Amer

We await to find evidence for the authenticity of the quote from Mohammad Sadiq al Sadr - before even beginning to assume that our books are considered by ALL past Shi'ah Ulamah and present, to be SAHIH in the same light that you have considered your own books to be.

We have already ascertained that your own "Imam Umar" himself was prone to commiting Sodomy, whilst our Imams were the furthest from this practice - and we do not wish to go into greater detail about the Malais of sexual perversities that have been attributed to your second Khalifah, the like of which would make Sheikh Fadhlallah of Lebanon look like an angel.

The Foundation for your own Madhhab has it's roots in following those who were disobedient toward Mohammed ul Rasoolullah.

What The Mother of Believers Ayesha managed to get upto after her glory days at the battle of the camel I do not wish to go into. Suffice to say that even Allah's command in The Quran for her to stay at home was not enough to prevent her from getting into further mischief.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

Wassalaam

Dear Amer

To quote

'Where is Karbala that they mourn every year,where is Immam hussein Love??????'

The Sunni masses ganged up to kill Imam Hussein.

Not the Christians.

Due to the unfailing support of the Sunni Arab populace in supporting and holding dear to their heart the bastard child from Tikrit, Saddam - it is almost as if they had tempted the invasion from the Americans themselves.

Now wouldn't it have been better for him to have considered surrendering to the Iranians instead?

Besides. Why should we expect the Sunnis to turn up to the shrine of Al Hussain and Imam Ali, when Abu Bakr & Umar couldn't even turn up to their own Prophet's funeral?

May as well stick to the Shrine of Qadir al Jilaani.

At least you won't have to comemmorate a Shahaadat.

Wassalaam

Salam Ameer,

Congratulations! You have become the best 'copy-paste' master!

What you have quoted from Al Kahfi book was not the first. It is sad indeed that even my Sunni scholars failed to find strong evidences of the Shia being wrong. Therefore, they quoted this non-sense false hadiths and used them as their weapons.

There are so many equally worse quotes from Sunni's books as there are in the Shia's. Yet the Shia (again) never flattens out that the Sunni teachings are all wrong as your Sunni writer (in your copied-pasted post) did by concluding the whole Shia teachings to be Satanic only based on these few false hadiths. I find it pathetic, really.

It is crystal clear that you, brother Ameer, do not have much knowledge, therefore, you are easily provoked by all these bad and unprofessional writings of fitna.

I can only expect there will be many more like you to be born. They will destroy this beautiful religion and become extremists because of lacking knowledge. It is fairly expected so due to the faith you all adopted from the wrongly-guided caliphs.

Amerislam! I am not even going to say salaam to you since it is not obligatory on me...

I have done some research and found no evidence of the hadiths you have quoted from Al-Kafi.
I found same message on 10 websites and they all have same filthy quotes and same commentary word by word (as you have quoted). Obviously you have taken it from there and copied it here without knowing that Shias are much smarter than you and know what it is, an attempt to fabricate hadiths from Al-Kafi. It suggests that they are work of a Sunni Wahabi person who has taken oath not only to hate Shias but to disgrace the Holy Prophet (pbuh) as well. Degrading the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is the agenda of Wahbis as they want to bring their Sahabis to the higher level for their political gains.

I would say that these were the fabrications in hadiths which caused the writing of “Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdi. The Wahabi government of Saudi Arabia did not even condemn it (they fuelled the fire by not stopping fabrications of hadiths); the only countries who spoke about it were very few Muslim countries lead by Shia Iranian government. Thanks to Ayatollah Khomaini the true son of Imam Husain (as).

You should understand that we Shias will be shooting in our foot if our scholars write hadiths like you have quoted, it is not in the Shia’s interest to degrade Holy Prophet (pbuh).
Besides that how can one degrade his own forefathers? You are still defending your forefathers (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiah, Yazid and so on) and prasing them every day. Use your tiny brain. May Allah show you some light?

Janabay Sayyeda ko rulanay walon per Allah ki lanatttttttttttttttttt. Janabay Sayyedah(as) ka ghar jalanay walon per Allah ki lanatttttttttt.Janabay Sayyedah (as) per dar giranay walon per Allah ki lanattttttttttttttttttttttttttttt beshumaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar bar bar

sallam
Now Now people dont get angry.
Tod I will do my job and give sallam,your choice if you wont to do your a job as muslim.
i do not support Yazid,Allah knows best what will happen to him Allahoalum.If i was alive i would not have rested until that person that the soldeir of islam Hussein R.a was dead.who did it Allah knows best.Where are the husseins in modern time Iraq?
Where are the muslims including us.
The Quran states Obey your lord,your messengers,and your leader at the time.
Abu bakkar alsiddiq was leader at his time.
Umar was leader at his time.
Uthman was leader at his time.
Ali was leader at his time.(may allah be pleased with then all).any one that didnt follow them at their time was fassiq wrong doer.
Ali Ammem,yes bloody yes it would of beign better for Iran to take control of Iraq,better then these pigs anti islam.But some of the civiliand want the pigs to be in iraq and have a guess who????
Sheich hassan nasrallah,quoted any muslims that put their hands in with the invaders are not from our ummah".who do you think he was speaking of?

Tod,your scholars you talk about are not even known in the world of scholars dear freind,I wonder why.
who is janalin something.
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

SALLAM

RESPONSE TO THE EMBASSY OF IRAN

Embassy Of The Islamic Republic Of Iran

In the name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

In the last issue of “Al-Rasheed” an article entitled Abdullah lbn Saba: Founder of Shi'aism was published in which unfortunately some accusations were made against Shi'aism.

The article, the author of which is not known, tries to, through some false accusations made against SHI'IA Ulamahs, establish that the Jew Abdullah ibn Saba is the founder of Shi'aism, and that Shi'aism is based on Judaism.

While the truth is that the quoted phrase is tampered with in a way which reflects an understanding completely opposite to what the source reads.

Shi'aism, with millions of followers throughout the world, and having a historical background of over 1400 years is based on Qur'ân and Holy Ahaadeeths by our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him). For example to prove the Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Shi’ites have had recourse to some Qur'ânic verses and Ahaadeeths of the Holy Prophet. Of course these Ahaadeeths, most of which are also accepted by Sunnis, have not been understood by the two denominations in the same way.

It is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out; not giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.

Below I have enlisted a number of books as sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates for their reference:

1. ABDULLAH IBN SABA AND OTHER MYTHS by Allamah Askari

2. THE ORIGINS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF SHI'AH ISLAM by S.H.M Jafri)

3. SHl’A by Allamah Tabatabai

4. Computeric software including BIHAR AL-ANWAR RIJAL AL-KASHI.

A copy of these books is available in the Embassy’s library. I do not know however of the existence of other copies elsewhere in the country.

Those interested are hereby invited to make use of our library to find out for themselves the scientific and logical way in which the said unscientific accusations have been responded.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the following number to arrange for such facilities.

OFFICE TEL: (012) 342 8880/1
FAX NO: (012) 342 4790
M.H. BORJIAN YAZDI
CULTURAL ATTACHE
I 6 AUG 1999

RESPONSE

Mr. M.H. Borjian Yazdi
Cultural Attaché
Iranian Embassy
Pretoria

Sir,

Receipt has been taken of your letter dated 15 August 1999, in which you voiced dissatisfaction with the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi'aism.

Your concern as the diplomatic representatives of Iran over an article of this nature is understood. Understood too, are the sentiments you express where you say that “it is regrettable that in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever united against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out not giving enough time and means to Shia’s and their beliefs.”

Sunnism & Shi'aism

However, as much as one would want to gloss over the differences between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah, the fact of the matter is that the differences do exist, and that by their very nature they make each group’s claim to the Truth an exclusive one.

It is precisely for this reason that the propagation of Shi'aism has continued unabatedly in Sunni societies, more often than not with funding from, and the sanction of, Iran. To the best of our knowledge your government has never expressed the least reservation over the huge amount of Shi'ite propagationist literature flowing to Sunni communities out of Iran, nor about the activities of missionaries actively engaged in the propagation of Shi'aism amongst Sunnis, with financial backing from Iranian foundations.

This has given rise to a situation where the Ahl as-Sunnah have become so alarmed by the rate of proselytising in their communities that calls of people like yourself for “Muslim unity in the face of the fierce enemies of Islam” have come to be seen as a smoke screening device intended to create the diversion under cover of which Shi'ite missionaries will penetrate into Sunni societies. If this assertion could once upon a time be dismissed as an unfounded assumption, it has now found a basis for itself in two decades of bitter experience, in South Africa and elsewhere.

It is not intended here to deny you the right to propagate your beliefs, since the constitution of our country upholds freedom of belief. Our intention is to bring it to your notice that when the Shi‘ah have opted to exercise their right to propagate their faith, they should not be surprised or express regret at the inevitable consequences.

When Iran declared Ithna ‘Ashari Shi‘ism the state religion, it set itself up as the champion of Shi‘ism. (Incidentally this is also the reason why you, as the cultural attaché of your country, took exception to the article Abdullah ibn Saba: The Founder of Shi‘ism.) Therefore it is fully comprehensible to us why Iran will not permit Sunni missionary groups to operate on Iranian soil. But we become completely mystified when we see the double standards of Iran itself sending missionaries, or acquiescing to the funding and sending of missionaries to communities such as ours who are not in a position to defend its faith through political or legal power.

Crux of the issue

This issue does not revolve simply around Ibn Saba. It goes much further than that. It has to do in the first instance with each group’s claim to being the true form of Islam, and by logical extension, with the way in which each group accounts for the existence of the other.

The Shi‘ah and the Ahl as-Sunnah both claim that their form of Islam is the true one. This assertion is probably beyond contention from either side. The real problem lies in the implication of these respective claims. If “A” lays claim to the truth, it is simultaneously claiming that the claim of “B” is false, and vice versa. We know that this perspective of the relationship between the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah is an extremely sensitive one, but it is a question that must be addressed if we are to have an appreciation of all the various dimensions to this issue.

Shi'aism makes no secret of the fact that it regards the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah as the corruption of Islam by the Companions of the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) primarily, and the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties secondarily. References to support this contention abound in the books of the Shi‘ah, some of which are now quoted here:

God knows what misfortunes Islam has suffered from its inception down to the present at the hands of these evil ‘ulama! Abu Hurairah was one of the fuqaha, but God knows what judgements he falsified for Mu‘awiyah and others like him, and what damage he inflicted upon Islam. (Ayatullah Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini, p. 114, translated and annotated by Hamid Algar)

We conclude here that the Shi‘ah are the true followers of the Prophetic Sunnah... Whereas the Ahl as-Sunnah have expressly contradicted the Prophetic Sunnah. (Muhammad Tijani Samawi, The Shi‘ah: The Real Followers of the Sunnah p. 314, Ansariyan Publications, Qum 1995)

It is self evident that the Khulafa ar-Rashidun (except Imam ‘Ali) have practised ijtihad with their opinions against the Prophetic Sunnah. (ibid. p. 315)

The religion was exploited for the political needs. Both the Omayyids and the Abbasids deepened and strengthened sectarian and religious prejudices among the Muslims in order to use them for their own purposes. They exaggerated and amplified the idea of seniority of persons other than Ali in the matter of the Caliphate. In these efforts of theirs, they were helped by those Ulema (scholars) who cared much for the worldly positions. The rulers spent money on such scholars who in turn reported fabricated Traditions suitable to the rulers, especially during the Omayyid period, as we have already said. People follow the religion of their kings. They also said what their rulers did. Then came those who were not aware of the real situation. saw these fabricated traditions and made-to-order injunctions and took them for true ones. They further passed them on in their books. Those who came later found these Traditions in the books attributed to great personalities which made them accept them as true. Thus these traditions got disseminated between the people. Everyone read them, talked about them in their gatherings and discussed them in their classes and schools. In this time passed on and such ideas got currency amongst the common masses so much so that those who knew the truth were swept away by the pressure of public opinion and these false ideas, which it is proper to discuss, took the form of a regular creed. (Hasan ul-Amine, Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia, pp. 78-79, Ansariyan Publications, Qum, 1997)

(For further reference, see the books an-Nass wal-Ijtihad by ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf ad-Deen, and Ma‘alim al-Madrasatayn by Murtada al-‘Askari.)

We hope that notice will have been taken here of the fact that the quoted sources were published in Iran within the last five years. If the Shi‘ah thus have a freedom of using the printed word for disseminating their own opinion about the origin of Sunni faith and practice, we are baffled as to why umbrage should be taken when the Ahl as-Sunnah express their honest opinion about the origins of Shi‘ism. If Iranian sensors find nothing objectionable in literature such as the quoted sources, why should Sunnis be expected to practice reservation? And, if such inflammatory statements do not give you, the Shi‘ah, reason to regret that “in an era when the Muslims need to more than ever unite against their fierce enemies; especially so amongst the two main schools of thought namely Sunnis and Shia’s; such disturbing accusations are spread out”, why are we, the Ahl as-Sunnah, being told that making accusations like this spells disaster for Muslim unity? Surely the authors of the quoted sources were also not “giving enough time and means to Sunnis and their beliefs”.

For as long as the Shi‘ah will persist to view Muslim unity as a one-way street in which they alone have the exclusive right to fling the stones and hurl the sticks, it will remain the mirage it presently is.

If, on the other hand, it is argued that these are things that are historically verifiable, we would submit that if the act of verifying the truth is supposed to have a preconceived result, it is a meaningless exercise. On the other hand, if it is going to be a completely objective process, it will inevitably threaten the Muslim unity whose destruction you fear. But let us, for the sake of demonstration, engage in just one such exercise.

Abdullah ibn Saba

Let us discuss, first of all, the historical existence, and thereafter, the role of Ibn Saba, in order to ascertain whether the Sunni position that he was the founder of conventional Shi'aism is based on scientific research, or unfounded accusations.

The existence of Ibn Saba

Murtada al-‘Askari’s entire argument for denying Ibn Saba’s historicity rests upon the fact that Ibn Jarir at-Tabari’s Tarikh, as the major reference for historical material on Ibn Saba, uses Sayf ibn ‘Umar at-Tamimi as his sole source for describing the character and exploits of Ibn Saba. He states on page 20:

All historians agree that the story [of Ibn Saba] was told first of all by Saif.

He then gives a list of 22 historians, all of whom have relied, directly or indirectly, upon the information supplied by Sayf, and remarks:

The above list gives evidence to the fact that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari. (Murtada al-‘Askari, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, Part One, p. 21, second edition, published by A Group of Muslim Brothers, Tehran 1981)

This is exactly the Achilles’ heel of al-‘Askari’s research. He has—intentionally or unintentionally—displayed myopic scholarship by asserting that Sayf ibn ‘Umar is the only source for the existence of Ibn Saba. A mere look at the biography of Sayf in Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani’s Lisan al-Mizan (vol. 4 p. 22 of the edition published by Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, and edited by Muhammad ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Mar‘ashli) would have revealed to him just how erroneous his assertion is. The sources from which Ibn Hajar has drawn, such as the 70 volume Tarikh Madinat Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir, and the Musnad by Abu Ya‘la al-Mawsili have been published, and by means of their chains of narration that pass through authorities other than Sayf ibn ‘Umar, eloquently testify to the intellectual deception practiced by al-‘Askari. (See Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq vol. 29 pp. 3-10, where he has filled seven pages with information on Ibn Saba.)

Al-‘Askari did in fact make mention of the history of Ibn ‘Asakir in his survey of the historical sources that mention Ibn Saba. However, in his eagerness to create the (false) perception that all the historical threads link up to Sayf ibn ‘Umar, he committed the deception of singling out one of the twelve independent accounts as being derived by Ibn ‘Asakir through Sayf, and making as if the remaining 11 reports do not exist. (See ‘Abdullah ibn Saba and Other Myths, p. 47) The fact is that 10 of the remaining 11 reports pass through authorities other than Sayf, but that is a fact that al-‘Askari conveniently chose to overlook.

The term “intellectual deception” might seem a bit too harsh a description for a researcher who was probably not informed about that wealth of information. But it appears very justified when it is considered that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in the legacy of the Shi‘ah themselves, and by the Imams of the Shi‘ah themselves. If it could be pleaded that al-‘Askari was ignorant of the historical information documented by Ibn ‘Asakir and others, there is no way that same plea could ever be accepted in terms of the legacy of the Shi‘ah. After all, a learned researcher who spent so much time and effort fine-combing the voluminous works of history is definitely expected to encompass the contents of his own legacy first.

In his survey of historical works, which he purports to be exhaustive, not a single mention has been made of the literature of the Shi‘ah. Not a single classical Shi‘i source features on the chart he gives on page 50. The fact is that the existence of Ibn Saba is attested to in almost every Shi‘i biographical work. Dr. Sa‘di al-Hashimi in his book Ibn Saba: Haqiqah La Khayal (pp. 25-28, Maktabat ad-Dar, Madina 1406) has listed over 20 Shi‘i sources that testify to the existence of Ibn Saba. We might mention by way of example just one of those works. Incidentally the book happens to be one of the books contained in the list you mentioned in your letter. The only difference is that your copy is computerised, while ours is a printed book. The book we refer to is Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, which is Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi’s recension of Abu ‘Amr al-Kashshi’s 4th century biographical dictionary of Shi‘i hadith narrators. In this book the entry for Ibn Saba spans a full two pages (323-324), and consists of five separate reports, their numbers running from 170 to 174. Below we give you a list of the Imams with whom these five reports originate:

170: Imam Muhammad al-Baqir

171: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

172: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

173: Imam Zayn al-‘Abidin

174: Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq

(See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal, pp. 323-324, ed. as-Sayyid Mahdi ar-Rijali, published by Mu’assasat Al al-Bayt, Qum, 1404)

The reporters of these narrations are all of the Shi‘ah. Therefore, if we were to apply al-‘Askari’s hypothesis to these reports documented by al-Kashshi, we would have to conclude that Sayf ibn ‘Umar even succeeded in pulling wool over the eyes of these venerable Imams by making them believe that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, who is supposed to be a figment of his own imagination, actually existed. I think you will agree that such a conclusion is highly absurd. It wouldn’t take a genius to figure that the source of that absurdity is al-‘Askari’s hypothesis, “that the story of ‘Abdullah Bin Saba’ has been started by Saif and cited primarily from Tabari”.

Another book you have listed iThe Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam by S.H.M. Jafri. Please be informed that Jafri does not make any definitive conclusions about Ibn Saba. His words are:

Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

We have thus far had one Shi‘i writer—al-‘Askari—who completely denies the historicity of Ibn Saba, and another—Jafri—who is undecided. We will add a citation from the work of a third contemporary Shi‘i writer who categorically affirms the existence of Ibn Saba. Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili writes in his book ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh:

However it may be, Ibn Saba definitely existed and manifested ghuluww (extremism), even though some people doubt his existence and made him out to be an imaginary character created by personal interests. As for us, on grounds of the latest research we have no doubt concerning his existence and his extremism... Yes, Ibn Saba exhibited extremism in his religion. This innovation of his seeped into the thinking of a group that was by no means small, and that group was named after him. (Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn, ash-Shi‘ah fit-Tarikh, p. 213, Dar al-Athar, Beirut, 1979)

Here we have three different positions on the existence of Ibn Saba. All three belong to Shi‘i writers. Two of them are listed by you as “sources for seekers of truth and followers of scientific and historic debates”. Do we have the freedom of choosing the one which seems most likely to be the truth, or is the selection of the true opinion the prerogative of the Shi‘ah?

The role of Ibn Saba

Now, having dealt with the problem of Ibn Saba’s existence, we may move on to discuss his role in the historical development of Shi‘ism.

Ibn Saba is held responsible for the introduction of many phenomena which later developed into hallmark aspects of Shi'aism. The Shi‘ah (or at least those of them who accept his existence, like Shaykh Muhammad Husayn az-Zayn al-‘Amili) admit that he exhibited extremist tendencies. In the Tarikh of Ibn ‘Asakir he is on record as having

vilified Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 pp. 8,9)
believed the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam) to have imparted
to ‘Ali special knowledge which was not known to anyone but him.
(Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
believed ‘Ali to have been the Dabbat al-Ard, the creator and the giver of sustenance (Ibn ‘Asakir vol. 29 p. 9)
The first two of these beliefs are common features of Ithna ‘Ashari Shi'aism, while the third one with its extremist overtones is more reminiscent of the Ghulat. We have already seen what Jaa'fri has written about Ibn Saba’s role in the origin of the Ghulat. That particular aspect of Ibn Saba’s role finds further corroboration in the Shi'ite biographical literature. Al-Kashshi, for example, reports the following

Hisham ibn Salim reports that Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) told his companions the story of Ibn Saba, and his claims of divinity for Amir al-Mu’minin. He said: When he made those claims Amir al-Muminin asked him to repent. He refused to repent, so Amir al-Mu’minin burnt him fire. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 323)

Extremist tendencies like these were originally introduced by Ibn Saba. Before him no one, not even the little group of Sahabah like Abu Dharr and Salman al-Farisi, whom the Shi‘ah look upon as the early Shi‘ah, ever made such claims, neither did any one of them ever speak ill of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. This too, was invented by Ibn Saba.

Extremism did not die with the death of Ibn Saba. It persisted, and the centre of its activities, as Jafri tells us in The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘ah Islam (p. 300), was the city of Kufa. Here we stand before an interesting observation that was brought to light by Jafri. He writes:

There is another important point that must be discussed here briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be found, especially in the earliest Shi'ite collection of hadith, Al-KAAFI, which describe the Imams as supernatural human beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi‘i traditions, on the authority of one of the Imams, in this case from Al-Baqir and Ja‘far. But were these Imams really the authors of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character? The first thing which must be noted in this connection is that while Al-Baqir and Ja‘far themselves lived in Medina, most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah bin Saba, to whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality or not, the name as-Saba’iyya is often used to describe the ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of ‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognise the death of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in addition to ‘Uthman. (Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shi‘a Islam, p. 300, Ansariyan Publications, Qum)

This same Kufa, which was the hotbed of Shi'ite activities and ghulat tendencies, was also the home of the most prolific narrators of the hadith which the Shi‘ah ascribe to the Imams, and which are documented in their hadith compendiums such as al-KAAFI, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar. Since it is upon this corpus of narrated material that the entire edifice of Shi‘ism rests, it would be of interest to see what kind of people were these men on whose authority it is narrated from the Imams.

Some of the most prolific narrators of the Shi‘ah are

Zurarah ibn A`yan

Muhammad ibn Muslim at-Ta’ifi

Abu Basir Layth ibn al-Bakhtari al-Muradi

al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar al-Ju‘fi

All four of these men were from Kufah. Let us take a closer look at these men:

Zurarah ibn A‘yan
Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum states that the family of A‘yan, of which Zurarah was a scion, was the largest Shi‘i family of Kufa. (Rijal as-Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, a.k.a al-Fawa’id ar-Rijaliyyah, vol. 1 p. 222)

Zurarah has always posed a problem in Shi‘ism, because while is on the one hand regarded as the most prolific narrator from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, the Imams are also recorded as having cursed and excommunicated him. The Shi‘ah attempt to reconcile these two contradictory attitudes through the dubious and completely unconvincing explanation of taqiyyah by the Imams.

Regarding the wealth of narrations which Zurarah reports, we are informed by al-Kashshi that had it not been for Zurarah, the ahadith of al-Baqir would have been lost. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 345) Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i has counted 2094 of his narrations in the four books, all of them from the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq, (al-Khu’i, Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith vol. 7 p. 249)

On the other hand, al-Kashshi records that Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq cursed Zurarah. The following quotation is but one of several places where his cursing of Zurarah is on record:

By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! By Allah, he has ascribed lies to me! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! May Allah curse Zurarah! (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 361)

Despite Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s cursing of Zurarah, he is still accepted by the Shi‘ah as the most prolific and reliable authority for the ahadith of the Imams. He hails from Kufa, the centre of the successors of Ibn Saba; he is cursed by the Imam as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali; and yet he is respected as a trustworthy and reliable narrator of the ahadith which form the basis of Shi‘ism!

Muhammad ibn Muslim
Muhammad ibn Muslim is another Kufan narrator whose credentials as a narrator are extremely suspect, but who is accepted by the Shi‘ah as a reliable narrator all the same. This Muhammad ibn Mus, who claims to have heard 30 000 ahadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and a further 16 000 from his son Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 391) is also recorded by al-Kashshi to have been cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq (vol. 1 p. 394) just as Ibn Saba was cursed by his great-grandfather!

Abu Basir al-Muradi
In Abu Basir we have another very prolific Kufan narrator whose character fails to convince anyone of his trustworthiness. He, together with Zurarah, is regarded of those who preserved the legacy of the Imams al-Baqir and as-Sadiq. He is one of a very select group of narrators about whom it is said that “there is consensus amongst the Shi‘ah to accept what is authentically narrated from them.” (See al-Mamaqani, Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 171)

However, Mir Damad in his annotations to Rijal al-Kashshi notes that the Shi‘i hadith critic Abul Husayn ibn al-Ghada’iri said of him:

Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) used to get annoyed and upset with his presence, and his companions are in disagreement amongst themselves about him. I (Ibn al-Ghada’iri) believe that he was cursed on account of (matters pertaining to) his religion, not his narrations. To me he is a trustworthy narrator. (Ikhtiyar Ma‘`rifat ar-Rijal, vol. 1 p. 397. See also al-Ardabili, Jami‘ ar-Ruwat vol. 3 p. 43)

Again we have here a most prolific Kufan narrator who was cursed by Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq just like Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali!

Al-Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar
Here we have another Kufan narrator who is regarded by eminent Shi‘i hadith critics as a reliable transmitter of the Imams’ hadith. Al-Ardabili in Jami‘ ar-Ruwat (vol. 2 p. 258) records that Shaykh Mufid mentioned al-Mufaddal as belonging to the “inner circle, reliable and pious Fuqaha” of Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq’s followers. Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi too, is quoted as having mentioned al-Mufaddal amongst the mamduhin (praiseworthy).

But Imam Ja‘far is recorded by al-Kashshi to have addressed by calling him, “You Kafir! You Mushrik!” (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 612) Another lengthier narration of al-Kashshi runs as follows:

‘Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha‘ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja‘far said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

The above narration clearly identifies al-Mufaddal with the heresy originally introduced by Ibn Saba. In the biography of Ibn Saba given in al-Kashshi’s Rijal, Imam al-Baqir is reported to have stated that Ibn Saba claimed himself to be a prophet, and ‘Ali to be Allah (See Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 1 p. 323). If we return to al-Mufaddal’s biography in the same book we find the following:

Al-Kashshi says: The extremist Tayyarah mention in some of their books on the authority of al-Mufaddal that he said: “Seventy prophets were killed with Abu Isma‘il, meaning Abul Khattab, each one of whom had seen and announced his prophethood.”

[They also say] that he said: Twelve of us were admitted to the presence of Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq]. Abu ‘Abdillah started greeting each one of us, calling each of us by the name of a prophet. To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Nuh.” To some he said, “Peace be upon you, O Ibrahim,” To last one he greeted he said, “Peace be upon you, O Yunus.” Then he said, “Do not distinguish between the Prophets.” (Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

This Mufaddal, whom al-Kashshi says was of the extremist Khattabiyyah sect, the followers of Abul Khattab, whose beliefs derived directly from Ibn Saba himself—this Mufaddal is exonerated by contemporary Shi‘i scholars such as Shaykh ‘Abdullah al-Mamaqani, and Sayyid Abul Qasim al-Khu’i as a most reliable and trustworthy transmitter of the knowledge of the Imams. Al-Mamaqani gives a lengthy explanation about what exactly constitutes ghuluww (See Tanqih al-Maqal vol. 3 p. 240 and Miqbas al-Hidayah vol. 2 p. 397) and concludes that the kind of things on account of which al-Mufaddal was labelled as a ghali has since become of the undeniable tenets (daririyyat) of Shi‘ism.

Conclusion

We have used the above three narrators merely as a specimen of the men upon whose narrations the edifice of Shi'aism rests. We consistently find disturbing points of resemblance between them and Ibn Saba. They are cursed by the Imams just as Ibn Saba was cursed by Sayyiduna ‘Ali. Some of them held beliefs that are identical to Ibn Saba’s innovations. They hail from Kufa, which Jafri tells us was the stronghold of the Saba’iyyah.

Thus, after we have proven the historical existence of Ibn Saba, this investigation into the men responsible for the narration, or creation, of the hadith legacy of the Shi‘ah leads us to the unequivocal conclusion that what exists today as Shi'aism, and specifically Twelver Shi‘ism, contains a substantial chunk of the original heresy of Ibn Saba. We therefore feel that we have quite convincing reasons to look upon ‘Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.

If this conclusion fails to find favour in Shi'ite circles, that cannot be helped. Just as the concern of the Shi‘ah for Muslim unity in the face of the vicious enemies of Islam has never constituted an impediment for them to state exactly how and what they perceive the faith and practice of the Ahl as-Sunnah to be, similarly, we feel that it is only fair if the Ahl as-Sunnah too, can exercise the right to publish their viewpoint on the origin of Shi'aism, without anyone, and least of all the Shi‘ah, demanding from them to consider the danger that poses to Muslim unity.

If the state of Iran and its diplomatic representatives in South Africa are sincere in their concern for Muslim unity, we suggest that they take a very serious look at the extent to which Shi‘ism is being propagated in South Africa, as well as the provenance of the funding that supports those missions. Only when you have proven your sincerity for the cause of Islam by removing that essential stumbling block would we feel that your protest against the publication of an article like Abdullah ibn Saba: the Founder of deserves something more than a decisive dismissal.

Yours in the service of Islam

NOTE: We have copies of all the books you listed except Bihar al-Anwar. It would be greatly appreciated if the embassy could arrange for us to have a copy of Bihar since it is such an invaluable source of reference.
e-mail: islam@allaahuakbar.net

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Another bullsh...
Shia do not recognize Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.

Your quote "The Quran states Obey your lord, your messengers and your leader at the time."

Another bullsh...fresh from Amerislam…LOL
Shia do not recognize Abdullah ibn Saba as the Founder of Shi‘ism.

Your quote "The Quran states Obey your lord,your messengers,and your leader at the time."
So in other words we should start obeying Allah, Prophet and Mr. Bush. Correct me if I am wrong when I took literary translation of yours.
Hahahahahah

Do you really know the meaning of “Ululamr” in the above ayah the one you translated as the "leader at the time"?

Ibn Babawayh has narrated through his chain from Jabir ibn Abdillah al-Ansari that he said: "When Allah, the Mighty, the Great, sent to His Prophet, Muhammad (s.a.w.a.), the verse, O you who believe! obey Allah and the Messenger and those vested with authority from among you, I said, 'O Messenger of Allah! We know Allah and His Messenger, but who are those vested with authority whose obedience Allah has conjoined to your obedience? (The Prophet) said: 'They are my caliphs, O Jabir! and the Imams of the Muslims after me. The first of them is 'Ali son of Abutalib, then al-Hasan, then al-Husayn, then 'Ali son of al-Husayn, then Muhammad son of 'Ali who is mentioned as al-Baqir in the Torah; you will surely meet him, O Jabir! when you see him convey my salam (greetings) to him. Then as-Sadiq Ja'far son of Muhammad; then Musa son of Ja'far; then 'Ali son of Musa; then Muhammad son of 'Ali; then 'Ali son of Muhammad; then al-Hasan son of 'Ali; then Muhammad (whose name and patronym will be the same as mine) son of al-Hasan, the Proof of Allah on His earth and Baqiyyatullah (= the one kept safe by Allah) among His servants; he is the one by whose hands Allah, Sublime is His remembrance, will conquer the whole world from the east to the west; he it is who will remain hidden from his followers and friends for a such a long period that no one will remain firm on the belief of his imamah except he whose heart has been tested by Allah for faith.' " Jabir says: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Will his followers get any benefit from him during his occultation?' (The Prophet, s.a.w.a.) said: 'Certainly, by Him Who has sent me with prophethood! they will be guided by his light and benefit from his wilayah (= love, mastership) during his occultation as people benefit from the sun when it is hidden in cloud. O Jabir! this is part of the hidden secrets of Allah. So keep it hidden except from the peopl e who deserve to know.' " (Tafsir al-Burhan)

Amer!
I am sure this Ayat was not for your khalifahs!

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ اللّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ الرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي الأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً {59}
[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

[Yusufali 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.
[
Pickthal 4:59] O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:59]
"Obey Allah and obey the messenger and the ulil amr (those vested with authority through His messenger)."

The command to obey is infinite-total obedience in all material, religious and spiritual matters, therefore, as this verse clearly signifies, the ulil amr must also be as just, wise and merciful as Allah and the Holy Prophet are, and he who - administers the affairs of mankind should be the khalifatullah (vicegerent of Allah) and the waliallah (representative of Allah whom He chooses after equipping him with His wisdom). Please refer to the commentary of al-Baqarah: 30 to 39 and 124; and al-Ma-idah: 55 and 56 and 3 and 67 with reference to the event at Ghadir Khum; and al-Rad: 43; and al-Hud: 17. A careful study of the above references discloses that Ali, and after him, the remaining eleven Imams, in the progeny of the Holy Prophet, Ali and Fatimah, are the true successors of the Holy Prophet who have been referred to as ulil amr in this verse. So the Shias obey and follow the Holy Prophet and the twelve Imams.

It is irrational and senseless to accept any ruler as ulil amr, otherwise men like Yazid bin Mu-awiya will have to be included in the category of ulil amr; and no sane person would say that Allah has enjoined to obey men like Yazid (prototypes of whom were and are many and in abundance since the departure of the Holy Prophet till today) just as one obeys Allah and the Holy Prophet.

From the event of ashira (feast of the near relatives to carry out the divine command of "warn your tribe of near relatives") to the day at Ghadir Khum, the Holy Prophet repeatedly announced the successorship of Ali, therefore, the first step a true Muslim must take to obey the messenger of Allah is to obey and follow Ali ibn abi Talib. Also refer to the "Right Path" and "Peshawar Nights", published by the Peermohammed Ebrahim Trust or Zahra Publications, because the issue of ulil amr and wali has been discussed in depth in these books with authentic references from the well-known books of tafsir (exegesis) and hadith (traditions) written by the Muslim scholars.

Today the Muslim ummah (from Indonesia to Morocco) is in a quandary, because the theoreticians who directly or indirectly served the interests of the despotic rulers, have presented "the obedience to ruler" (even if he is an usurper, a rogue or a ruffian) as a fundamental of religion (known as the theory of ghlu and ghalba-violence and conquest) by misinterpreting this verse. Such theoreticians are their Imams. There is no way leading to emancipation from terror and exploitation if this theory is not rightly rejected once and for all. It is not possible unless the sincere Muslims submit to the teachings of the Ahl ul Bayt.

Want to know more about “Ulil amr”?
Let me give you an example… What is Allah?
Allah (swt) has many qualities and because of these qualities He (swt) has 99 names e.g. Qadir, Rehman…and so on. If you take all His (swt) qualities and combine (if I may say so) it will most likely become confined in two big qualities. One will be His “Qudrat” (Capacity to create) and the other is His “Amr” (Intention or Iradah).
Qadir means He has capacity to create anything, He creates things from existing things and that is his “Qudrat”. Like humans created with clay. So clay was there and He created humans with it. That is why one of His name is Qadir, (who creats).
In other words he creates things from “Shaey” (Things).

Similarly His other quality is His “Amr”, it means he can do “Iradah” (intention to do something) and it happens. This is His creation from “La Shaey” (from nothing); it means He creates “Things” from “Nothing”. (He creates Shaey from La-Shaey)
Like the universe which He created from nothing. He just did his Amr (intention) and it just happened.

If you take the Arabic language grammar, then term “Amr” should have a “Faael” as “Aamir” (the doer of an act). Now since “Amr” is for Allah (swt) then he should have a name also as “Aamir”. But you will see from His 99 names, there is no name calling Him as “Aamir” just like He is Qadir because of His Qudrat”.
Another “Faael” of “Amr” is “Ameer” (Sahib-e-amr) and this name also does not exist in the 99 Names Allah (swt) has.

Now, here is the punch line…
Prophet (pbuh) has many names too. You will see one of his names is “Aamir”. So if I may say so that although “Amr” is for Allah (swt) but “Aamir” is Prophet (pbuh). . In other words Allah (swt) has the intention to do and the act is done by the Prophet (pbuh).

Here is another punch line…
Look for names of Imam Ali (as) and you will find many e.g. Abu Turab and so on, but one is “Ameer”. He is the Ameer and “sahib-e-amr” and all 11 other Imams as Propphet (pbuh) said in the above hadith I had mentioned..... Ali (as) is the “Ulil amr” (Authority on act. Authority on people and all) as the Ayat calls

[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
It’s not the “leader at the time” as you say otherwise “Yazid will enter in that ranks also who you hate.
hahahahaha

Salaam Amer

SHI"AH NARRATORS IN SAHIH AL BUKHARI

The Shi'ah point of view was followed by many early scholars of Islam who were considered truthful and trustworthy, and their narrations of the hadith of the Prophet (s) were relied upon by famous Sunni scholars.

Listed below are a few of the Shi'ah scholars that al-Bukhari has relied upon in his Sahih. If we add to these the rest of them including those narrators in the Sahih of Muslim and the other four Sihah Sittah who followed the Shi'ah faith, then the number would increase significantly. To save space, reference is given to the section title (kitab) in each book for only one hadith by each person .

The reader will notice the term Rafidi every now and then in the following biographies. The Sunni scholars generally define a Rafidi as a Shi'ah who openly criticizes or rejects the legitimacy of the Caliphs before 'Ali (a).

UBAYD ALLAH B.MUSA AL-'ABSI
(died 213 AH)

is quoted in the following

Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-salat]
Sunan al-Nasa'i [kitab al-sahw]
Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-muqaddamah]

"Aboo Daawood said: He was an ardent Shee'ee, his ahaadeeth are allowable....Ibn Mandah said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to point 'Ubaydullaah out to the people, and he was well known for Rafd (extreme partisanship for 'Alee), and he would not let anyone enter his house who was called 'Mu'aawiyah'".
[The Creed of the Imaam of Hadeeth al-Bukhari and of the Great Scholars from whom he narrated (Salafi Publications, UK, 1997), p. 89 from Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, vol. 9, pp .553-557]

about whom it was said

"A pious person, one of the important Shi'ah scholars ... considered reliable by Yahya b. Ma'in, Abu Hatim said he was reliable, trustworthy ... al-'Ijli said: He was an authority on the Qur'an..."
[Al-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz under "'Ubayd Allah b. Musa al-'Absi"]

'ABBAD B.YA'QUB AL RAJAWINI
(died 250 AH)

is quoted in the following

Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-manaqib]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab ma ja' fi al-jana'iz]

about whom it was said

'He was a trustworthy Rafidi and his hadith is in (Sahih of) al-Bukhari'.
[Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajani"]

Abu Hatim said: 'He was a shaykh, reliable'. Ibn 'Adi said: 'He used to denounce the Salaf. In him was extremism of Shi'ism'. Salih b. Muhammad said: 'He used to denounce 'Uthman. I heard him saying, "Allah is more just than that he would admit Talhah and al-Zubayr into heaven after they paid allegiance to 'Ali and then fought him."' Ibn Hibban said: 'He was a Rafidi inviting (others to his belief). He narrated this hadith …, "If you see Mu'awiyah on my pulpit, kill him!"'
[Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abbad b. Ya'qub al-Rawajani"]

ABD AL-MALIK B.A'YAN AL KUFI

is quoted in

Sahih al-Bukhari [kitab al-tawhid]
Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab tafsir al-Qur'an]
Sunan al-Nasa'i [kitab al-'iman wa al-nudhur]
Sunan Abu Dawud [kitab al-buyu']
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-zakah]

about whom it was said

'He was Rafidi Shi'i, one of (the people of) opinion'.
[Abu Ja'far al-'Uqayli, Du'afa al-'Uqayli, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]

'He was Rafidi, reliable' (saduq).
[Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]

Al-'Ijli said: 'He was from Kufah, a Tabi'i (Successor), reliable'. Sufyan said: ''Abd al-Malik b. 'A'yan the Shi'i narrated to us, he was a Rafidi to us, a man of opinion'. Hamid said: 'Those three brothers, 'Abd al-Malik, Zurarah, and Hamran were Rawafid all of them'. Abu Hatim said: 'He was one of the earliest to embrace Shi'ism, (he was) on the position of truthfulness, having good traditions, and his traditions are written'.
[Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, under "'Abd al-Malik b. A'yan"]

'ABD AL-RAZZAQ AL-SAN'ANI
(died 211 AH)

is quoted in

Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih Muslim [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Nasa'i [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Abi Dawud [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-muqaddamah fi al-'iman]

about whom it was said

Ibn 'Adi said: 'They (i.e. scholars) did not see any problem in his hadith except that they attributed Shi'ism to him… He was a man of honor … he narrated traditions in praise of the Household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) and disparaging others'… Mukhlid al-Shu'ayri said: 'I was with 'Abd al-Razzaq when someone mentioned Mu'awiyah. 'Abd al-Razzaq said: 'Do not pollute our assembly by mentioning the descendant of Abu Sufyan!'.'
[Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under "'Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani"]

 Ibn 'Adi narrated (a hadith) from 'Abd al-Razzaq…, "If you see Mu'awiyah on my pulpit then kill him!".
[Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-'I'tidal, under "'Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani"]

'AWF B.ABI JAMILAH AL-ARABI
(died 146 AH)

is quoted in

Sahih Bukhari [kitab al-'iman]
Sahih Muslim [kitab al-masajid wa mawadi' al-salat]
Sahih al-Tirmidhi [kitab al-salat]
Sunan Nasa'i [kitab al-taharah]
Sunan Abi Dawud [kitab al-salat]
Sunan Ibn Majah [kitab al-salat]

about whom it was said

'He was Rafidi but reliable… He was considered reliable by many scholars, and in him was Shi'ism'.
[Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A'lam al-Nubala, under "'Awf b. Abi Jamilah"]

''Awf was a Qadari, a Shi'i, a Shaytan!'
[Abu Ja'far al-'Uqayli, Du'afa al-'Uqayli, under "'Awf b. Abi Jamilah"]

He was inclined towards Shi'ism. Ibn Ma'in said: 'reliable, Al-Nasa'i said: Very reliable'.
[Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, under "'Awf b. Abi Jamilah"]

Q: But maybe al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others relied on these people without knowing their true belief?

These scholars devoted their lives to acquiring and transmitting traditions and studying the lives of the transmitters of these traditions. Most of them have books on Rijal (science of judging reliability of narrators) to their credit. Although their selectivity and choice of authorities and material clearly indicates a staunch Sunni standpoint, they still found themselves relying on those Shi'ah who they judged to be truthful. This is despite the fact that their Shi'ism is expressed with disapproval!

Thus, to say that al-Bukhari, Muslim, and others didn't really know the belief of these Shi'ah narrators would be to call them incompetent in their field!!!

Q: But why didn't they just rely on Sunnis as authorities?

Perhaps they were not as bigoted and narrow-minded as some of our Sunni brethren who insist on associating the Shi'ah belief with all sorts of false allegations. It should be clear from the biographies listed that being critical of some Caliphs and Companions - based on incontrovertible historical evidence - was tolerated by Sunni scholars of previous generations.

Q: And do the Shi'ah rely on Sunni narrators in their books?

As long as the Sunni narrator is not known for his enmity towards the Household of the Prophet (s) (Ahl al-Bayt) and is considered truthful, he is accepted by Shi'ah traditionists.

CONCLUSION:

The fact is that a significant portion of the Sunni hadith literature would be lost if the material from the Shi'ah narrators was rejected. The Shi'ah faith has always been and remains a well-evidenced alternative to the Sunni point of view.

What do you say now Amer, about 'THE SHI'AH', who distanced themselves from the likes of your beloved Mu'awiah, offering to kill him infact - yet these same people have been considered as reliable by your greatest Hadith Collectors?

Al Bukhari obviously knew a lot more than he let on, when compiling the sayings and sifting through the narrations one wonders, about that which he decided for himself to edit.

Wassalaam

DearAmer

To quote you

'Ali was leader at his time.(may allah be pleased with then all).any one that didnt follow them at their time was fassiq wrong doer'.

How is Ayesha deemed to be a follower of Imam Ali, as you yourself have conceded to fight on the side of your Khalifa?

Correct me if I am wrong, but Ali would only fight against the wrongdoers - otherwise we might lay claim that you have sided in war against the righteous.

How can Ayesha be rightious in the light of this?

Do you not accept your state of contradiction?

sallam

This Question is for the lovers of Shia.
Why did your prophet mohammad and my prophet mohammad pbuh marry Ayesha,get all of your great sinless Immams,all of your Mutha practicing deviates and all you very small minirority ulama scholrals to answer this question??????????????????
Why did the Prophet pbuh himself walk and talk and pray and give sallam and battle with the companions,why???????????????????????????????????

Allah knows best
amerislam

Battle with the companions??

Are you sure you know what your talking about.

The question YOU should be asking for yourself, is why did AYESHA 'battle with the companions'?

In fact just to complicate things a little further, why indeed did 'The Companions' battle with Imam Ali??!

Why did the Prophet Nuh, marry HIS wife?

I'm sorry, but you're argument in FAVOUR of Ayesha based on the sole fact that she was the wife of a Prophet, simply isn't washing.

Stop running around in circles.

Even your own scholars admit that she was wrong.

So, in the same way you have admitted that 'Umar disobeyed the prophet, so what...?', can you not be brave enough to admit that Ayesha disobeyed her prophet also?

Where is the harm in that?

Wassalaam

Go back and read my answer...Amerislam

Prophet (pbuh) probably married Ayesha so Umar could not marry her. Imagin how big of a "Fitna" would have been created if they both would have got married?

I walk, talk, sometime pray with and say salam to my sunnis friend but I know their faith is deviated and they will be dwelers of hell. But if should not stop me doing my good deeds so I do it. That's what exectly Prophet (pbuh) did.

Muslims are 1.5 billions approx. There are 72 sects...there are 25% Shias in this world. Lets say Shia have four sectes, one is very big in numbers and they are called "Ithna Ashari" (twelvers) other three sects are few in numbers so little that their Numbers are insignificant.

So we can say that shias are only one sect. But we still take 5% out from Shia population.
There are 20% of IthnaAshari Shia Muslims who are Majotity of Shia so it becomes 1500 Million / 20% = 300 millions.

Now the remaining are Sunnis i.e. 1500-300=1200 millions. Out of 1200 Millions there are 68 sects in Sunnis. That will make each sect
1200 / 68 = 17.6 Millions.
Here we go, even if we consider 10 times of sunnis of your type in the total Sunni population then 17.6 Million x 10 = 176 Million. Where is the Majority?
Who are more Sunnis or Shias?

hahahahaha

sallam

Tod shia are only 10-12 perecent buddy not 25 percent,and thank god yous are only a little miniroity and you claims that shia correct what a failer if it was.

Answer the question,why would the prophet(pbuh)marry a female that other people will say she is evil does befit the prophet you astray anti prophet people,does befit the holy prophet,does it?????????????????

Tod you are the black sheep in islam and you know that in shia sects their are 9 that i only know off,and they are way way way of,one say Ali is god,another says quran they have upgraded version and extra verses yalatiff,another you cant even know about their belif,yes this is the shia sects in sunni they only differ in way of the prophet very little differnce is shia the actuall aqeedah is differnt and foundation is totaly different,Aliweya beilf if recarnation OOOO may be tod is homer simpson Thats funny Tod HA HA HA HA HA,and bin laden is The mahdi he he.
Smell the hell fire,be on the guided path before its to late

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

SALLAM
Tod your not like the prophet,the prophet before his demise had full support and alot more numbers than the shia have now,how can shia be on the correct path?
OOOH iam wrong am i a evil person.
Back to the Immams show were one of them spoke bad of the companions or bad about the mother of belivers and we know why the prophet called her mother of the BELIVERS anyone against her you can answer that yourself(they are not from the beilvers).
Immam Ali
Immam Hussein
Immam Hassan
Immam mohammad albakir somethink like that sorry if iam wrong
Immam jaffar alsaddiq which has family from Alsaddiq abu bakr which the deviated deny and so on.

quran quoted "ALLAH IS HAPPY WITH THEM,AND THEY ARE HAPPY FROM HIM"(THE PROPHETS COMAPNIONS)
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

iam posting what scholars say about shia,it my duty to try and help the misguided inshalla.

Shi'ism and Islam are indeed different religions. The divergence of Shiism from Islam can be summarized from the books which they consider most authentic, and the statements of their most respected scholars. Some of the proofs available to support this position are as follows:

1) The Imami Shia do not believe in or accept authentic texts such as Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood or others. Indeed, regarding Imam Al-Bukhari, a shia scholar, Abdullah as-Subayti states: "He has transmitted strange and even abominable tales unsuitable even for the minds of superstitious Berbers and old Sudani women." (Taht Rayah al-Haqq) .

2) According to Imami Shia doctrine, the vast majority of the sahaba were liars and apostates.

One of the leading scholars of the shia, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja'far said: "The people (including the sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet's death except for three." When asked who they were, he replied, "Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, 'If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.'" (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13) .

In the book "Al-Kafi fil-Usool, a collection of ahadith attributed to the Prophet SAWS and some of the Imams of the Shia, and held in the same esteem amongst shia as Sahih Bukhari is amongst the Ahl us-Sunnah, we find the following:

"Obedience to 'Ali is true humility and disobedience to him is disbelief in Allah." (vol.10 p.54)

"Whoever sets up another Imam besides 'Ali and delays 'Ali's caliphate is a polytheist." (vol.10 p.55) (this "hadith" refers to everyone who accepts the validity of the caliphates of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and Uthman. The Shia claim that the caliphate was stolen from 'Ali, and only he and his descendants have the right to rule the Muslims)

"Syrians are worse than the Romans, Madinites worse than Meccans, and Meccans openly disbelieve in Allah." (vol.10 p.107)

In explanation of the verse: "On the day when the wrong-doer bites his hands saying, 'O if only I had taken the right path with the Prophet! O woe is me, if only I had not taken so-and-so as a friend!" (25:27-28) One of the most highly respected scholars of Tafseer amongst the Shia, Al-Qummi, states that "so-and-so" is 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RA). (astagfiruallah)

In reference to Talhah (RA) and az-Zubayr (RA), Al-Qummi claims that Abu Ja'far said that the following verse was revealed about them; "Verily the doors of Heaven will not open for those who deny Our signs and are arrogant towards them, nor will they enter paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle."(7:40) He also adds that the camel in the verse refers to their camel. Thus, according to Al-Qummi, Talhah(RA) and az-Zubayr(RA), who were both amongst the ten who received glad tidings of paradise from the ProphetSAWS himself, will never enter paradise!

Imami Shia doctrine holds that most of the sahaba were the worst sort, liars and apostates all. There is even a special dua, called "Dua Sanamay Quraysh" (The two Idols of the Quraysh). In this prayer (falsely attributed to Abdullah ibn Abbas) Both Abu Bakr(RA) and 'Umar(RA) are cursed, and called "the two idols of the Quraysh". Shirk(disbelief) is attributed to the two caliphs, and their daughters, Ayesha and Hafsah, both wives of the ProphetSAWS, are vilified. The prayer is published with the endorsement of the following major Imami Shia scholars:

1) Ayatallah al-Udhma Muhsin al-Hakeem .

2) Ayatallah al-Udhma Abul-Qasim al-Khoi .

3) Ayatallah al-Udhma Roohullah al-Khomeini .

4) Ayatallah al-Udhma Mahmood al-Husaini .

5) Ayatallah al-Udhma Muhammad Kadhim Shri'atmadari .

6) The chief scholar 'Ali Taqi at-Taqwa .

Imami Shia doctrine in fact holds that all who do not follow their doctrine are disbelievers and apostate from Islam, with the following hadith from Al-Kafi cited in support:

"Doubt about the Imamate of 'Ali is like doubt about the mission of Muhammad SAWS and one who doubts both should be killed if possible, if he claims to be a Muslim. On the other hand, disbelievers are like the Jews and Christians and should not be killed for these reasons." (al-Kafi vol.6 p.393)

3) The Imami Shia have not only misinterpreted the Qur'an, but they have made actual alterations in the text itself:

The false verse, "And we made 'Ali your in-law" has been added to Surah Al-Inshirah (Al-Kafi p.289)

In 25:74, the verse "And make us a leader (Imam) for the God-fearing" is replaced with "And make for us a leader (Imam) from among the God-fearing."

Of even greater audacity is the addition of an entirely fabricated surah to the Qur'an, called, "Surah al-Walayah" Translation of this false surah is as follows:

1) O believers, believe in the Prophet and the guardian (wali), whom We sent to guide you to the straight path.

2) A Prophet and a Guardian, one from the other, and I am the Knower, the Wise.

3) Verily those who fulfill their covenant to Allah will have gardens of pleasure.

4) And for those who deny our signs when they are read to them,

5) Verily they will have a terrible place in Hell when they are called for on the Day of Judgment, 'Where are the wrong-doers who denied the messengers?'

6) He only created them in truth and Allah will surely make them victorious until a time in the near future.

7) Glorify the praises of your Lord and 'Ali is among the witnesses.

But perhaps the greatest level of audacity is in the assertion that the Qur'an that we now possess is not the true Qur'an at all, but rather a fabrication:

"Abu Baseer reported that he said to Imam Ja'far, "O Abu Abdullah (Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq) What is Mushaf Fatimah?" He replied "It is a Qur'an containing three times what is found in your copy of the Qur'an; yet by Allah, it does not contain even a single letter from your Qur'an." (Al-Kafi p.385)

4) The Imami Shia consider the Imams to be utterly infallible, incapable of even the slightest error. Hence following them, according to Shia doctrine is obligatory on all true Muslims until the Day of Judgment. In fact, reverence for these Imams is so great amongst the Shia that the Imams are believed to be on a level above even the Prophets or the highest ranking angels; A level wherein even the particles of the universe are subservient to them.

Khomeini asserts in his book, "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyyah", "Certainly the Imam has a dignified station, a lofty rank, a creational caliphate, and a sovereignty and mastery over all the atoms of creation. It is definitely a basic belief in our school of thought, that our Imams occupy a station unattainable by either an angel or a major Prophet. And, according to our narrations of hadith, before the creation of the universe, the greatest Prophet SAWS, and the Imams - peace be upon them - were in the form of light which Allah made orbit His throne and gave rank and proximity known only to Him. As was narrated in the hadith on miraaj, Angel Jibreel said, 'If I were to have come an inch closer, I would have been burnt up.' - that is, by the intensity of the Imam's light. It has also been narrated by them, - may peace be on them - that, 'We have certain states in relation to Allah not allowed to an angel or a great Prophet.' A similar status is accorded to Fatimah az-Zahra - may peace be on her..."

and in the same book, Khomeini also states regarding the Imams: "...because we cannot imagine the Imams being forgetful or negligent, and we believe that they perceive all things which could benefit muslims..." and "The Imam's teachings are like the Qur'an...they must be implemented and followed." This last statement finds it's support in a chapter of Al-Kafi entitled: "Surely people have no Truth except what came from the Imams and everything which did not come from them is false."

The Imams are thought to have absolute and infinite knowledge, despite what Allah says in the Quran; "Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). It is He who sends down rain, and it is he that knows what is in the wombs. Nor does anyone know what it is that he will earn tomorrow, nor does anyone know in what land he is to die. Verily with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted (with all things)"(31:34)

This incredible belief that the Imams know the unseen can be amply attested by the following chapter headings in Al-Kafi fil-Usool.

1) Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of All that was given to the angels and the Prophets. (Al-Kafi p.255)

2) Chapter: The Imams know when they will die, and they only die by their choice. (Al-Kafi p.258)

3) Chapter: The Imams have knowledge of the past and future; and nothing is hidden from them. (Al-Kafi p.260)

Clearly, the book Al-Kafi fil Usool contains such extreme statements of kufr (disbelief) and shirk (polytheism) that it alone is sufficient to push anyone who believes in it into the Hellfire for eternity. Yet Ayatallah Khomeini states that the sum total of his religion is contained in it, saying: "Do you think it is enough for our religious life to have it's laws summed up in Al-Kafi and then placed upon a shelf?" (Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyyah p.72)

What Do Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah in the Past and Present say about Shia (Rafidah)? :

1) Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'i said concerning the Shia,

"I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the raafidi* Shia, because they invent ahadith and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah) *

(Some shia at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with 'Ali's right to be Imam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and became known as the "raafida" or rejectors. Those who followed Imam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Raafidi evolved into the the various Imami shia sects, the largest of which is the Ithna 'Ashari.)

2) Imam Abu Hanifah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief."

3) Imam Malik: Once when asked about the raafidi Shia, Imam Malik said; "Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars." During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks." (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)

4) Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi: He said of the raafidi Shia doctrine of cursing the sahaba, "If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the ProphetSAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the ProphetSAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur'an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation."

5) Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shia claims that the Qur'an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shia claims were not valid evidence because the shia were not themselves muslims.

6) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the raafidi Shia disbelievers because of their defamation of the sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet'sSAWS family) Al-Alusi said, "No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them."

7) Muhammad Rasheed Rida: This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the shia and the sunni, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts, they caught him by surprise by presenting him with a number of their books which slander Islam. He then replied in a paper called As-Sunnah wa Ash-Shia in which he exposed their false doctrines and idolatrous practices.

8) Dr. Hilali: After living close to the shia for some years, the famous Moroccan scholar, Dr. Hilali wrote a paper on them in which he declared them to be disbelievers.

9) Abul-A'la Maududi: This great Pakistani scholar wrote an introduction to the book, "Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum" In it was written, regarding the Imami Ja'fari Shia, "despite their moderate views (relative to other shia sects), they are swimming in disbelief like white bloodcells in blood or like fish in water."

10) among the other contemporary scholars who have expressed similar views are: Sheikh Abdul 'Aziz ibn Baz, Sheikh Nassiraddin Al-Albani, Allama Ash-Shanqiti, Sheikh An-Nashashibi, Imam Ahmad Ameen, and Dr. Rashaad Salim.

Taqiyyah or Calculated Deception

One other Imami Shia doctrine that must be related is the doctrine of Taqiyyah, or dissimulation, (i.e. calculated deception). In support of this doctrine of deception, the shia attribute the following to Abu Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq):

"Nine tenths of religion is taqiyyah (dissimulation), hence one who does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110)

"He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed it."

"A believer who does not dissimulate is like a body without a head." (Tafseer al-Askari)

"Mix with them(i.e. non-shia) externally but oppose them internally." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116)

Concerning the verse, "Verily the most noble of you in Allah's sight is the most God-fearing(atqaakum)" , the shia attribute the following interpretation of "atqaakum": "That is, your deeds done by taqiyyah(dissimulation) (Al-I'tiqadat)

It is interesting to contrast this doctrine of calculated deception with Allah's statement in the Holy Qur'an: "Surely those who hide from people the clear proofs and guidance, which we clarified in the Book(Qur'an), will be cursed by Allah and all those who curse." (2:159)

And the statement of the Prophet SAWS who said: "Whoever is asked for knowledge and conceals it will have a bridle of fire around his neck on the Day of Judgment." (Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi)

I should stress that not all who are called shia hold to these deviant and idolatrous beliefs. As mentioned earlier, the Zaydi Shia hold no real differences of aqeedah, but only the political position that the Caliph should be from the descendants of 'Ali.

I am not writing this to insult anyone, nor do I wish to create fitnah. However, when the issue arises, I am compelled to state what I know. Anything I have stated correctly is from Allah, and any mistakes are from myself or shaytan

AHYA.ORG - Authentic Islamic Resources and Information

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

My Muslim friends, would you like to comment on the the guy who said he killed Theo van Gogh in the name of Islam? How do most Muslims see such actions? I'm really curious.

And I'm not looking for sound bites.

Michael!

He did it against Islam, he must be insane.
He who killed Theo van Gogh was not an authority on Islam. He took action by himself and acted alone. His knowledge of Islam must have been zero.

I don’t agree what he did.

Amerislam! Have you lost words? You’re copying and paste (some quotes were out of context) and can’t answer question from Ali Ameem?

Now, you can't even talk properly...scared of hell fire?...man...I want to go and put more fuel in there so it stays hot waiting for you...hahahahahahaha

Don’t worry about Shias, we do what prophet (pbuh) had told us and we Saiyids are the descendents of Ali (as) and Fatima (sa) daughter of the Prophet (pbuh). So listen to us what we say since it is coming from our forefathers who are authority on religion.

Do you know who taught prayer to women? It was Fatima (sa) since she was the part of the Prophet (pbuh). Prophet said “Fatima is part of me and who ever makes her angry will make me angry and whoever makes me angry will make Allah (swt) angry”.
Abu Bakr and Umar sure did make Fatima (sa) angry, very angry.

It was Ali’s (as) father Abu Talib who defended Prophet (pbuh) when your great grandfather Abu Lahab disrupted Prophet’s (pbuh) prayer in Kaaba just after he started preaching Islam. Where your beloved Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were at that time? Abu Talib told Abu Lahab that his hands would be broken and paralysed if he did it again and he would burn in hell fire. Allah (swt) repeated his words in the Surah “al-Lahab”
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
تَبَّتْ يَدَا أَبِي لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ {1}
[Shakir 111:1] Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.
مَا أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ {2}
[Shakir 111:2] His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.
سَيَصْلَى نَارًا ذَاتَ لَهَبٍ {3}
[Shakir 111:3] He shall soon burn in fire that flames,
وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ {4}
[Shakir 111:4] And his wife, the bearer of fuel,
فِي جِيدِهَا حَبْلٌ مِّن مَّسَدٍ {5}
[Shakir 111:5] Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope.

Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman had no clue about Prophet (pbuh) but Ali (as) and Fatima (sa) lived with the Prophet (pbuh) day and night. We took religion from our forefathers just like they took it from their forefather Ibrahim (Abraham).
You Sunnis took your religion from thieves, robbers and Abu Huryrah and may be from London’s tabloids… …LOL

I gave you quote from your own books...quotes from Quran...quotes from my books...logical reasons...but you seems to be acting exactly like Abu Bakr and Umar who did not know their ass from their elbow...so go stay with them and they will suck you into hell fire like a vacuum cleaner.

People in your Sunni religion are the murderer of humanity, murderer of people whose hand feed you, gave Islam a dirty name, killing innocent people by committing suicide bombing and thinking going to heaven and marrying seven virgins... what kind of a religion you have gotten from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiah and Yazid, “Islamic Terrorism”? Islam does not teach you to do terrorism that you Sunnis are doing.
“Killing an innocent man is killing the whole humanity” as Prophet (pbuh) had said. It does not matter if the man a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu or even an atheist. Killer will still be punished by Allah (swt).
Christians are better than you and I have reasons to say that…want to argue?

You are arguing for the sake of argument but you can’t not understand a single thing about what Prophet (pbuh) had said. You claim to follow Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh) yet you don’t even know what his Sunnah is. Prophet (pbuh) used to stand up in respect when Fatima (sa) used to come to see him. Would you do it for your daughter or your father does it for his daughter?

Your Khalifahs are the reasons that the whole family of the Prophet (pbhu) was murdered in every era, age and time. Your Kahlifah Umar was the murderer of Prophet’s (pbuh) beloved daughter. (If prophet would have more daughters then your Khalifas would have killed them too. This was another proof that the Prophet (pbuh) did not have more than one daughter.)

Go take a cold shower before you argue any Shia Muslim about Islam. You take out Ali (as) from Islam and nothing will be left…as you have done so and nothing left in Sunni religion as you call it Islam.
We have Islam alive in us since we took it from right roots and we are thankful to Almighty for it.

I rest my case… May Allah (swt) kindle hell fire for enemies of Ali (as) and Fatima (sa)?

Salam.

I hope this whole argumentation has given some benefits to us.

Amer has copied and pasted many articles from Sunni sites that are against the Shia though these sites are simply opinions of its writers who seem to have very little knowledge about the religion.

I noticed that the knowledge of Sunni scholars is very limited to only what have been taught to them. Their ears and hearts are opened only when receiving "approved" materials. They are banned from studying other materials. As a result, they label everything else other than what they've been studying and practicing with names like bid'a, shirik, kaffir/disbelieve, etc. They too exagerate the meaning of Taqiya.

It is easy to understand though, considering that they are taking the basis of their religion from the companions of Prophet Muhammad saaw who were already questioning Prophet's decisions in many occasions even before he died and accused him as 'talking non-sense' while God has clearly ordered all of them to do, follow and never question whatever the Prophet saaw said and decided as his words and actions were nothing but from God.

It is also easy to understand if such companions later threatened to kill people for not following what they had commanded; they too altered some of the rules after the Prophet saaw died since they (already) did not believe in the Prophet saaw 100% - even when he was still alive.

Do we really think that God would've ordered Muhammad's (saw) followers to follow him if he was capable of committing sins?

Is there anything in the Quran saying, "oh you who believe, follow the Prophet only if he's in the best health condition and mental state"?

May God protect us from such evil spirits.

Ma'asalam

Dear Amer

You quote Al Kaafi in an attempt to defame our beliefs.

I Quote your quote

"Doubt about the Imamate of 'Ali is like doubt about the Mission of Muhammad SAWS and one who doubts both should be killed if possible, if he claims to be a Muslim. On the other hand, disbelievers are like the Jews and Christians and should not be killed for these reasons." (al-Kafi vol.6 p.393)

So What?!

To you, because WE doubt Abu Bakr AND doubt Umar YOU have assumed that WE doubt Mohammed and his Mission. This, on the sole premise of your veneration of them as being 'Companions'. You consider US deviated because we consider them to be deviated, deviated from following the INSTRUCTION of their prophet...

...which we, have already proven from your AUTHENTIC hadiths to be true.

Dear Amer

If you wish to go into detail as to who shall be entering the hellfire and who shall not then according to your own Sahih traditions many of your own Sunni brothers will be entering into the domain of Hell, not necessarily because of them being 'sunni' but because of aspects such as hypocrisy, envy, greed etc.

This may also be the same with us.

Your argument is not with Imam Ali , Fatema Zahra, Imam Hussain etc.

Your argument is with us.

Our argument is not with you.

Our arguments is with Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, Muawiah, Ayesha and Yazid.

These are the real cause of Fitna. CLEAR fitna. Enacting upon the violence of Fitna.

For all your talk we can STILL say you are a muslim, and you do not have the blood of Imam Ali's soldiers on your hands.

If we leave all the slagging maches between Shia and Sunni it will be possible to come up with the true answers as to which people sowed these bitter seeds.

Why on earth should ANY of the beloved followers of Ayesha be surprised about a sect called shia supposedly emerging, after the amount of civil bloodshed that ensued in the wake of her command, how could you possibly NOT expect there to be sectarianism?

So do not blame the divisions upon us Amer, when there is already ENOUGH evidence to suggest who the REAL bad guys are.

Wassalaam

Salaam

Good point Dee about Taqiya.

I tell you a real story that will reflect light on the Taqiya that what it is and what it should be used for.

I heard a true story of a Shia scholar (Allamah) in a Muslim country. There were fatal attacks on Shia scholars by Sunni Wahabis at one time in that country. Shia scholars were murdered by Wahabis only because they were Shias Muslims.

It happened that Allamah had just arrived at his house door and was about to enter the house when a strange person approached him and asked by Allamah’s name “Do you know if Allamah inside the house?”
Obviously the strange person knew Allamah’s name but did not know him by face that’s why he asked about Allamah from Allamah himself.

Allama suspected this person to be a Wahabi and noticed as if this person was hiding something under his dress.
Allamah stayed calm and said “Allamah is not inside the house”. Hearing that the Allamah is not inside the house, the Wahabi person left and then Allamah got into his house.

That was typical “Taqiya”. Allamah saved himself from potential harm. He took advantage of the fact that this person did not know him by face. Allamah did not lie since he was not inside the house; he was standing outside the house. In reply he did not say that he was the Allamah since the question was not about Allamah’s identity.

One has to be a Shia to be that smart….LOL

Salaam Tod

I just wanted to say that I love ya, Seyyed Brethren.

Ya Ali Madad

Dear Michael Williams

I think a Turk shot theo Van Gogh.

Undoubtedly, he must have been drunk at the time.

Vincent, I think, offended him by not paying him enough for having modelled for the sitting.

How it was that he claimed it was in the name of Islam that he killed Theo I cannot be certain.

Perhaps he wished to give credibility to his own status as a martyr prior to being hung.

Unfortunately nobody remembers him.

They should make a film on the topic.

I've often thought that Gary Oldman would make a good Persian or Turk in a movie.

I'm sure he could learn both languags. Fluently.

Dear Micheal

I'm sorry. I thought you meant the brother of Vincent Van Gogh...

..whose name I am uncertain of but presumed in my above message had been shot.

Not quite the story.

Still. I think they should make a movie about the Turk that Vincent Van Gogh painted and Gary Oldman should play the part, of the Turkish bloke.

Any suggestions for Vincent?

Salaam Ali Ameem,

Thank you brother Seyyed Ali Ameem... I love ya too... LOL

Ali (as) is loved by all so Shia of Ali (as) would be loved too.
Who does not love Shai of Ali? May be a munafiq.
hahahahahaha

sallam

more truth to you deviated people.
Your Aqqedah is weak and your people are liars.

more copy and paste so that you may be guided to the truth and away from your devils(shia people)

show me were Ali .r.a , FAtima r.a,hassan r.a hussein r.a mohamad Al bakir r.a and jaffar alsiddiq r.a slanders any companions or wives of the prophet not from a false narration authentic one.

Remember shia was accepted only in 1953 by the muslim that shia is islam!only in 1953 wow 1953 is shia foundation from islam (not people shia)or did they only did it for unity???
Allah knows best
amerislam

sallam
Exposing Al-Tijani’s Lies in His Book: “Then I was Guided”

By Abu Sulaiman
Al-Tijani's Allegations against the Mother of Believers Ayesha ( may Allah be pleased at her )

Allah has honored Aysha, the Mother of Beleivers by making her the wife of the best of Allah’s creatures i.e. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Even she got from this liar the worst slanders and the greatest of all. Here I will present these slanders and answer them to protect the most favored woman on earth of whom the Prophet peace be upon him says: “The superiority of 'Aysha over other women is like the superiority of rice over the rest of meals." [1] I say and by Allah is the success:

Al-Tijani’s allegations against Ayesha in the Affliction (Fitnah) and the answer to that:

Al-Tijani says: “We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it. How could Umm al-Mumineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours" (Holy Quran 33:33). We may also ask, how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk. Seemingly these people are trying to convince us that that incident - if it was true - namely Ali's advice to the Prophet to divorce Ayesha, was sufficient for her to disobey the orders of her God and her husband, the Messenger of Allah. She rode a camel that the Messenger of Allah forbade her from riding and warned her about the barking of al-Hawab's dogs, she travelled long distances from al-Medinah to Mekka then to Basrah, she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians [51]. She did all that because she did not like Ali who advised the Prophet to divorce her. Nevertheless the Prophet did not divorce her …” [2]

I say:

That Ayesha ignited the Battle of the Camel is a plain truth. That is because Ayesha did not come out to fight, but to reform between Muslims. Ayesha believed in an advantage in her departure, but then she discovered that if she did not depart would have been better, therefore she regretted her departure. It is proven that Ayesha said: “I wish I were a fresh branch and did not take this march.” [3] And even if Ayesha, along with Talha and Al-Zubair, fought Ali, then this fight would be as Allah described: “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (49:9-10) Allah assured faith to these believers although they fought each other. If these believers are included in this verse, therefore the believer Companions should be included.

And Al-Tijani’s saying: “How could Umm al-Mu’mineen Ayesha leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: "And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours," as an answer to that, I say:

Ayesha may Allah be pleased at her by her departure did not display her finery like the displaying of the ignorance times!

Ordering to stay at houses does not contradict leaving the house for an ordered benefit as when the woman leaves the house to go to hajj or omrah, or leaves with her husband in a travel. This verse came down in the life of the Prophet peace be upon him and the prophet peace be upon him traveled with his wives afterwards, as the prophet peace be upon him traveled with Ayesha and others to Hijjat Al-Wida’a. Also, the Prophet peace be upon him sent Ayesha with Abdulrahman, her brother ... Hujjat Al-Wada’a happened before the Prophet’s demise by less than three months after the revelation of this verse. Therefore, prophet’s wives were going to hajj in the Caliphate of Omar and others as they used to with the Prophet and Omar gave Uthman or Abdulrahman bin Owf the leadership of the prophet’s wives’ caravans. Accordingly, if it is allowed for the prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Ayesha thought that by her departure a reformation for the Muslims could happen. She interpreted in that matter.” [4]

And his allegation that Ayesha only fought Ali bin Abi Talib because she did not like him because Ali suggested to the Prophet to divorce Ayesha at the incident of Al-Ifk, and that was the answer of Ahl Al-Sunnah’s scholars! I say:

If this was the answer of Ahl Al-Sunnah scholars, then may you O’ Tijani give us one sentence from one of them? Or your lies had exceeded the highest barriers so that you do not mention a cause without adding falsehood and aspersion to it?

In a section of the incident of Al-Ifk - which Allah acquitted Ayesha from the seven heavens – in a section of it, the Prophet peace be upon him requests the suggestions of some of his Companions in leaving Ayesha. Ali gives his suggestion by saying: “O Allah's Apostle! Allah does not impose restrictions on you; and there are plenty of women other than her. If you however, ask (her) slave girl, she will tell you the truth.” [5]

Ali by his saying did not point to the prophet to leave Aysha because there was something wrong with her – may God forbid - but when Ali saw how the prophet was in intense agitation and worry, he sought the prophet’s comfort. Hence, Ali suggested that to the Prophet and he knows that the Prophet could take her back after making sure of her innocence or either by asking the girl slave because that would be a comfort for the Prophet and Ali did not dogmatize to the prophet to leave her, and it is very clear from Ali’s words, may Allah be pleased at him. Therefore, Ibn Hajar says: “The reason that Ali said those words was to favor the prophet’s side when Ali saw all these worries and sorrows in the prophet because of the talk that was said. The prophet peace be upon him was a very jealous person. So Ali thought that if the Prophet leaves Ayesha, then the prophet’s worries would be calmed until her innocence is proven. Then the Prophet could take her back. It was benefited that the least pain of two was happened, because the harder pain was left.” [6]

Al-Nawawi says: “This what Ali, may Allah be pleased at him, said was the right thing for the Prophet’s sake. That is because Ali saw a benefit and an advice for the Prophet peace be upon him in his believe … Because he saw prophet’s discomfort and worries about this matter so Ali wanted to comfort his feelings, and that is more important than anything else.” [7]

Sheikh Abu Muhammad bin Abi Jamrah says: “Ali by his suggestion did not assure the Prophet to leave her, because right after that, Ali said: “ask (her) slave girl, she will tell you the truth.” Therefore, Ali delegated the matter to the prophet’s foresight as if Ali were saying: “if you wanted a quick comfort, then leave her and if you wanted other than that then look for the truth until her innocence appears.” That is because Ali was sure that Bareerah (the slave girl) would say nothing but what she knows, and she did not know anything about Ayesha but the mere innocence.” [8]

Al-Tijani says: “Seemingly these people are trying to convince us that that incident - if it was true - namely Ali's advice to the Prophet to divorce Aishah, was sufficient for her to disobey the orders of her God and her husband, the Messenger of Allah. She rode a camel that the Messenger of Allah forbade her from riding and warned her about the barking of al-Hawab's dogs [50], she travelled long distances from al-Medinah to Mekka then to Basrah, she permitted the killing of innocent peoand started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians.” Then Al-Tijani refers us in the footnote to these historians: “Al-Tabari, Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Mada’eini, and other historians who chronicled the incidents that happened in 36 years after the Hijrah.” [9] And I say answering that:

If we refer to Tareekh Al-Tabari who chronicled the incidents that occurred in 36 years after the Hijrah, then we would not have find Al-Tabari narrating this incident as Al-Tijani is saying although Al-Tabari mentions a lot of stories that talk about the Battle of the Camel. Al-Tabari narrates differently than what Al-Tijani is saying and Al-Tabari proves that Aysha came out with Talha and Al-Zubair for reformation only. Al-Tabari says that Ali sent Al-Qi’a’qa’a bin Omro to the people of Al-Basrah asking them why they are leaving: “Al-Qi’a’qa’a left and reached Basrah. He started with Aysha may Allah be pleased at her and made salam to her and said: “O’ Mother, What moved you and pushed you to this country”? She answered: “O’ Son, to reform between people.” Al-Qi’aqa’a said: “Send for Talha and Al-Zubair so that you hear my words and their words.” Aysha sent for them and they arrived. Al-Qi’aqa’a said: “I asked the Mother of Beleivers what brought and pushed her here and she answered to reform between people, what do you say you both? Do you agree or disagree?” They two answered: “We agree.” [10] And Al-Tabari assures that the people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims are the murders of Uthman: “When people came together and became in ease, Ali, Talha and Al-Zubair came out, agreed, and talked in the matters they disagreed with each others. The did not find a better solution than peace and to end the war when they saw the matter is started to be cleared and not achievable through war. They departed from each other agreeing on their resolution. Ali came back to his barracks and Talha and Al-Zubair wnet back to their barracks. In the evening, Ali sent Abdullah bin Abbas to Talha and Al-Zubair who sent Muhammad bin Talha to Ali in a job to talk to their comrades. They all said yes for a peace. At night – that was in Jamadah Al-A’akhirah – Talha and AL-Zubair talked to the leaders of their comrades, and Ali talked to the leaders of his comrades except those people who ate Uthman. They ended up on peace and they slept in a night that they never had before because of the goodness they are near to and because they got away from what some people desired and embarked on whatever they embarked on. And the people who provoked the matter of Uthman had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite the war in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them, they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness ... they laid swords in the believers. Then the people of Al-Basrah got angry and every people fought his comrades who were stunned …..” [11]

Al-Tabari says: (And Ayesha said: “Ka’ab, leave the camel and advance with book of Allah and call them to it.” And she gave him a mushaf. The people came and the Saba’eiyah were in front of them fearing of a peace to happen. Ka’ab received them by the mushaf and Ali behind them trying to hold them back but they rejected anything but to continue the war. So when Ka’ab called them, the Saba’eiyah threw him with lances. He was killed. Then they started throwing Ayesha with lances while she was on her camel. Ayesha said, “O’ my children! The rest of you, the rest of you, - then her voice increases in tone – Allah Allah, remember Allah and Judgment Day.” But the Saba’eiyah refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Ayesha said when the Saba’eiyah refused to stop, “O’ people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.” And then she went on supplicating. Then the people of Basrah started supplicating. Ali bin Abi Talib heard the callers. He said, “What is this noise?” His army answered, “Aysha is calling and her army is calling with her against the killers of Uthman and their friends.” Ali started calling and said, “O’ Allah, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.”) [12] This is also what Ibn Al-Atheer documented in his history. I did not find the book of Al-Mada’en. This truth is strengthened by true hadeeths, which proves that neither Ayesha, Al-Zubair, Talha, nor Ali wanted to fight each others. Therefore, Ayesha regretted on her walk and said, “I wish I was a fresh branch of a tree and never walked this walk.” [13] … if Ayesha wanted to fight instead of making peace, then why the regret?

Then Al-Tijani says, “So why all this hatred towards Imam Ali? History has recorded some aggressive stances against Ali that could not be explained and these are some of them. When she was on her way back from Mekka Ayesha was informed that Uthman was killed, so she was delighted, but when she learnt that people had voted for Ali to succeed him she became very angry and said, "I wish the sky would collapse on the earth before Ibn Abi Talib succeeds to the caliphate." Then she said, "Take me back." Thus she started the civil war against Ali, whose name she never liked to mention, as many historians agree. Had Ayesha heard the saying of the Messenger of Allah (saw): Loving Ali is believing, and hating him is hypocrisy?. To the extent that some of the Companions used to say, "We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali." Had Aishah not heard the saying of the Prophet: Whoever accepts me as his master, then Ali is his master? Undoubtedly she heard all that, but she did not like it, and she did not like mentioning his name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” [14]

I answer:

The lie that Ayesha was delighted when she knew that Uthman was killed only shows Al-Tijani’s exact lies. No one of history scholars said that, instead all of them proved that Aysha only came out to punish Uthman’s murderers. And I wonder, if Ayesha was delighted for the death of Uthman, then why she would go after Uthman’s murderers? Did she come out to prevent Ali from taking the Caliphate? Al-Tijani says yes! And if Al-Tijani was asked for the reason, he would say that Ayesha hated Ali because Ali advised the prophet peace be upon him to divorce her?! So I tell him, if Ayesha hated Ali, then how would you explain the fact that thousands of people followed her? Does Al-Tijani has any logical reason for this? Or these thousands hate Ali too? If Al-Tijani said yes, then I will ask why? Had Al-Tijani has the answer, then he is welcomed, otherwise I herald him as the most lost man.

Al-Tijani claims that the historians mentioned Ayesha as not wanting to mention the name of Ali. And I ask him, which historians? Can you tell me exactly so that we know the liar from the truth teller? And on which references did you depend? But the truth is that Ayesha mentioned Ali by her full mouth. Shareeh Bin Hane’e says, (I asked Ayesha about washing (the feet in ablution). She said, “Go to Ali, he is more knowledgeable than I.” So I went to him and asked him about the wash. Ali said, “The messenger of Allah used to order us to wash our feet at day and night, and the traveler should do it three times.”) [15] Muslims also narrated the same story from Shareeh bin Hane'’. Shareeh says, (I went to Aysha and asked her about washing the feet (for prayers). She said, “Go to Ali bin Abi Talib and ask him.” …) [16]

Then Al-Tijani mentions two hadeeths about the virtues of Ali, where he says, “Had Ayesha not heard the saying of the Prophet: Whoever accepts me as his master, then Ali is his master? Undoubtedly she heard all that, but she did not like it, and she did not like mentioning his name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.”!!

I said earlier that Ayesha does not hate Ali but she argued with him about the blood of Uthman. She did not left her house to fight Ali, but to makpeace between people after people desired her to go. Ibn Al-Emad in Shathrat Al-Thahab says, “When Ali arrived at Basrah, he went to Ayesha and said, “May Allah forgive you.” She answered, “You too, I only wanted reformation.”” [17] Ibn Al-Arabi explains that, “And her present in the battle of the Camel was not for war, but people clanged to her and complained to her what happened of the affliction. They hoped her blessing in the reformation, and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to represent what Allah says “If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them”) [18] Ibn Habban narrated, “Aysha wrote Abu Mousa – and he was the governor of Kufah appointed by Ali-, “You know what happened to Uthman, and I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” [19] This is why Ayesha left her house, not because she hated Ali. This is a plain lie, which does not stand on any correct evidence.

Al-Tijani says, “and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” Then he gave us in the footnotes the name of historians he took as references. These are his references, “AL-Tabari, Ibn Al-Atheer, Al-Fitnah Al-Kubra, and all historians who documented the incidents of the year 40 after the immigration of the prophet peace be upon him.” [20] So, I went back to Al-Tabari and Ibn Al-Atheer for the stories of the year 40. And guess what! I did not find any trace for this claim! What a liar he is!

Then Al-Tijani piffles and says, “The same question crops up again. Who was right and who was wrong? Either Ali and his followers were wrong, or Aishah, Talha, al-Zubair and their followers were wrong. There is no third possibility. But I have no doubt that the fair researcher would take Ali's side and dismiss Aishah and her followers who instigated the civil war that devastated the nation and left its tragic marks to the present day. For the sake of further clarification, and for the sake of my own satisfaction I mention here what al-Bukhari had to say in his book about the civil war. When Talha, al-Zubair and Aishah travelled to Basrah, Ali sent Ammar Ibn Yasir and al-Hasan Ibn Ali to al-Kufah. On their arrival, they went to the mosque and addressed the congregation, and we heard Ammar saying, "Aishah had gone to Basrah ... and by Allah she is the wife of your Prophet in this life and the life hereafter, but Allah, the Most High, is testing you to know whom you obey: Him or her." [21]

I say:

In matter of fact, there is a third possibility. The third possibility is that the two warring factions tried to reach to the truth, and none of the two factions was an oppressor because the death of Uthman divided the Islamic nation to two parties. One party sees to kill the killers of Uthman immediately, and they are Talha, Al-Zubair, and Aysha. The other party sees also to kill the killers of Uthman but wait for the moment until they reach to their goals because these killers had tribes that would defend them. Ali and his companions shared the second opinion. These killers are the responsible for the battle of the Camel, and none of the two parties had any responsibility to ignite the battle as I clarified earlier.

The story that Al-Tijani was happy about and narrates it from Saheeh Al-Bukhari, is one of the greatest evidences on the virtue of Ayesha! But what would you say about an ignorant who takes arguments against Ahl-Sunnah and does not realize that these arguments is against him and his Shia? In the hadeeth, Ammar testifies for the Mother of Beleivers that she is the wife of the prophet peace be upon him in this life and the life hereafter! Meaning in heaven! And is there any virtue beyond that? And did she get this virtue but through the pleasant of Allah of her? And His messenger peace be upon him? Ammar was a supporter of Ali bin Abi Talib may Allah be pleased of him and wanted to trigger people to fight with Ali. But these people were hesitant because the Mother of the Beleivers was in the opposing party. So Ammar clarified for them that the truth is with Ali, because he is the Caliph, and he must be obeyed as Allah ordered them before seeking revenge from the killers of Uthman as the Mother of the Beleivers sees. There is no doubt that Aysha, Talha, and Al-Zubair were seeking the killers of Uthman before obeying to Ali as an obeisance to Allah. Ayesha says to Uthman bin Haneef when he was sent to ask about her present, “By Allah, I am not the person who does secret things, and does not give her sons the news. The mobs from the cities and the lowest tribes invaded the house of the messenger of Allah peace be upon him and did whatever they wanted. They housed al-muhaditheen, therefore they deserved the curse of Allah and His messenger as they killed the leader of the Muslims without an excuse. They shed the holy blood, stole the holy money, and stayed at the holy land in the holy month. They tore honors and skins, stayed between people who hated their stay. They were harmful, never beneficial nor pious. They are not to be trusted. So, I left my house to the Muslims telling them what these people did before us and that the Muslims should reform the situation… we want to reform as Allah and His messenger peace be upon him ordered the young and old, male and female to reform. These are our matter, calling you to a reform, banning an enormity and urge you to change the enormity.” [22] And we mentioned earlier that the people who gave allegiance for Ali were these mobs in the first place, and they were in the army of Ali. From here, we can see that each side thought the truth lies with him/her and interpreted the mistake of the other party differently. Both parties came out to reform as I said, and none of the two parties wanted to fight, but it happened. Allah has the matter in His hands, before it, and after it.

Then Al-Tijani fabricates a lie and says, “Also al-Bukhari wrote in his book in the chapter of Al-Shuroot (Conditions) section of “what went on in the houses of the Prophet's wives”: Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he pointed towards the house where Aishah was living, then said, "There is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... from where the devil's horns come out.” [23]

I say:

I opened Al-Bukhari on the chapter of “The Conditions,” and there was no section called “What went on in the houses of the Prophet’s wives”! but the hadeeth is present in sections about Al-Khums (one-fifth), and this shows that this suspicion was taught to him!

And Al-Tijani takes this hadeeth as an argument that Ayesha is the source of afflictions? This claim is obviously false because the prophet peace be upon him meant the east. If the prophet peace be upon him was meaning the house of Ayesha, then he would say “to”, not “towards.” Muslim narrated from Ibn Omar, “The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him came out from Aysha’s house and said, “The head of disbelief comes from here, where the horn of the devil arises.” Meaning the east.” [24] Ibn Omar also said, “that he heard the Messenger of Allah –while being in front of the east - saying, “Here is the affliction, here is the affliction, where the horn of the devil arises.” [25] And to be more sure, I will mention the story from Muslim that Ibn Omar said that the prophet peace be upon him stood in front of Hafsah’s door (in the hadeeth of Obaydillah bin Sa’ad: the prophet peace be upon him stood in front of Ayesha’s door) and said while his hands pointing towards the east, “Here is the affliction where the horn of the devil arises.” The prophet said it twice or thrice. [26] I believe truth had been revealed, and the friends of the devils were exposed!

Then Al-Tijani says, “Al-Bukhari wrote many strange things in his book about Aishah and her bad manners towards the Prophet to the extent that her father had to beat her until she bled. He also wrote about her pretention towards the Prophet until Allthreatened her with divorce... and there are many other stories but we are limited by space.” [27]

I say:

It is of cheap lies what Al-Tijani says that Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh stories about the bad manners of Ayesha towards the prophet peace be upon him, and that Abu Bakr beat her until she bled! Otherwise, let him show us where in Saheeh Bukhari there is such a narration, and only after that let him show the hatred inside of his heart.

In Al-Tijani’s saying, “wrote about her pretension towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce,” I answer:

I said more than once that every man is not infallible. Instead, every person is exposed to fall in small and big sins except the prophet peace be upon him. So, if anyone committed a sin, whether Ayesha or others, then it would not be strange, because no one is infallible. It is not accepted nor understandable that Al-Tijani accounts Ayesha badly because she fell in a guilt and repented from that guilt. Al-Tijani also slanders against her as if she did something really awful. Exactly as when Ali bin Abi Talib may Allah be pleased at him wanted to marry the daughter of Abi Jahl while he had Fatima as a wife. The prophet peace be upon him got angry and said, “Bani Hashim bin Al-Mughirah asked for my permission to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abi Talib. I do not permit, and I do not permit, and I do not permit. Unless the son of Abi Talib wants to divorce my daughter and marry their daughter…” [28] This is a warning from the prophet peace be upon him to Ali to divorce his wife if he married the daughter of Abi Jahl. It is not acceptable to make this matter as a slander against Ali!! Except for the most ignorant people!

It is not true that Allah warned Ayesha by divorce and to give Muhammad peace be upon him a better wife than her. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Saheeh from Omar may Allah be pleased at him who said, “The wives of the prophet peace be upon him gathered to be jealous on him. So I told them, “Perhaps Allah will divorce you all, and He may give him (the prophet) better wives than you. And this verse revealed.” [29] As it is obvious, the verse is not a warning, but a choice Allah gave His messenger of divorcing them. Therefore, this verse was called the Verse of Choice. Plus the verse does not pertain to Ayesha only, but also to the rest of the prophet’s wives. Even if we assumed that this verse is pertained to Ayesha only, and that Allah threatened her with divorce, I say, is there any slander against Ali when the prophet peace be upon him threatened Ali with divorce? If it was like that, then whatever slander you have against Ayesha will be against Ali as well. But if you say that Ali was mistaken and later repented, and there is no slander against him, then Ayesha is the same! Hence, choose whatever you want Al-Tijani!

And Al-Tijani continues in his illusion, “After all that I ask how did Ayesha deserve all that respect from the Sunnis; is it because she was the Prophet's wife? But he had so many wives, and some of them were better than Aishah, as the Prophet himself declared (in the footnote, Al-Tijani mentions: Sahih al Turmidhi, al Istiab, Ibn Abd al Barr, Biography of Safiyya ) Or perhaps because she was Abu Bakr's daughter! Or maybe because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet's will for Ali, and when she was told that the Prophet recommended Ali, she said, "Who said that? I was with the Prophet (saw) supporting his head on my chest, then he asked me to bring the washbowl, as I bent down he died, so I cannot see how he recommended Ali.” [30]

I say to this hateful person:

Ayesha deserved all this respect, regard, and more from Ahl Al-Sunnah because she is the wife of the pure prophet peace be upon him which he chosed to be his wife because she is pure too. Allah Almighty says, “Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honorable.” (Surat Al-Noor, 26). (Mujahid, Ata’a, Sa’eed bin Jubair, Al-Sha’abi, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Habeeb bin Abi Thabit, and Al-dahhak said, “This verse is revealed into Aysha and the people of lie. Ibn Jareer Al-Tabari choosed that.”). [31] ‘ And Allah’s saying, “these are not affected by what people say,” meaning they are far away from what the people of lie are saying.’ [32] And when Al-Tijani tries to prove that Ayesha is impure, does not this considered one of the greatest slander against the prophet peace be upon him? And why not when Allah says, “Women impure are for men impure”??? And we value her because she is our mother in faith. Allah says, “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Al-Ahzab, 5)

Al-Tijani says, “Is it because she was the Prophet's wife? But he had so many wives, and some of them were better than Ayesha, as the Prophet himself declared.” Then Al-Tijani in the footnotes mentions Al-Turmithi, Al-Esti’ab, and Al-Isabah as references [33]. So, I opened Sunan Al-Turmithi and went throughout the Chapter “The Virtues”, Section of “Virtue of Aysha,” and found this hadeeth: (Ayesha said, “people used to give gifts to the prophet whenever he is with Aysha. Then one day the prophet’s wives gathered with Umm Salamah and told her, ‘Umm Salamah, people only give gifts to the prophet whenever he is with Ayesha. We need goodness, as Ayesha does. Therefore, ask the prophet peace be upon him to order the people to give gifts wherever he is.’ So Umm Salamah mentioned that to the prophet, but he said nothing. He left and came back, and she told him again, ‘O’ Messenger of Allah, your wives mentioned that people only give you gifts whenever you are with Ayesha. Therefore, order people to give you gifts wherever you are.’ When Umm Salamah mentioned that for the third time, the prophet peace be upon him said, ‘Umm Salamah, do not say bad things about Aysha. I perceived revelation when I was in the blanket of another woman.’) [34] Omro bin Al-A’as said, ‘Once the prophet peace be upon him used me as a leader for an army. I went to him and said, “O’ Messenger of Allah, who is the most beloved to you?” He answered, “Ayesha.” I said, “What about men?” He replied, “Her father.”’ [35] Anas said, ‘Someone asked the prophet, “Who is the most beloved to you?” He answered, “Ayesha.” And someone then asked, “From men?” He replied, “Her father.”’ [36] Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Asadi said, ‘I heard Ammar bin Yaser saying that she (Ayesha) is his (the prophet’s) wife in this life and the life hereafter.’ [37] Anas Bin Malik said, “the messenger of Allah peace be upon him said that the virtue of Ayesha upon women is just like the virtue of rice over the rest of foods.” [38] Ayesha said, “The messenger of Allah peace be upon him told me that Jibreel is reciting peace on me. I answered wa alayhi al salam wa rahmat Allah.” [39] Abi Mousa said, “if we –the companions of the prophet peace be upon him- ever had trouble understanding a hadeeth, and asked Aysha, we would find knowledge from her.” [40] Mousa bin Talha said, “I never saw a person more eloquent than Ayesha.” [41] Then I opened the section about the virtues of the wives of the prophet peace be upon him and I found this hadeeth which is narrated by Sufayyah bin Hayee, who said, “Once, the messenger of Allah peace be upon him entered upon me and I heard something from Hafsah and Ayesha. I told the prophet about that. The prophet said to me, ‘You should have said: How could you be better than I could and Muhammad is my husband, Haroon is my father, and Mousa is my uncle?’ As if Sufayya heard that Hafsah and Ayesha said that they are more honored by the prophet than she was. And also said that they were the wives of the prophet peace be upon him and his cousins.” [42] There are the hadeeths that talk about the virtues of Ayesha and Safiyyah. I say:

There is no doubt that Ayesha is the best among the wives of the prophet peace be upon him because all true narrations indicate such a thing. Examples are found in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim.

About Safiyya’s hadeeth. It says nothing that she is better than Aysha or Hafsah because the prophet peace be upon him said that to her to make her pleased as a result of what Aysha and Hafsah said about her. Nevertheless, many obvious hadeeths are presented where the prophet peace be upon him proves the virtue of Aysha over the rest of his wives.

I was assuming the correctness of the previous hadeeth. Therefore, I said what I said. But the true is that this hadeeth is weak in its attribution. Al-Albani says, “This is a strange hadeeth. We do not know it except from Hashim Al-Koufi and the attribution is not like that.” [43] In the book of Al-Esti’ab (a book that talks about the Muslim men and women who lives at the time of the prophet), only this hadeeth was mentioned as a virtue for Safiyya [44]. But when the book talked about Aysha, the author presented a lot of her virtues. The author proved her being the most knowledgeable among the prophet’s wives. The author narrates from Al-Zahari, “If the knowledge of Aysha is collected, and compared to the knowledge of all the prophet’s wives and the knowledge of all the women, then we would find that the knowledge of Aysha is better.” [45] Then the author proved that Aysha is the most beloved and the best to the prophet peace be upon him in the previous two hadeeths which were narrated by Omro Bin Al-A’as and Anas [46]. No hadeeth is found in the book of Al-Isabah that says that Safiyya is better than Aysha except for the previous one. [47]

Al-Tijani says, “Or maybe because she played an important role in the denial of the Prophet's will for Ali … etc”

I say:

Aysha did not play a big role in denying the prophet’s peace be upon him will as Al-Tijani claims. If the prophet peace be upon him really wanted to make a will for Ali, then Ayesha could not deny it in front of the Ummah. Ayesha said what she knows that the prophet got sick and passed away when he was with her and she heard nothing about the will.

If the prophet peace be upon him wanted to make a will, then he must have do it in front of people, not only mentioning it to his wife. Al-Tijani claims that the evidences that the prophet peace be upon him gave the caliphate to Ali is abundant and Al-Tijani mentioned some of these in his book. And Al-Tijani claims that these evidences are clear to give the caliphate to Ali. Then how comes he say that Ayesha played a big role in denying the will for Ali?

Ayesha may Allah be pleased at her, the Siddeqah (the always truth teller), the daughter of Al-Siddeq (Abu Bakr) cannot deny the will of the prophet peace be upon him for Ali, if it was true. She is the pure, the wife of the pure in this life and the life hereafter. She is the best of his wives, and the most beloved to him. She deserved this status because she is the best woman on earth. So how come we believe Al-Tijani who is expert in lying who shows a true narration and belies it, and shows a false narration and believes it! And accuse the best of people as the worst of people, and claims that the worst people are the most guided ones. What can we do about a man like that? Should we believe him and belie the best Mother of Believers?

Then Al-Tijani says, “Or is it because she fought a total war against him and his sons after him, and even intercepted the funeral procession of al-Hasan - Leader of the Heaven's youth - and prevented his burial beside his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, and said "Do not allow anybody that I do not like to enter my house." She forgot, or maybe ignored the Messenger of Allah's sayings about him and his brother, "Allah loves those who love them, and Allah hates those who hate them," Or his saying, "I am at war with those who fight against you, and I am at peace with those who appease you." And there are many other sayings in their honor. No wonder, for they were so dear to him!” [48] And Al-Tijani says in a different location, “Fatimah al-Zahra, as I mentioned earlier, stated in her will that she should be buried secretly, therefore, she was not buried beside her father. But what about her son, al-Hasan, why was he not buried beside his grandfather? Ayesha (Umm al-Mu’mineen) prevented that. When al-Husayn brought his brother to bury him by his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah, Ayesha rode a mule and went around saying, "Do not bury someone I do not love in my house." Then, the houses of Bani Umayya and Hashim stood opposite each other ready to fight, but al-Husayn told her that he would only take the coffin of his brother around the grave of their grandfather then he would bury him in al-Baqi'. That was because Imam al-Hasan requested from his brother, that no blood should be shed for his sake. Ibn Abbas said a few verses regarding this event:

"She rode a camel, she rode a mule, if she had lived longer, she would have ridden an elephant, you have the ninth of the eighth, and you took everything." [49]

I say:

What are the sources of these lies? And what is their validity? If Al-Tijani was courageous enough, then let him show us from where did he get this non-sense. Otherwise, every stupid can say anything of delusion about the best of people.

There is no doubt in the falsehood of these stories about the Mother of Believers. Indeed, all stories in this section of Al-Tijani books are lies against her. I did not find any of what he said in any Sunni books. In matter of fact, I found the opposite. Ibn Al-Atheer narrated about the death of Al-Hasan bin Ali may Allah be pleased at both of them, that “Al-Hussain asked for Ayesha’s permission to bury his brother. She gave him the permission.” [50] In Al-Este’ab, “When Al-Hasan passed away, Al-Hussain went to Aysha to ask her to bury his brother. She said, “Certainly yes.”” [51] In Al-Bidayah, “Al-Hussain sent someone to ask Aysha to let him busy his brother. She accepted.” [52] Look dear brother to the plain truth, and look how Al-Tijani ignores that, and then claims objectivity and justice. La Hawl Wala Quwwat Ela Bil Allah.

The real enemies of Al-Hasan bin Ali, may Allah be pleased at both of them are the ones who claim to be their Shia, or party. They are the most corrupted and degraded people by the confession of the twelver Shia! Abi Mansoor Al-Tousi, one of their scholars says that Al-Hasan bin Ali said, “By Allah I see Mu’awiyah is better for me than the people who claim to be our supporters! These people wanted to kill me, stole whatever I had, and took my money. By Allah, if I make a peace with Mu’awiyah that would spare my blood and save my family is better than these people (the people who call themselves Shia) kill me and make my family get lost”!!!!! [53] Those are the enemies of Al-Hasan Bin Ali, not Ayesha!!! And from the books of the guided people we prosecute you O’Al-Tijani!

Then Al-Tijani claims that Ibn Abbas said two verses of poem about the Mother of Believers. Although the two verses are weak in structure, it is contradicted what Ibn Abbas said about her when she was about to die. Ahmed narrated in the Chapter of “Virtues” that Thikran, the slave of Aysha, “asked for Aysha’s permission to let Ibn Abbas enter at the time of her death. Abdullah bin Abdulrahman, the son of her brother was present also. Thikran said, “Here is Ibn Abbas asking for your permission to enter. He is the best of your sons.” She said, “Let me off from Ibn Abbas and his justification and purification.” Abdullah bin Abdulrahman told her, “He is a reader of the Book of Allah, and is knowledgeable in the religion of Allah. Let him in to give a salam to you, and to say goodbye.” Aysha answered, “Let him in if you want to.” Abdullah said, “I will give him the permission.” So Ibn Abbas came in, made salam, and had a seat. He said, “O’ Mother of Beleivers, be happy. By Allah, there is nothing between the removal of pain and lie and the meeting of the beloved ones, Muhammad and his Companions except that your soul leaves your body.” Aysha said, “What else?” Ibn Abbas answered, “You were the most beloved wife to the messenger of Allah peace be upon him. He loved none but purity. Allah Almighty revealed your innocence from the seven heavens. There is no mosque on earth that does notrecite the verses that proves your innocence day and night. One day your necklace was dropped, so the prophet peace be upon him got caught with the people in the house. And when they wanted to pray, they did not have water. So Allah revealed the verse of Tayamum. It was a permission for people came through you. By Allah, you are holy. She said, “Leave me O’ Ibn Abbas from this. By Allah, I wish I was forgotten.” [54] And when Ibn Abbas argued with the Kharijites who Ali bin Abi Talib fought, he told them, “And your saying that Ali fought and did not take slaves or money. Do you want to take your mother Aysha as a slave? And you make it allowable to take from her what you make it allowable to take from others, yet she is your mother? If you said that you make it allowable to take from her what you make it allowable to take from others, then you became disbeliever! And if you said that she is not your mother, then you became disbeliever! Because Allah Almighty says, “The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers.” (Al-Ahzab, 5) You are in a circle around two deviations. Go and find a way out.” [55] These true narrations answer this ignorant verses of poem, which might be of Al-Tijani’s lies.

Then Al-Tijani says, “…either by his daughter Ayesha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings.” [56]

I say:

O’ Al-Tijani! Do you know what a fabricated hadeeth is? A fabricated hadeeth is a hadeeth where its narrator is accused of being a liar. And because the narrator from the prophet peace be upon him is his wife Ayesha may Allah be pleased at her, then is she also accused of lying? If you said so, then you lack evidence! Because all the Qur'ânic, Sunnah, and her biography prove otherwise, that she cannot lie on her husband the messenger of Allah peace be upon him by fabricating hadeeths about the virtues of her father! Nothing is left to judge that Al-Tijani is a liar. There is no doubt that this won’t bother him because he knows that the greatest characteristic of the Rafidites Shia is the character of lie and falsehood.

If Ayesha narrates fabricated hadeeths, then how come you take the hadeeths that she narrates as arguments? For example, Ayesha’s saying that the Purification Verse was revealed in Ali, Fatima, and their sons [57], her narration for the story of the people who kept away from what the prophet peace be upon him allowed to them [58]; the story where Fatima asks for her inheritance from her father, which is narrated by Ayesha [59]; or the hadeeth where she denies that the prophet peace be upon him gave a will for Ali [60]. How can you say that Ayesha fabricates hadeeths when you take all the previous hadeeths as arguments, and true stories, while Ayesha narrated all these stories? And how come the grand scholar of the Shia, Ibn Babaweeh Al-Qumi take Ayesha’s hadeeths as valid in his book Al-Khisal [61]? Praise be the Lord! See how Allah shows the truth on their tongues!

Then Al-Tijani ends his lies with this, “The person who is involved with the investigation about this issue will inevitably sense the undoubtable recommendation for the succession of Ali despite all the attempts to cover it or to remove it. Al-Bukhari cited it in his Sahih in a chapter entitled "Al-Wasaya" [The Legacies or the Recommendations], Muslim also cited it in his Sahih and said that the Prophet recommended Ali for the succession in the presence of Ayesha . Look how Allah shows His light even if the oppressors try to cover it…. If Ayesha, the mother of the faithful, could not bear mentioning the name of Ali and could not wish him any good - as Ibn Sa'd writes in his Tabaqat, and al-Bukhari in his Sahih in a chapter entitled "The illness of the Prophet and his death", and if she prostrated herself to thank Allah when she heard the news of Ali's death, then how can we expect her to mention the recommendation in favour of Ali, when she was known, publicly and privately, for her animosity and hatred towards Ali and his sons and towards all the Family of the Prophet.” [62]

I say:

What really seems is that the smell of lying – which Al-Tijani had mastered – had spread, and filled his book!

The hadeeth that Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrates, which Al-Tijani claims that the prophet peace be upon him made a will for Ali is the hadeeth of Aysha when she was told that the prophet peace be upon him made a will for Ali and she denied it, saying that the prophet peace be upon her passed away when he was with her and did not make a will. And she is the truthful in that. It is strange that Al-Tijani takes this hadeeth as an argument for him, not against him. By Allah, I do not know what kind of argument could be found in this hadeeth. Is it an argument when someone says that the prophet peace be upon him made a will for Ali without a clear evidence from the prophet peace be upon him? How come, and the argument is more obvious than the sun taking the form of Ayesha’s answer! Praised be the Lord! Look how Allah shows His light even if the oppressors try to cover it!?

I answered previously Al-Tijani’s claim that Ayesha could not handle mentioning the name of Ali, and praise is due to Allah. There is nothing in Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad of what Al-Tijani claims that Ayesha could not handle mentioning the name of Ali. And in Al-Bukhari, Al-Tijani is talking about the hadeeth where he claims that the prophet peace be upon him gave a will to Ali by name. Go back to the book of Al-Tijani where he mentions the same hadeeth [63]. And praise is due to Allah in the beginning and in the end.

References:

Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Chapter of the Virtues of the Companions, section “The Virtues of Ayesha,” #3559

Then I was Guided, p.117

Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aysha, p.718

Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318

Part of a hadeeth narrated by Bukhari in the Book of “Tafseer”, Surat Al-Nour, #4473, vol.4

Fath Al-Bari, vol.8, p.324, Book of Al-Tafseer

Muslim with Explanation, Book of Repentance, p.162-163

Fath Al-Bari, vol.8, p.324, Book of “Al-Tafseer”

Then I was Guided, p.117

Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.29, year.36H, ALSO Ibn Al-Atheer vol.3, p.122-123, year.36H

Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year.36H

Ibid. vol.3, p.43, year,36H

Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aysha, p.718

Then I was Guided, p.117-118

The Virtues of the Companions, by Imam Ahmed, vol.2, #1199, p.702

Saheeh Muslim with Explanation, Book of Purity, #276

Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42

Ahkam Al-Quran by Ibn Al-Arabi, vol.3, p.1536

Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282

Then I was Guided, p.118, in the footnote

Then I was Guided, p.118-119

Tareekh Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.14, year.36H

Then I was Guided, p.119

Muslim with Explanation, #2905, Book of “Afflictions,” Section “The affliction comes from the east where the devil horn rises, vol.18

Muslim with Explanation, #2905, AND Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of “Afflictions,” #6680

Ibid. and refer to the rest of the hadeeths that talk about this issue.

Then I was Guided, p.119

Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of Marriage, #4932

Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of Al-Tafseer (Al-Tahreem), #4632

Then I was Guided, p.119-120

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, vol.3, Surat Al-Nour, p.288

Ibid. p.289

Then I was Guided, p.119

Sunan Al-Turmithi, vol.5, Book of Virtues, Section of Virtues of Aysha, #3879

Sunan Al-Turmithi, #3886, AND Bukhari, #3462

Ibid. p.3890

Ibid. p.3889

Ibid. p.3887

Ibid. p.3882

Ibid. p.3883, AND Saheeh Al-Turmithi by Al-Albani, #3044

Ibid. p.3884, AND Saheeh Al-Turmithi, by Al-Albani #3046

Ibid. p.3892

The Weaks in Sunan Al-Tirmithi, by Al-Albani, #816

Al-Esti’ab, vol.4, p.1872

Ibid. p.1883

Ibid.

Al-Isabah, vol.7, p.739-742

Then I was Guided, p.120

Ibid. p.139-140

Al-Kamil, by Ibn Atheer, vol.3, p.315, year.39H

Al-Esti’ab, vol.1, p.392

Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, by Ibn Katheer, vol.8, p.46, year.49H

Al-Ehtijaj, by Al-Tabrasi, vol.2, p.290

Virtues of the Companions, by Ahmed, vol.2, #1639, with a strong attribution

The Characteristics of the Commander of the Faithful, by Al-Nisa’ei, #185, with strong attribution

Then I was Guided, p.141

Ibid. p.115

Ibid. p.92

Ibid. p.114

Ibid. p.164

Al-Khisal, by Al-Qummay, p.69-71

Then I was Guided, p.164

Ibid. p.119-120.

may allah guided the astray people inshallah the ones the deny the truth

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Dear Michael williams,please find a better subject than trying to demy Isam,lets look at your people that your country have created.

IRA.
lets talk about the IRA home born citizends of the UK,are they terrorists????
How many innocent women,children,toddlers,fathers,brothers,sisters and so on have they killed.
Are the people from UK ALL muderars???
The IRA have killed close to 10 thousands innocent people accordingly to a cnn website.
Where the justice in the world.

America the head Devils of the world.
look into history and see every war that has BEEN waged in the name of freedom included America and britian have been involved.
America dropped not one but 2 nuclear bombs and killed up to 70 thousands innocent people in matter of seconds,and people still now die from this dirty and evil attack.
You connot be terrorisom by beign a terrorist,
America/uk.

Why would some care how killed van gough.
who killed J F kennedy.
who killed Priceses Diana????
Who killed that member of parliment that so called killed himself forgot his name.
why did the oklohoma bombing happend these are the true questions that should be spoken about Michael williams if you are willing to open the doors Truth,i think you will be discussed about the nature of the west.

May the lord the one and only lord that is free from and partnership guide you to the Truth.
Our prophet narrarted 1426 years,peace be upon him says"a time will come,when the liar will be belived and the Truthful one will be the liar.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

any one that kills innocent people in the name of any religion's no religion.
Muslims around the world condemn any evil attacks on any person or community or country.
Islam the truly the most peaceful religion if practised correctly.
I truly think that these so called Suicide bombers weren't terrorist but victims that were killed with others victims.
One of the bombers on one of the trains,blew himself up and killed others,but some how miraculously they found documentation of his not burnt and ripped not damaged still in one peace MURICULE??????????????

may allah keep the truth away from the evil inshallah

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

posts for sir Michael
THE BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA

On August 6, 1945, a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft, called the "Enola Gay", dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.

It was the first atomic bomb ever used in war. It ended up killing between 130,000 to 150,000 people.

The bomb leveled Hiroshima to the ground. It exploded with the force of 12,000 tons of TNT. The heat from the explosion exceeded 50 million degrees Fahrenheit at the center of the fireball.
On August 9, 1945,a Trinity-type weapon of about 20 kilotons was exploded about 1,800 feet above Nagasaki.
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSION :

Levelled Area....6.7 million square meters
Damaged Houses :
Completely Burned....11,574
Completely Destroyed....1,326
Badly Damaged....5,509
Total....18,409
Casualties :
Killed....73,884
Injured....74,909
Total....148,793

This is the country that is in power,how scary isn it it,the same counrty accepts The KKK.
Maybe sep 11 were committed by the japanese or germans or russians or the chinese,America and england has been to war against so many countries and all the can do is put it on MUSLIM terrorist,may be the past has caught up with them,Gods Knows???

AMERICA AND ENGLAND WILL ALWAYS WAGE WAR,IN REALITY A CRUSADE,PRESIDANT BUSH SAID DURING THE IRAQ INVASION,THIS IS A CRUSADE(CRUSADE MEANS A WAR IN THE NAME OF THE CROSS)

Jike of the day...

“The superiority of 'Aysha over other women is like the superiority of rice over the rest of meals."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I know some peopel do not like rice at all....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

BTW I have not read the hole Novel...so...I am going to save my laugh for later.....LOL

one more thing... Abu harurah must have been having dinner eating rice with Mauwiah when he told that hadith about Aeysha..hahahahahahaha

How naive Sunnis can be...OMG

Dear Amer

To quote you

'Remember shia was accepted only in 1953 by the muslim that shia is islam!only in 1953 wow 1953 is shia foundation from islam (not people shia)or did they only did it for unity???'

This comment is unbelievable.'SHIA'or 'SHIA'S' were accepted by your greatest scholar and collecter of Hadith's EVER, Al-Bukhari.

What the hell is the 'FOUNDATION'of your most beloved book after the Quran then?

How an earth could his collection therefore be considered as SAHIH if the RELIABLE narrators to whom Al Bukhari quoted from were known 'Rafidhi', 'Ardent supporters of Ali', 'Shee'ah'.

1953??

You deny the fitna that Ayesha and Mu'awiah caused in favour of your own prejudiced views against the Shi'ah, prejudices that even Al-Bukhari was not inclined to in the same manner that you are, believing that FITNA in Islaam started in the year 1953??

Take the rose coloured glasses off, and save your Wahabbi propaganda for a more thorough realisation
of The Essence of Truth that enlightened the Batttlefields of Siffeen and Jang e Jamal, rather than constantly shifting the blame onto us.

Look at your own Beloved Sahabah first and 'The Mother of the Believers' who by fighting wars against Imam Ali created the largest fitna in the deen of Islam that was humanly possible at the time.

Wassalaam

Dear Amer,

The threads just keep getting longer.

Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he pointed towards the house where Aishah was living, then said, "There is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... there is the trouble ... from where the devil's horns come out.”

Sahih Al Bukhari

Colour it how you like Amer.

Trouble is trouble. And the truth comes up against falsehood.

She was like the wife of Prophet Nuh, but worse.

She fought Imam Ali and propogated the Sahabah to fight him also.

We will not except your excuses for her.

At least the Prohet Nuh's wife did not have the innocent blood of The Rightly Guided Sahabah on her hands.

The Quran asks the believers to fight the transgressors.

We will not believe that Ayesha was justified in fighting Imam Ali.

Colour it how you like. Paste as many essays as you like. You can never justify her actions.

The Quran will always speak in favour of Ali as being a part of the AWLIAH alongide Mohammed.

And when the Quran speaks about the wives of the Prophet being punished DOUBLY for something that they've do wrong, well, it doesn't take much guessing as to which is the worst of them.

AYESHA in reality, was the mother of no one. And it was in her KISMET that Allah left her barren.

Ya Allah we thank you for your kindness and mercy that you deprived her of children and we accept that your WILL in this matter was for the betterment of humanity and for the saving of the true Islam belonging to The Children of Bibi Khadijah.

May Allah curse those who openely fought Imam Hussain underneath the sky of Karbala.

May Allah curse those who openely fought the father of Imam Hussayn at siffeen and the battle of the camel.

'And their deeds are made fair seeming to them..' Holy Quran.

And if they are cursed with blindness and deafness on account of denying the open truth

then may Allah lengthen their rope in this life, so that on the Judgement day it will be tight.

Wassalaam

sallam

answers my questions.
Where did Jaffar alsiddq R.a say any bad things about the compmanions or mohammad albakir,Immam Ali and ahal bayt!

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

W/S

answers my question.
Where did Ayatollah Khumani say any bad things about Ronald Regan the President of the United states of America!

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
Tod

Consider me as an insider…LOL….I will tell you a real story what had happened!

You know Abu Dhar and Salman Farisi were the great sahaba of Prophet (pbuh).
Prophet (pbuh) had said that Salman’s faith is at 10th level while Abu Dhar’s was at 9th level. There was a difference of one level and Abu Dhar used to feel it at his heart and wanted to become level 10 like Salman Farisi.
(It was likely that Abu Bakr and Umar’s faith would have been at ZERO level, otherwise the following historical event would not have happened.)

Historical event right after Prophet (pbuh) passing away.

When Ali (as) refuse to accept Abu Bakr as Kalifah he was dragged with a rope on his neck by Umar and his companions to take him to Masjid-e-Nabuwi and force him to accept Abu Bakr’s “Bayat” (accept him as Khalifah).
Seeing that Abu Dhar took his sword out and wanted to attack the party of Umar to defend Ali (as) but Salman was smiling. Abu Dhar said to Salman that it was no time for a big smile and urged him to take out his sword and defend Ali (as). Salman started laughing a bit more. Abu Dhar became angry and told Salman that if he did not stop laughing he would be killed by him.
Salman said to Abu Dhar “Don’t you see what Ali (as) is doing, he is showing the world who is the aggressor and want to take away his right, he is showing that without his “Bayat” the Khalifat is not valid and he is saving khilafah-tullah from the oppressors”. It was the faith of Salman who saw that Ali (as) was doing the right thing, Ali (as) had the power to kill all in Umar’s party including Umar because he was the winner of the battle of Bar, Auhaud, Khandaq and Khaibar. But at that point Ali (as) was quite and dragged to the Masjid-e-Nawawih and later he came back alive from the and Khalifah Abu Bakr never asked his “Bayat” and neither the Umar and Uthman after him had courage to ask “Bayat” from Ali (as).
Abu Dhar realised that his action would have caused a lot of disturbance and would have endangered Ali (as) life as well. He conceded that his level of faith indeed was less than Salman.

I wonder how you can deny the history.
ALLAH KNOWS BEST

Hi all,
I have read all the post and by birth I am not a muslim. My father is muslim Sunni and my mum is from france.
I would like to thank you for all the information that you have provided but i have many questions about Sunni & Shia.
Amerislam has said that Abu Bakr was made Khalifah and many of my friends have said that watever God(allah) does is best known to him. I just want to know that if i was to become shia would I not follow Abu Bakr.
Also I have read that a sword was given to Ali from God is this true.
Pls forgive my lack of knowledge but i seek the truth. Also you guys keep cursing each other even when using the name of Allah, i thought that islam was to promote peace.
Regards
Jon

W/Hi Jon Hassan!!
Welcome to the zoo...LOL
Interesting that you say you are not a Muslim by birth. Are you Muslim by choice?
Did you ever talked to your father about Islam?

Don't take it personally but my initial observation is that you are more influenced by Amerislam. Which I think is because your father is a Sunni Muslim and obviously he must have some influence on you for sure. But don’t worry it is not a criticism on you…. LOL

First I tell you what is Islam...Islam is a religion of Allah (swt) for the mankind. As you know Allah (swt) created humans… so he has given them a way of life as well. Islam was there when Adam was created or even before that since Prophet (pbuh) had said that “I was still Nabi (Prophet) when Adam (first man to be created) was between the combination of soil and water”.
Obeviously prophet was Nabi of Islam.
If someone comes and tells you that Islam started by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not quite right. You really have to go deeper in the Holy Quran and study it to understand what it meant by that.

If someone tells you “I am Sunni”, it means he thinks he just follow the Quran and “Sunnah” (the way Prophet spend his life or imitating the Prophet) of Prophet (pbuh).
In other words they have no guidance after the Prophet (pbuh) and they just do whatever they think is Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) and interpret the Quran the way they want.

On the other hand if you say someone is Shia (Shia don’t call themselves Shia but they call themselves true Muslims and on the right path as Allah (swt) had told them to be) they follow Allah (swt) which is his words in the Quran and take it’s interpretation from the persons Allah had told them to take from i.e. “Rasikhuna fil Ilm” (who keep the knowledge of the book). Example is Prophet (pbuh) himself and then prophet’s (pbuh) Ahl al Bayt. (Prophet’s family, which is Ali Fatima, Hassan, Husain and nine other Imams in this family) These are the righteous guides for mankind till the day of judgement.
Allah says in Quran “[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.”
After Allah (swt) and Prophet (pbuh) Imams are the authority among us. So Shai obey them as they obey Allah (swt) and Prophet (pbuh).

One more point to here Allah (swt) has created Shaitan (Devil) and had cursed him as well. So Islam is not only a religion of peace but it is a religion that you condemn the bad guys as well.

Talking about Khalifah, you have seen a lot of arguments already so I wouldn’t go too much in detail. But think this way “Allah (swt) is the only one who makes “Khalifah” like he made Adam his Khalifah, he made David (Dawod) his khalifah, and he made Haroon (Aaron) his Khalifah on the request of Moosa (Moses). So if people chose anyone as Khalifah, they will be peoples Khalifah not Allah’s. So as Amerislam said that Abu Bakr was the Khalifah and it was Allah’s will then he was totally wrong.
Allah (swt) did not appoint Abu Bakr as Khalifah.
Prophet (pbuh) had announced on Allah’s command that Ali (as) was Allah’s (swt) Khalifah after performing last Hajj at the grounds of Ghadeer.

Your question “Also I have read that a sword was given to Ali from God is this true”.
Yes it is true, he was given the sword named “Zulfiqar” by the Arch Angel Gabriel at the betel of Uhad when his sword was broken fighting the enemies of Islam. And at the end of battle Arch Angle’s voice was heard in the battlefield saying “La fatah illa Ali, la sief illa Zunfiqar” (there is no triumph except Ali’s triumph and there is no sword except Zulfiqar).

Are there anymore questions? Don’t hesitate to ask……..LOL

sallam

brother john that why shia are on 10 percent muslims out of 100 percent,and the rest of the muslims sunnah waljammah are wrong,fuuny isnt it.

Brother any one tells you that shia is correct know he is astray,also any one tells you that sunni are correct know that they are astray.
Shia is to hate and curse
sunni is to love and abstain from evil talk.
choose which pacth you would like to take siratalmostaqem you choose dude.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Jon is given to me by my mum and father loved the name hassan simple, they are both happy.

Amerislam I don't want to just follow like a sheep I want to know y the 90% r right and 10% wrong. Why do shia make Ali so important, I have also read that when people are in need they call for Ali and not for God why is this?
Also i thought that you are not allowed to harm yourself but shia hit and cry for a month why is this?
Ali was made Khalifah after 4 others I think, Y didn't Allah make him the next Khalifah after Abu Bakr.
What I don't understand is that you all here say that ask from allah and you shall be given they y didn't allah help Ali in the time of need or even Hussain.
Please any info you do state please state with reference.
regards
Jon

Jon Hassan!

Since you’re talking to Amerislam, I will let him answer your questions as well.
You did not answer my questions. I am assuming that you’re not a Christian but a Muslim.

I will comment on few questions you have.

Your quote “Why do shia make Ali so important”.
We Muslims (Shias) just follow command of Allah (swt), If Allah (swt) gives so much importance to Ali (as) then who are we to question…LOL
Allah (swt) is giving Ali (as) the sword (Zulfiqar), (why Abu Bakr did not get the sword from Allah (swt) if he was that important to Him?) He is giving Ali (as) His Khilafah; He is keeping Ahl al Bayt (Prophet’s (pbuh) family) “Tahir” (clean) as it should be the best way to do and so on…
So importance is given by Allah (swt) not by Shias. Would not you want to do what Allah (swt) likes?

Your quote “I have also read that when people are in need they call for Ali and not for God why is this?”

Well! can you see, touch, talk to and speak to and get an answer back from Allah (swt)? Even Moses could not do all except talking and getting answer from Allah. (It was not even direct since Allah (swt) created His “Kalam” (speech) from a tree)
Can you come in direct contact with Allah (swt)? I guess not, the reason is that you are his creation from clay (mud) and he is from Noor (light). But he has sent us a Prophet (pbuh) who is from Noor as well as he is human like us except that we are not like him since he gets “Wahi” (Allah’s commands). So he is a link between Allah (swt) and His Abd (servant).
Allah (swt) has appointed few of His beloved people to guide you and they are His “Hujjat” (witness) on you and Ali (as) is one of them. We call him at times of need as a medium to get to Allah (swt) so Allah (swt) assist us in the name of His beloved people like Ali’s (as).

Your quote “Ali was made Khalifah after 4 others I think, Y didn't Allah make him the next Khalifah after Abu Bakr.”

I already gave you the answer of this question in my previous post that Ali (as) was appointed by Allah (swt) as His “Khalifah” ( Ali (as) was the authority on people from Allah (swt)) as announced by the Prophet (pbuh) after his last Hajj. (Refer Ghadeer)
Ghadeer’s event was way ahead of the election of Abu Bakr as people’s “Khalifah”. (Abu Bakr was just a ruler on people chosen by the people not an authority from Allah (swt) on people)

Your quote “What I don't understand is that you all here say that ask from Allah and you shall be given they y didn't Allah help Ali in the time of need or even Hussain.”

This is typical Sunni quote where they say that all bad and good is created by Allah (swt) (naouzobillah), but it’s not correct as far as Shia’s are concerned. If bad would have been created by Allah (swt) then why we call him Raheem (compassionate).
There is no compulsion in religion of Islam. Allah (swt) has created humans and gave them intellect, showed them the guidance and left them in this word for doing deeds. It’s up to humans what they do. If they do bad deeds they will get punishment and if they do well they will get reward at the day of judgement.
If we say that all good and bad is coming from Allah (swt) then where the murderers will go, you think they will go unpunished? Obviously they will get punishment in this world and hereafter as well.

Your quote “Also i thought that you are not allowed to harm yourself but shia hit and cry for a month why is this?”

Hummm…I guess when you will fully understand Islam then you will understand the answer for this quote…so I will keep it till then.

Cheers

sorry for not answering ur question butI don't want people to judge me or my father. My mum has told me only to know that God exist and that he loves me no matter what. My father has not forced me to choose but he has said that I should find out why Islam is the right choice.

I Have basic Knowledge about Karbala, but y do people hurt themselves when they rather give blood to people who are in need. When so many children in the world are dying, wouldn't allah be more happy for them to give blood instead.
Thanks for responding Tod

regards
Jon

Dear Jon Hassan

If you are REALLY interested in knowing the differences, then I suggest you go to the source, the root.

We had some guy earlier on who apparently invented loads of Alias' 'Seyyidinna' being one of them. He had us believe that he was going on a journey to Iraq and that he was emailing us from Baghdad and Imam Ali's shrine in Najaf.

My first advise to you, is don't be a pretender.

If you are already inclined to Sunni'ism then what this site will do is make you debate for ages and ages and if that's what you wanna do then fine.

If you wanna go with the majority then go to Umrah and Hajj and feel secure and happy that the larger percentage of people are praying with their arms folded.

But if you want to understand Imam Hussain, his mission, his spirit and the spirit of The Prophet Mohammed's family then go to Najaf and Karbala to find out for yourself - see for yourself why people mourn for a whole forty days after the anniversary of the Shahadat of Hussain Shaheed of Karbala.

Unfortunately it seems that Sunni Muslim Arabs are only interested in going to Iraq nowadays to blow themselves up on a suicide mission to kill other Muslims, Shi'as.

Well, Yazid's Soldiers were told that that they'd enter heaven also, yet the sword of Hussain had sent them to Hell.

Get off the internet and go to Iraq, for the RIGHT reasons, not for the wrong.

I'm sorry I've not answered your questions.

But this is the only advise I'm going to give you for the time being.

Wassalaam

SALLAM
Bro ali ammem hit the nail on the head when he said go to the root,The root of islam is in Mecca,so travel and find the truth to islam and ask why do you praise Abu Bakr,umar,uthman and why are they buried next to the holy prophet mohammad pbuh,they will answer beacuse we are wrong for doing this because a small small small amount of people with no wright said they were bad man,ha ha ha lol only joking.
If the comaponians went astray surley the prophet that we speak of so highly was not perfect in his mission nor sinless,because the prophet that i speak of so high did accomlish his mission perfectly and sinless and his companions are regarded to be the best people after him as he said (pbuh).
Ali is very important brother jhon/hassan and any person that the prophet loved.

Does the shia people know that Umar son mohammad bin khattab was rised up by ALI,ACCORDILNGLY to nahgul albalagh subhanna allah and no where do the companions nor his wife aicha r.a are slanderd,so why do these fitna people?????????/

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
AMERISLAM

Rootd of Umar-Bin-Khatab

I'll post it, and below I'll try to translate it in English:

إليكم النسب و قرابة كل فرد إلى عمر مع التفسير

_

حنتمة

هي أم عمر و أخته ( أبوهما واحد و هو الخطاب )

و عمته ( حنتمة و الخطاب من نفس الأم صهاك لذلك يعتبرون كأخوة )

و هي ابنة الخطاب ( من صهاك )

و أخته ( من أمهما صهاك )

خطاب

أبو عمر )

خاله ( فهو شقيق أمه حنتمة من صهاك )

جده ( لأنه أبو أمه حنتمة التي أنجبها من صهاك )

مع هذه الشروح المعقدة نستنتج الآتي :

* تزوج خطاب أخته و أنجب عمر

* تزوج خطاب ابنته و أنجب عمر

* خطاب هو أبو عمر و خاله و جده

* حنتمة هي أم عمر و عمته و أخته

* عمر يستطيع أن ينادي أباه : بابا و خالو و جدو

* عمر يستطيع أن ينادي أمه : ماما و أختي و عمه

( يعني ثلاثة في آن واحد

Saahak got together with Nufeyl and brought "Khattab"
Then Khattab with Saahak and brought "Hantamah"
And then Khattab with Hantamah they brough "Umar".

HANTAMAH:
She would be the mother of Umar and his sister (from one father: Khattab).
And his Untie Hantamah and Khattab from the same mother: Saahak, therefore considered as brother/sister, and she is also the daughter of Khattab from Saahak, and his sister from their mother Saahaak.

KHATTAB:
The father of Umar and his uncle(who is the brother of his mother Hantamah from Saahaak).
And also Khattab is Umar's grandfather because he is teh father of his mother Hantamah who brought him from Saahaak.

We conclude from all that:
- Khattab married(or got together) with his sister and brought Umar.
- Khattab married his daughter and brought Umar.
- Khattab is the father of Umar, his Uncle, and Grandfather.
- Hantamah is Umar's mother, his untie, and sister.

Umar can call his father: baba, uncle, and grandfather.
Umar can call his mother: mama, sister, and Untie.
(Three in one - ya Shampoo with conditioner lol )

It is confusing ha :P

Yes

Go with the majority of believers - who went to The Prophet Mohammed's funeral.

The ones who didn't, well how COULD they have really believed?

A small, small amount of people brother Amer went to Mohammed ul Rusoolallah's burial - and don't you ever forget it.

The ROOT is The Ka'abah yes - and Imam Ali was born inside of it so there simply isn't any larger clue as to which human being after Mohammed is to be followed.

If the ex idol worshoippors Abu Bakr or Umar had been born inside of there we'd have never heard the end of it from the Sunnis.

Mohammed never gave permission for Abu Bakr OR Umar to be buried next to him. Infact, he didn't even give permission for them to enter his house without prior consent so where is the legality of Umar OR Abu Bakr being laid to rest upon land which was wasn't even theirs?

Can you prove to Amer, that that land belonged to them? I'd like to see you try.

They stole the Caliphate from Imam Ali, they stole the very land of their own prophet and their burial site is living proof of the fact.

What right have they got to be buried there?? When their own intention (through the shame of having missed their own Prophet's Funeral) was to DIG UP Mohammeds grave and start the burial all over again - what do YOU think is finally going to happen to THEIR graves?

Well. It hasn't been unheard of.

Yeah. Imam Ali raised up the son of Abu Bakr. He raised him up to fight his own sister Ayesha in the Battle of the Camel and Yazid's father Muawiah, the 'GREAT' (sarcastic) Sahabah.

Where Amer does it say in The Quran that just because you are physically next to a prophet, it is proof of obedience and piety?

The Curse of Allah upon those Hypocrite Sahabah who intentionally disobeyed the command of Our Prophet, inspite of the open injunction of the Quran they claimed to believe in, for them not to.

Wassalaam

Salaam Brother Umar

Are you implying that Umr ibn al Khattab is of incestuous ancestry? Does this mean he is of illegitemate birth? Is it not the case the an illgitemate is forbidden to lead the congregational prayer?

This is the first time I have heard of these refferrences. Can you please elaborate.

Wassalaam

Brother Jon Hassan!!
I was trying to establish level field so I know who I am talking to. So it was important to know where you stand. I understand as I said before that you are a Muslim.

I realize you are becoming more predictable as you are asking same question that we have been asked hundreds of times. It will help me align my answer to you...no problem...LOL

Did you know we have the same God as Jesus? (We don’t consider Jesus to be son of God) so tell me why God, Allah (swt) did not help Jesus as he was crucified?
If you can answer that then you will understand the answer I gave you previously when you had asked “What I don't understand is that you all here say that ask from Allah and you shall be given they y didn't Allah help Ali in the time of need or even Hussain.”.

Your quote “I Have basic Knowledge about Karbala, but y do people hurt themselves when they rather give blood to people who are in need. When so many children in the world are dying, wouldn't Allah be more happy for them to give blood instead.”

I quote someone’s response to answer your question “Tatbeer and blood dont share significant relationship. Blood pours out during tatbeer but the main point isnt to let blood pour, full stop. The main point is the grief and the mourning.
We can give blood even AFTER doing tatbeer, and we can give it all around the year. Dont mix up the two, for they are different maters with different motives.”

Quote from “Zeyarat al-Nahiya"
" . . . . now that I could not help you when you needed most help . . . I shall mourn you every morning and every evening, AND I SHALL CRY BLOOD FOR YOU INSTEAD OF TEARS . . . "

Only Yazid’s progeny can try stopping someone grieving for Imam Husain for his entire family and companion’s martydom in Karbala.

Another topic!!
Amerislam, the root of Islam is Prophet (pbuh). Mukkah is only the place. Mukkah will not tell you anyting about details of Islam…it has to come from the root which is the “Madanu-r-Resalat” (the mine of the Prophethood).
It has been narated in many hadiths that the Prophet (pbuh) used to go to Fatima’s (sa) house every morning and say “Aslam-o-alika ya Ahlil Bayte nabuwah wa Madanu-r-Resalat”. (Salute to the house hold of the Prophet and the mine of the Prophethood) That’s the root of Islam…

Cheers

Thank you Tod I understand Now......

Ali Ameem Sorry if you feel that I'm wasting your time but I only seek knowledge and its your will to pass it on....

Tod any books or web links you could suggest, so that I could understand Y grief and mourning equals people hitting themself with sharp blades.

When you get a sword and hit it on ur head then what are your intentions?....... to grief and mourn. When you go to someones grave you sit and remember in sorrow.

U have said earlier that when things look misleading you always refer to the Holy Qur’an or sumthing like that.......
Does it it not say that Suicide is haram. I know that the intentions are not to die but when your hitting your self with so much passion what else are ur intensions.

Don't you think that "AND I SHALL CRY BLOOD FOR YOU INSTEAD OF TEARS" this is just an expression.

Sorry if I'm repeating my questions but If you don't want to answer that is ok
If I'm offending some1 then pls forgive me
regards
Jon

Ps is this true that the Prophet (pbuh) said
"I am Knowledge and the door to knowledge is Ali" if so do u know where its from so I could know if its true

Merci pour la connaissance
(thank you for the knowledge) lol

sallam
more bla bla bla,the same people that choose Abu bakr and umar to be khalifa was the same people that put Immam Ali r.a in khalifa you dimwits,and it the same people that allowed the great muslims to be buried next the prophet pbuh.

more lies,evil,pathetic from a small small small black sheep of islam always trying to create evil in islam.but allahmdollah Allah has keept you a small herd amoung the true muslims.

why is your name Umar,or is that another shia lie?

SHIA=evil,cursing,curifixon
Sunnah=peace,commensense,imman,sunnah,quran against bidah

Also brother hassan/jon have you heard the upgraded version of the shai azthan,and th eone in iran where they mension khomaneois name funny inst it why isnt Tod's name mentioned is he sinless and spritulally guided ha sounds like the pope,pope Tod ha ha ha ha .

Allah quoted woe to those that back bite and slander implented antiislam people
ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

sallam

WHY ISNT NO ONE ANSWERING MY QUESTION POSTED 1 WEEK AGO TOD/ALI AMMEM STILL WAITING?????????????
WHERE DOES IMMAM ALI DURING HIS LIFE AFTER the prophets demise curse Abu Bakr r,a Umar r.a Uthman r.a and aicha Plse no lies only authentic and crap of paitence nor taqqiya which is Kaffir which the quran stats.

Allah knows best
amerislam

Dear Amer

to quote you

'SHIA=evil,cursing,curifixon'

The Quranic definition of 'Shi'ah' includes The Prophets Ibrahim and Musa.

It is therefore foolish and irresponsible of you to give your own Satanic definition of the same in light of this.

Your clear prejudice shows the frustration and utter nonsense of your own argument.

Instead of talking about 90 percent muslims why don't you talk about 100 percent Muslims?

If you want to prove that Shi'ah's are Kaafir then you should start approaching the Muslim governments of the world with your pathetic arguments to have it constitutionalised.

The question I'm asking is what reason would THEY have in practicing Taqiyyah with regard to this?

May Allah curse the people who claim to love The Prophet's Family, whilst raising the sword against Imam Hussain's father at the same time.

Did Ayesha not know that Ali was included within the same 'Aale Muhammed' whom she asked Allah to bless within her own daily Salaat?

What bigger contradiction, fitna and hypocrisy can we find in the history of Islam than the decision for Ayesha to wage war against a family whom Allah has commanded to be blessed?

Which Quranic Ayaat would you wish me to quote you Amer, where Allah himself curses these types of people?

We are all still waiting for satisfactory answers from YOU (not pasted essays from popular Wahabbi sites) with our questions also - and it has been more than just one week.

Stop beating around the Bush(excuse the pun). Accept the facts and move on. Would YOU have been able to say your prayers in peace having known that you just fought The Prophet Mohammed's Family?

Wake up and smell the Napalm. Your majority of Muslims slaughtered Imam Hussain. What sad and forelorn excuses do you hold for them?

Wassalaam

sallam

What do you call the great hamza,Belal, and others died during the wars when the prophet was alive pbuh,it connot be shia Ali or can it you never know maybe Ali was khalifa even before the prophets demise pbuh and even maybe the Sinless Immams have hadith of this too maybe????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salam Hassan.

I was once in a stage as you are now. Just like you, i was ignorant towards the Shia-Sunni concept. However, i must say that there's a difference between us.

I already knew Sunni teachings quite a bit when i started my study about Shiism, because i was born from a Sunni family and brought up with pretty strong religious background. I too went to Islamic (Sunni) school and grew up in Sunni community.

You, on the other hands, don't seem to know much about Sunni - no offense. Through your questions i can see that you have a looooooong way to go and sooooooo much to study before you should get into a debate of Sunni-Shia.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting you to walk out or anything but i think it'd be very complicated and it requires a long process to explain everything to you from the beginning, which is very important because without knowing the history you'd be lost if not becoming a victim of wahabi ideology. Once you've adopted their ideology, it'd be almost impossible for you to find the true and loving path of Islam.

Your eyes would be blinded from the light of true Islam. Your ears would be closed. Your mouth would say nasty things and accusations about others (like Ameer's case). Finally, your knowledge about religion and other matters would be extremely limited and narrow (like Ameer's case). Worst thing that could happen is you becoming an extremist - God forbids!

I'm not asking you to believe me but considering i was once like you, i'd like to give you some advices (if you wish to learn like you said):

First, you ought to clarify and purify your intentions. You stick to it with an open mind. Once again: open mind!

Second, don't start criticizing when you don't have yet enough knowledge about it because you would gain nothing at the end but confusions. Later on when your knowledge is sufficient, you can do so.

Third, talk about one subject at a time until you really understand it and start from the beginning because they're all connected and should be in the right order. Don't be like Ameer who always jumps from one subject to another because his intention is not to learn and understand; his intention is to argue and disgrace the Shia.

Forth, remember that Sunni and Shia are both Muslims. If you hear someone from Sunni or Shia telling you that one of these groups is kaffir, you should leave that person and move on with others. Such person surely has gone wrong.

Fifth, always ask for reference from Quran and hadith when receiving information. Compare the hadith with Quran. When something from hadith contradicts Quran, then ignore the hadith (on that particular subject) and follow what is said in the Quran instead.

I don't know if you read my earlier posting but if you haven't, please read it because it could be helpful for you knowing that you would like to start the study.

Good luck to you and i pray for you that you will find the light, insha Allah.

Wassalam.

Salaam Amer

Yes.

Hazrat Bilal and Hazrat Hamza ARE considered to be Partisans of Ali, loyal, faithful and obedient to the very word of their Prophet, unlike Umar who swayed to and fro until finally his prefference for the Khilaafat overtook his sense, eating up all his good deeds, degrading him to a mere compititor for material succession.

The Prophet was a Prophet when his soul had been created and that was before the spirit, soul or body of Adam had been created.

Ali was Imam AND Khalifa therefore, prior to the creation of Adam as his soul was created alongside the soul of Mohammed, alongside the other souls of his PURIFIED family.

Unfortunate and misguided was Umar when he assumed that Mohammed's request for pen and paper at his bedside was an order of somebody lesser.

Unfortunate are those Wahabbis who,
by the prejudiced information we aquire from your own paste ups, believe that Mohammed was a mistake maker, attaining the rank of Prophethood thousands of years after the creation of his own spirit at the age of forty.

Jesus spoke to defend his mother Mariam as a newly born baby and still the Jews denied the miracle of his Prophethood.

This parallel extends also to Mohammed's time, when al Bukhari states clearly as to how Umar objected to Mohammed's peace treaty at Hudaybiyyah saying 'This day is the day that I doubt you MOST as being a Prophet'.

What can we say about the link now, from the evidence we have in our own daily prayers to Mohammed and his famiy?

A link that Ayesha in her utter denial physicaly fought against.

What can we say about those who feel a verbal war against the popular Sunni ethic, is a war against Islam itself; whilst the SAME people at the same time DENY that the war against Imam Ali was a war against Mohammed, and everything that stood FOR him?

WHERE in the Quran has it justified Ayesha's proposterous action, for women to become political leaders of armys and Islamic governments?

We are well knowledgable Amer, of who the Hypocrites are and they are known by their actions.

You have not been taught since childhood about the details pertaining to the battles of Siffeen and Jamal. Your Great Sunni Scholar Al Ghazali issued a fatwa saying that it is HARAM to discuss the issue.

Your justification for such wars can only lead you into folly and it is clear. I myself have come across a number of Sunni's who have blatantly told me the civil wars between Ali and The Sahabah are FORBIDDEN to discuss.

Yet you discuss them with me.

And Allah has proved to us through Quranic verse that those who cut 'the ties of kin' are cursed by Allah, who makes them deaf, dumb and blind.

And it is information that Ayeshah was unable to grasp, as she blindly wandered into battle against the kin of Mohammed, the father of Hassan and Hussain, the victor of Khaybar and Khandaq, the Husband of Fatema tu Zahra, deaf to her ears was his plea, dumbstruck in reply to his speech.

Lucky and blessed are the wakeful ones.

I was told of a Sunni who refused to believe that Ayesha waged war agains Imam Ali. 'In all my years as a Muslim' he said 'I have never heard of such a proposterous story and I am certain that this is a propogantist lie coming from the side of The Shi'ah'.

Nevertheless he decide to check the facts from a Sunni Maulana, who told him it was true - but attempted at the same time to give some reasoning behind it.

The gentleman was shocked, having listened to the hard facts he cared nothing for the excuses and THANK GOD converted, becoming a partisan of Imam Ali.

For the innocent, uncomplicated soul this is all it should really take. The Truth is the Truth and it is as clear as crystal as to the division between TRUTH and HYPOCRYSY.

Amer.

Have you ever argued with a child who knew they were wrong, but just because they were given the chance to argue they tried black and blue to argue that they were right?

Allah gives the chances my friend.

And the Shaytaan takes it up, for all the bait that it's worth.

Wassalaam

Thank you very much .
Look what I found in my sunni books :

I)Mother=Sister=Paternal Aunt , Father=Grandfather=Maternal Uncle , No Comments !

According to Muhmmad bin Al Saeb Al Kalbi , the most famous sunni "ancesters scientist" in islam ,
and
according to Abu Makhnaf Lut bin Yahya al Azadi who narrated this fact in his well known book "Al Salaba fi Ma'rifat al Sahaba . (The Strong Knowledge of the Companions)" and his another book "Al Tankih fi al Nasab al Sarih . (The Revise of the Frank Lineage)" , The lineage of Omar ancesters is full of incestuos relations .

This is a summary of the narration in the books :

Nufayl did prostitution with Suhak and she get pregnant .
Suhak throwed her baby , so a jewish woman raised him .
This baby was a woodcutter so he was named Hattab then it became Khattab .
* Hattab in arabic is The man who cut the woods (Hatab).

Khattab , who didn't know his mother ,he one day saw her and they get laid .
She was pregnant from him with Hantama .
She throwed Hantama on the garbages of Mecca where Hashem bin al Maghira bin Walid taked her and raised her .

Khattab used to visit Hashem bin al Maghira bin Walid so one day he saw Hantama , so he married her .(His own sister and daughter from his own mother !)
Khattab and Hantama have a baby who is Omar

A look at his breast-feeding mother :
He was breast-feeded by Haba .A woman who married a lot and loved sex inspite of her big age . She learned the woman of her city many sex positions and ...

Sources of this claim :
"Kitab al Madina al Munawwara" (The book of al Madina) for his author : Ibn Shubba .[V. 1 ,P.237]
"A'laam al Nisaa'" (The Known Women ) for his author : Omr Kahhala .[V. 1 ,P.237]
"Jamharat al Amthal"[V. 1 ,P.562]
"Majma' al Amthal" [V. 1 ,P.2049]

These books narrated details about Haba that I don't want to mention because it is an islamic forum ....

This is a new equation:
II) (The breast-feeding woman) = (!.!.!.!)

I)Mother=Sister=Paternal Aunt , Father=Grandfather=Maternal Uncle , No Comments !
II) (The breast-feeding woman) = (....)?

It seems that Omar have lots of common from his ancestors and Haba

Look at what Omar did ?(sorry for the weak translation)

"Al Tabakat al Kubra" (The big Classes) for Ibn Sa'ed , V.6 P.195 ,

'Affan bin Muslim told us : Hammad bin Salma told us :'Ali bin Zaid told us that 'Atika bint Zaid (a women) was married to Abdullah bin Abi Baker.
He died and he asked her to don't marry after him .So she didn't marry and she refused all the men .
Until Omar said to her wali : Mention me to her .
She Refused.
Omar said to him , Marry me to her .
His wali Married her to Omar .
Then Omar camed to 'Atika and entered on her and after a fighting he forced her to sleep with him . .
The he went from her home and left her without visits until she sent her slave to him to tell him :"come I will get ready for you" .

The narrators (in blue) show that it is a strong hadith .

(I)+(II)=(III) Omar is a Raper !

OMG...what was that above....no comments from me...LOL

Hi Jon Hassan!
As I said before...you would have to learn Islam first then you will understand other thigs.
BTW it's not necessary for you to cut yourself if you become Muslim (Shia). It might happen to you if you really get the knowledge and lite the fire of love of Ahl al Bayt. If you ever reach to that stage then I bet you want to do it by your own. Like some sufies (sunnis) do all kind of things to their body when they really fall in love eith the Almighty Allah (swt).

Regrding your question of any websites...yes there are good ones...one is al-islam.org is fine for now.

Cheers

Br. Jon Hassan!!
Also your question about Ali as door of knowledge; pleaes read the following that will prove it's truth.

"As stated in Verse 27:40 of Quran, the one who possessed a small part of "the Knowledge of the Book", was able to bring the throne of King Bilqis from another place of the world within the twinkling of an eye. So those who have the whole "Knowledge of the Book" should be able to do more! The whole knowledge of the Book was with Prophet Muhammad and his twelve successors. Allah, Exalted, said in Quran:

"(O' Prophet) say: Enough for witness between me and you is Allah and he who possesses the Knowledge of the Book." (Quran 13:43)

From the verse, it is clear that in the phrase "he who possesses the Knowledge of the Book", Quran is specifically referring to a person other than Allah and Prophet Muhammad. Of course, the source of this knowledge is Allah and He possesses it and He also granted it to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) in full. However, the choice words in the above verse shows that "he who possesses the Knowledge of the Book" referred specifically in the above verse, is a person (or persons) other than Allah and His Prophet (PBUH&HF). It refers to Imam Ali (AS) and the Imams after him (see below for details).

Also notice that in the above verse, Allah does NOT say "a part of the knowledge of the Book" while Allah used the phrase "a part of" for the case of minister of Solomon.

Some Sunnis have mentioned that the above verse refers to Abdullah Ibn Sallam, the Jewish Rabbi who converted to Islam. some other Sunnis said that it refers to all scholars of the Jews and the Christians who found the attributes of the incoming Prophet in their ancient scriptures.

The above interpretation does not seem to be correct. "The knowledge of the Book" as Quran mentions in one more place, is not as simple as recognition of the attributes of the incoming Prophet in the scripture. "The knowledge of the Book" includes the knowledge of governing rules in the Universe. As Quran stated, Asaf had only a very small part of "the Knowledge of the Book", and was able to do that extraordinary thing. Thus this type of power has no connection with just knowing the name of an incoming prophet from a book. Furthermore, if the Sunni interpretation is correct, then it means whenever Muslims have a question, they should refer to Christians and Jews, because they have the whole knowledge of the Book while Muslims do not!

Some may argue that if the above verse is referring to Imam Ali and the rest of the twelve Imams, then what sort of evidence will this be for the unbelievers who would not accept the words of Muslims by saying the above verse to them?

The answer is that the verse starts with the phrase: "And the Kuffar (unbelievers) say: You are not a messenger. Say: Sufficient as witness is..." As such, the verse is about Kuffar (unbelievers). They don't believe in Allah either. Therefore, the same question may rise again: If the Kuffar do not believe in Allah, then what sort of evidence will be for them to say "Allah is the witness"?

The above verse is, in fact, just a threat by the Prophet (PBUH&HF) to unbelievers, that that will be accounted on the day of judgment for their blasphemy, and he (the Prophet) has enough two witness for that: One is, Allah, the Creator, and the other one is Imam Ali, the Prince of Believers. In general, it refers to all the twelve Imams. But at that time of the Prophet he was just Imam Ali (AS).

Witness to the fact that "he who possesses the Knowledge of the Book" in verse 13:43 refers to Imam Ali (AS) and no other companions of the Prophet, is the numerous traditions reported by both Shia and Sunni. It is confirmed in the authentic Sunni books that Imam Ali was the MOST knowledgeable man in the Muslim community after the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Those who testified this fact include: The Prophet (PBUH&HF), Imam Ali himself, Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, and many other companions.

The Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) informed his followers of the very existence of a man who was the treasurer of Knowledge of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF), and he had declared to them that if they want to reach the Knowledge of the Holy Prophet, they should take that Knowledge from the treasurer:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am the City of Knowledge, and Ali is its Gate. So whoever intends to enter the City and the Wisdom, he should enter from its Gate."
| | | | || : . |. |
|_8_,|_, _|_c q o_|_e_|| 4_,_, ]_o |_, |
. . (_S / ( :
| | | : | | . : / || : . || | | .
|_8_,|_, . _o |_8_, |_,_|_9 4_o_)_7_|| q 4_,_, ]_o_|| > | | . _o_9
. . (_) : / : / (_)

Sunni references:

Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 201,637
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 126-127,226, Chapter of the Virtues of Ali, narrated on the authority of two reliable reporters: one, Ibn Abbas, whose report has been transmitted through two different but chain of authorities, and the other, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari. He said this tradition is Authentic (Sahih).
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p635, Tradition #1081
Jami' al-Saghir, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v1, pp 107,374; Also in Jami' al-Jawami'; Also in Tarikh al-Khulafaa, p171. He said this tradition is accepted (Hasan).
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani (d. 360); Also in al-Awsat
Ma'rifah al-Sahaba, by al-Hafidh Abu Nu'aym al-Isbahani
Ihyaa al-Ululm, by al-Ghazzali
History of Ibn Kathir, v7, p358
History of Ibn Asakir
Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v2, p337; v4, p348; v7, p173; v11, pp 48-50; v13, p204
al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p38; v2, p461
Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v4, p22
Tahdhib al-Athar, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p114
Bahr al-Asateed, by al-Hafidh Abu Muhammad Hassan Samarghandi (d. 491)
Siraj al-Muneer, by al-Hafidh Ali Ibn Ahmad Azizi Shafi'i (d.1070), v2, p63
Manaqib, by Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Tayyib al-Jalaabi Ibn Maghaazi (d. 483)
Firdaws al-Akhbar, by Abu Shuja'a Shirwayh Hamadani al-Daylami (d. 509)
Maqtal al-Husain, by Khateeb Kharazmi (d. 568), v1, p43
Manaqib, by Khateeb Kharazmi (d. 568), p49
Alif Ba'a, by Abul Hajjaaj Yusuf Ibn Muhammad Andulesi (d.605), v1, p222
Matalib al-Su'ul, by Abu Salim Muhammad Ibn Talhih Shafi'i (d. 652), p22
Jawahi al-Aghdi'in, by Noor al-Din al-Shafi'i (d. 911)
Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, in Chapter 14
Tadhkirat al-Khawas al-Ummah, by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654), p29
Kunz al-Baraheen, by Shaikh Khathri
Kifayat al-Talib, by Yusuf al-Ganji al-Shafi'i (d. 658), Chapter 58
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, part 15, p13, Traditions #348-379
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 9, section 2, p189
Hafidh Salah al-Din al-Ulai, after copying the weakening arguments by al-Dhahabi, has remarked "There are in this only mean attempts to oppose for the sake of opposition, and not a single valid argument."
Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Siddeeq al-Hasani al-Maghribi, from Cairo, has compiled a magnificent book named "Fat'h al-Mulk al-Ali bi Sihah Hadith-e-Bab-e-Madinat al-Ilm" to prove the genuinness of the very above tradition. This book was printed in the year 1354 AH in Matba' al-Islamiyyah, Egypt.
Also reported by Ibn Adi on the authority of Ibn Umar, and by al-Bazzar on the authority of Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari"

salamz all :)

How sweet site is still up.... n there is me thinking our debates r over :(
ALi Ameen and dee ur both weird n have no idea what ur on about!1 first of all i do not agree on so called sunni bombers in iraq.. so dont tell me to never step foot in iraq u idiot.
i have just asked for 5 sheeps to be slaughtered for families who r suffering in iraq and i am a sunni. 2ndly i am marrying a shia iraqi girl and she wants to call our son hasan lol and i have not gone against her wishes.
AliAmeen its funny how u come back abusing me when u still havent replied back to my first question i asked u as i first joined this site.
WHO IS NARJIS?? mother of mahdi??? where did she exist in the roman empire at that time??? u still havent answered me and no shia has answered this question. u have literally built up a fake character who was never alive during the al askari days nor romans. aliameen u went in hiding and u told me u will give me an answer and i have not seen u for 2 months now lol. u should be ashamed of urself.
Dee plz do not assume that am a shia hater :) i just dislike those who debate false historic statements. When u say shia believe in peace n thats how it shows u r better than us sunnis? peace agsinst evil is haram.. when u have corrupt leaders n u do nothing about it is haram its not polite nor good in allah';s eyes. if u love imam ALi so much u should lead his way of life, when evil acts r active he was the first to fight it?
i dont know what ur talking about when u say saudis n egyptian s have a mut3a like marriage lol?????? do u think i base my islam on saudia n egypt government laws? do u really think arabic lands apply the right islamic laws?
I really doubt it mate :)

shia brothers i could swear al hussein named one of his children abu bakr lol??? why do u then hate him.. there r so many clues for u to reflect on ur people's false preceptions of sunnah. why do u then fight us.. why do u then resent the truth?
if abu bakr was so cruel to Fatimah (AS) why would her son name his kid after him lol? oh people please wake up!!

In the battle of Karbala, most of Hazrat Aly's family was killed.
Only a few survived; among them were two
daughters,
two sons and an aunt. The daughters were Zainub and Sakina;
the sons were Aly Asghar (Zain alabidin)
and Umar... who named him umar? wasnt it ALi?..anyways his brother zain took 4th shia imamat..but lets carry on here!!
Muhammad al-Bakr (5th shia imam) was born at Medina on Tuesday,
3rd Safar, 57 A.H. He is said to have been 3 or 4 years old
on the day his grandfather Imam Husayn was killed..so again who named him mohammad al Bakr? BAKR BAKR BAKR!!!
am still talking about ahl al bayt who u shia believe resented my prophet's companions...they r against those people yet they like using their names for some reason huh?
man wake up plz!!!!!!!

i got my facts wrong over hasan or husayn naming his son abu bakr directly but this article shows what i mean :)
am half english so excuse me for not keeping up with those names of bin this n bin that lol

To quote

'Muhammad al-Bakr (5th shia imam) was born at Medina on Tuesday,
3rd Safar, 57 A.H. He is said to have been 3 or 4 years old
on the day his grandfather Imam Husayn was killed..so again who named him mohammad al Bakr? BAKR BAKR BAKR!!!'

Posted by: muslim at July 24, 2005 07:14 PM

The son of the 4th Imam Zain ul Aabedeen is Mohammed al BAAQIR, not Bakr as you so uninformedly suggest.

baQQir not bakr? u fool how close u want a name to be to deny the truth... now u want to change a few letter here n there then a whole name and on n on huh ..typical bid3aa..... what about omar name how was that spelled ? lol
why u answer one and fail to reply about omar name? whos brother was Zain!!

do u know the word Mokharrifeeeeeeeen in arabic? thats what some of u shia are? thats what ur ancestors are n will always be in my eyes...

n this guy or girl Deee? u say shia apply peace n dont show cruelty... havent u seen how saudia scholars tried to stop iranians stoning people to death? have u not seen how iran do it on video clips? have u not learnt that mohammad stoned 2 jewish couple only coz there was no law on this so he followed their jewish laws to make peace in that jewish community?
Then surat AL-Noor came and god gave us the slash punishment? u dare say shia r not blood thirsty?

Where is my brother ameer n Realist i miss u guys >:D

ALiameen... if u say baqer doesnt mean bakr coz of a few changed letters..its like me saying am naming my child Ahmad but it has nothing to do with mohammad?

Does that make sense to u in anyway?

WAKE UP!!

I quote the underneath

‘ali ameem, bakrusman, sunnimuslim or who ever the fuck you are!!! answer my question!! why the held did you come on claiming to be a sunni and spit it back on our face!! immature old man!!

Posted by: `·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.·® ë å l é § T`·.¸¸.·´´¯`··._.· at June 21, 2005 07:51 PM

hey seyyed naqvi and ali ameen... i have never seen such kaffirz in mylife o well let allah deal with youz.... anywayz hahah khomeini is a ugly muthafucker that fucks your ass with ali ameen from behind him.. .... anywayz you dont get that kind shit where im from but i guess im starting it i love giving shias hidings at university it feels so good... you wankers are so weak seriously and hahah i just laugh how youz believe in a 12 infallible haha klaiming there holy men like prophets ...... man wtf you guyz go get fucked.... you see we cant diss ali the way youz diss muawiya cause we love both of them…

Posted by: NAAZLA at April 2, 2005 10:59 PM

It is unfortunate that NAAZLA has been affected by devilish tendencies, as you so rightly pointed out, and his refference to homosexual activity in conjunction with the zikr of Allah is truly one of the most disturbing innovations I have seen as yet.

Posted by: Ali Ameem at April 5, 2005 10:58 PM

‘..this attack on "NAAZLA" was quite unecessary he was just retaliating to what a shiatte said... dont worry "NAAZLA" allah is by the side of those who has the heart and not those who have the knowlegde...’

Posted by: sayedinna ilallahi ali al hassana al hussayni at April 19, 2005 09:26 PM

‘80% of iraqis r shia yet they found it hard to get rid of 1 bad leader saddam hussein out of power? doesnt that show u how weak shia's are? u fuckers dont live for allah or islam u live for ur big fat bellies n mutaa marriages thats all...’

Posted by: Muslim at June 23, 2005 07:00 PM

With your previous foulmouthed posts and prejudices I differentiate not between yourself and any of the other, above Sunni ignoramuses, (including those embarrassing liars to the cause of your own sect) who support the views of the callous Naazla.

May Allah forgive your fiance for her sins - she’s better off marrying the open enemy.

‘AND THE CURSE OF ALLAH UPON THOSE WHO LIE’ Holy Quraan

To quote

'ALiameen... if u say baqer doesnt mean bakr coz of a few changed letters..its like me saying am naming my child Ahmad but it has nothing to do with mohammad?'

If you know how to read Arabic you will understsnd the difference between the letter Qaaf and Kaaf.

You will also understand the difference between a zaber and the elongated vowel Alif.

You have made an unrefferenced and uneducated analogy between the root of these two names.

You seem to enjoy using the letter 'Z' in place of the letter 'S'.

I am convinced that your argument is about as mature as an 18yr olds.

nah...less than 18yr old...hahahahahaha
A person who can't defrentiate between a "K" and a "Q" has to be a dumd person!!

I'll save my thoughts for intelectuals...LOL
But just to clarify our point without going into nesty talk unlike Muslim (actually he is not a Muslim, forget sunni, as he shows his non-Islamic actions)

Baqer was 5th Imam's title, it was not his name. His name was Muhammad bin Ali. (not Ali Asghar as you said...as you are always confused with the history because Sunnis don't have any history, if you want to know your forefathers histoiry then go and read Zohri's history. he will tell you whoes heads were screwed up)

Quote;
"The term 'Baqer" means "dissector' and Baqer-ul-uloom or Dissector of Sciences and knowledge was a title or attribute given to this 5Th Imam or leader of the Shiite Muslims of the world. During the time of this Imam, the disputes between the Omayyad and the Abbasid (over the Caliphate) and the innocence of the Ahl-e-bait (the family or household of the Prophet) in the great, bloody tragedy of Karbala (martyrdom of Imam Hossein (A.S)) made the people especially the Shiites, in multitudes, to turn to Medina and the Imam, and thus, means for the dissemination of the truths and teachings of the religion were provided, a thing that was not possible for any of the previous Imams, members of the Prophet's family to achieve."

Cheers and wipe filth from the cavity of your brain before you say anything....LOL

lol u noobs wallah... first of all i read english literature on shiasm!! so QAF N KAAF ok big difference my bad how insensitive of me!!

but again what about ali naming his kid Umar ? why r u arguing so well about bakr n Q n K lol but not about umar which u refuse to answer ?

2ndly i dont use Zz for s i think ur confusing me for someone else u idiot!!
like i said my argument about a child being named abu bakr is true but am not sure which son he was i will carry on reaching articles to prove there was a shia bakr!! i heard the audio and am working on finding it through text..
i just got back to this site so am a lil rusty forgive me :)

here is a few questions to my shia brothers!! think then WAKE UP.......

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. hmmmmm THINK?

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? hmmmm keep thinking guys?

sayiduna Ali married his daughter um kalthoom to Umar... Ali (RA) submitted and accepted 3 imamat who u call traitors n liars ..doesnt this mean Ali was not a powerful man in islam.. a man who did not fight oppression and injustice?
someone is contradicting somebody in here? is it me? or is it my shia brothers allahu a3lam..

i accept ALi and i accept his submission to all 3 imams b4 him if he did not fight them it shows they were great characters that he accepted in his lifetime...WAKE UP? come on shia brothers WAKE UP or not!!

i am awake :)

SALLAM
Immam Ali was scared from Abu bakr and Umar that why he married his daughter to Umar,and Mohammad pbuh was also scared from uthman that whay he married of his daughters 2 of them to Uthman,Lol ONLY JOKING BOYZ.

WELCOME BACK MUSLIM HOWS YOUR HEALTH AND FAMILY AND MABROUK ON YOU MARRIAGE INSHALLAH ALLAH BESTOWS HIS BLESSING UPON YOU AND YOUR WIFE.

SALLAM

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

To quote

2ndly i dont use Zz for s i think ur confusing me for someone else u idiot!!

i am awake :)

Posted by: muslim at July 25, 2005 04:41 PM

To quote further

'have u not learnt that mohammad stoned 2 jewish couple only coZ there was no law on this so he followed their jewish laws to make peace in that jewish community?'

Where is my brother ameer n Realist i miss u guys >:D

Posted by: muslim at July 25, 2005 03:33 AM

We must submit that not only are you NOT awake but must also be an idiot.

Fool.

'salamZ all :)'

Posted by: muslim at July 24, 2005 06:29 PM

Tod,

He's definitely asleep.

salmaz bro Amer wallah ur so funny i have been laughing 2 hours over this scared business lol

ALi n moahhamd SAW r scared huh loooooooool

Ali n Tod its cute how u stopped ur serious debates over a Z and an S....
now i see why shia r known to be rejectors of true arguments :) so u think am a bad speller coz i write coz instead of because? hehe i like i like.

why is it when i mention a big topic about shia contradiction u start picking on me? and when i start cursing is when u start replying back?

AliAmeen wallahi wallahi i spoke to u over 3 months ago and begged u to tell me who narjis mother of ur so called mahdi is ? all u people say is that she was a roman princess lol? tell me who she really is and her back ground and roots u bloody liars? Ameen why dont u ever answer me on this? n give me something to believe.
ur mahdi as far as am concerned has no mother? coz wallahi wallahi i have studied n researched all roman history on finding this woman and she doesnt exist? WAKE UP!!!! maybe she is a jinn? lol

My other question last night was

hasan did not fight oppressors so u believe he is in the right? yet hussain fought oppressors and he was also in the right? isnt there some sort of contradiction? 2 brothers 1 fought and 1 chilled? yet they r both right? how can i win an argument with shia in that case? u fuckers win either way lol both ur stories r opposites and both r winners .. i think am gona turn shia now hehe

WAKE UP?

Muslim!

You have no sufficient knowledge nor do you have any ahlaq (manner). You are just babbling. Listen to you, you spoke about the first few matters wrongly already - the first thing you opened your big mouth, which clearly means that you didn't even think of your words before you said it. You didn't find out the true information about what you're going to say, you talk out of your ass!

I pray to Allah that you will never become a Shia. It would be a nightmare! A'udhubillah!!

I posted the misyar marriage article because your buddy, amer, talked non-sense about mut'a practiced in Shia. I didn't post it because i wanted you or anyone to take Saudi as an example, you smarty pants!

Before you accuse someone else and make yourself look stupid, ASK first.

I don't understand how an empty-headed man like Muslim has the guts to join a discussion forum. I'm sure after he gets the answer to his stupid question, he won't accept the truth like he said he would. He will definitely come up with another stupid question and go on like this forever until he dies.

Muslim, you seriously need to study first before you speak up.

For the Shia's, please take heed:

Najhul Balagha, Sermon 126, Ali (r.a.) said:

"Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan
has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to
me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too
much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me
too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man
with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be
with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection)
is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one
isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from
the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. "

i feel this is the most important article from najul balagha, it
is a letter abou th battle of siffin (with muawiyah), and i thought this
would have or should clear up all confusion about the past because hazrat
ali (RA) says in this that was no disagreement between the religion of
religious principles of either groups, the battle was solely about the
matter of hadrat uthman (RA),

http://al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter58.htm#letter58

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other
while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (s) and on the
same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the
Holy Prophet (s) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to
believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing
in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on
these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of
the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the
murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."

To quote

'u fuckers win either way lol both ur stories r opposites and both r winners .. i think am gona turn shia now hehe'

Posted by: muslim at July 26, 2005 04:57 AM

According to your own quote, (your language not mine) your fiance is a 'fucker' and Amer has also congratulated you on your potential marraige to a 'fucker'. When you finally marry her, you may also tell her to her face on your wedding night that she is a 'fucker' and quite possibly, that her children will be 'fuckers' also.

If however she DOES convert to a Sunni you may instead convince her that she USED to be a 'fucker', but that she is now saved due to her marraige to someone who knows not the difference between Baaqer and Bakr.

In retrospect, you may wish to save yourself from future problems by reconsidering your future marraige prospects.

Salaam Asim Khan!

What are you trying to prove? The Surmon 126 was about the Kharijites not about his Shias.

Quote

SERMON 126

About the Kharijites
If you do not stop believing that I have gone wrong and been misled, why do you consider that the common men among the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.a.h.p.) have gone astray like me, and accuse them with my wrong, and hold them unbelievers on account of my sins. You are holding your swords on your shoulders and using them right and wrong. You are confusing those who have committed sins with those who have not. You know that the Prophet (PBUH) stoned the protected (married) adulterer, then he also said his burial prayer and allowed his successors to inherit from him. He killed the murderer and allowed his successors to inherit from him. He amputated (the hand of) the thief and whipped the unprotected (unmarried) adulterer, but thereafter allowed their shares from the booty, and they married Muslim women. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) took them to ask for their sins and also abided by Allah's commands about them, but did not disallow them their rights created by Islam, nor did he remove their names from its followers.

Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land. With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf.

Beware; whoever calls to this course, kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine. Certainly the two arbitrators were appointed to revive what the Qur'an revives and to destroy what the Qur'an destroys. Revival means to unite on it (in a matter) and destruction means to divide on a matter. If the Qur'an drives us to them we should follow them, and if it drives them to us they should follow up. May you have no father! (Woe to you), I did not cause you any misfortune, nor have I deceived you in any matter, nor created any confusion. Your own group had unanimously suggested in favour of these two men and we bound them that they would not exceed the Qur'an but they deviated from it and abandoned the right although both of them were conversant with it. This wrong-doing was the dictate of their hearts and so they trod upon it, although we had stipulated that in arbitrating with justice and sticking to rightfulness they would avoid the evil of their own views and the mischief of their own verdict (but since this has happened the award is not acceptable to us).

Also to complete the letter 58 you quoted;

The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (s) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it.

I advised them that this problem cannot be solved by excitement. Let the excitement subside, let us cool down; let us do away with sedition and revolt; let the country settle down into a peaceful atmosphere and when once a stable regime is formed and the right authority is accepted, then let this question be dealt with on the principles of equity and justice because only then the authority will have power enough to find the criminals and to bring them to justice. They refused to accept my advice and said that they wanted to decide the issue on the point of the sword.

When they thus rejected my proposal of peace and kept on sabre rattling threats, then naturally the battle, which was furious and bloody, started. When they saw defeat facing them across the battlefield, when many of them were killed, and many more wounded, then they went down on their knees and proposed the same thing, which I had proposed before the bloodshed had begun.

I accepted their proposal so that their desire might be fulfilled, my intentions of accepting the principles of truth and justice and acting according to these principles might become clear and they might have no cause to complain against me.

Now whoever adheres firmly to the promises made will be the one whose salvation will be saved by Allah and one who will try to go back upon the promises made, will fall deeper and deeper into heresy, error and loss. His eyes will be closed to realities and truth in this world and he will be punished in the next world.

Please try to keep things in prospective and stay in context when you quote. Thanks

tod shut up u twat!! the summon 126 was about people in general ..yet i trust a shia dog to come n twist the words to suite their needs :)

Aliameen my mrs will never be a fucker :) shes a shia who doesnt believe in mut3aa marriage. so the only fucker will be ur mama or ur sister coz am sure they have done it to keep up with ur neighbours!!
my shia mrs doesnt believe in anal sex as u fuckers do!!
my shia mrs does not belive that sunni's will go to hell as u fuckers do :) and on and on and on

Dee u piece of shit i dont know who u are n wer u come from, u can also kiss my ass... i have proved many times in the past how many names and children of the companions of the prohpet were close and married to ahl al bayt.
u are some new bitch here so shut up. wait ur turn when i come n ask u some questions. am sure i'll make u run few months away from this site as i made Aliameen and tod and haji do.
RUN U BITCHES RUN.. AM STILL WAITING FOR ANSWERS?
Keep commentating on my psychotic behaviour in here..maybe this is the only way u get to run away from answering the questions i ask u !!
WAKE UP!!

What is surprising is the opinion the shia of today express about aunni's in general. One would expect them to say about the Ahl as-Sunnah as they have said about the Sahabah: that they are unbelievers, out of the fold of Islam. After all, there are many non-Muslims who believe in the oneness of Allah, but do not believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, and for that reason we all regard them as unbelievers. If Imamah is then a "divine station, like Nubuwwah," Sunnis who do not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams must also be unbelievers. There have been many ‘ulama of the shia in the past who have displayed consistency in this regard and declared all those who deny the Imamah of the Twelve Imams—like the Ahl as-Sunnah—unbelievers.
For example, Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (died 381AH), the author of one of the four canonical hadith collections of the shia, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, states in the treatise in which he expounds the creed of the shia
It is our belief about one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al-Mu’minin (Sayyiduna ‘Ali) and the Imams after him that he is the same as one who rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiya’.

To cut a long story short........shia claim the 3 sunni imams r unbelievers and therefor me being a sunni a follower of the the 3 imams n rejector of the 12 shia imams is considered a non believer!

so i am no better than a christian or a jew or a kafir? i am on the same boat as a kafir... doesnt that mean shia have rights to kill me?

then again .... those who kill their brothers in islam ( a muslim being someone who believes in allah n mohammad) is no better than a kafir!!
WAKE UP!! too many contradictions guys make ur minds up i am a rejector of 12 shia imamat what am i ? ur so called scholars consider me as a non believer!!
kill me!! coz ur scholars seem to say so unless u want to deny them also? wait wait let me show u some proof !!

The prolific Abu Ja‘far at-Tusi, called Shaykh at-Ta’ifah, (died 460AH), who is the author of two of the four canonical hadith collections, has the following to say:
Rejection of Imamah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.5

The mujaddid of Shiitesm in the eighth century after the Hijrah, Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (died 726AH) expresses similar sentiments in the following terms:
Imamah is a universal grace (lutf ‘amm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace (lutf khass), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabi, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace.6

so much more ya allah ..... its so scary to see what shia scholars n shaikhs say about us sunnis back in history..
and u dare call me a kafir? and an ignorant person? hey dee aliameen and tod!! one thing for sure i know i hav eno right in killing u for being a shia......... so am not as ignorant as ur fucking scholars and urselves u dumb shits...
if u know ur shism so well then u have rights to kill me!! what a great religion u would lead.
WAKE UP!!

Mmuslim for your reading pleasure

START OF QUOTE

The Sunnis are divided into two main sects: Non-conformists (ghair muqallid), commonly known as Ahl-i Hadith, and conformists (muqallid), commonly known as Hanafis. The conformists are divided into two groups: Deobandi and Barelvi. Also among the conformists are the various Sufi orders. Now let us see how these sects are declaring each other as kafir.
Fatwas of conformists against non-conformists
“The non-conformist (ghair muqallid) sect, whose distinctive outward manner [of prayer] in this country is saying Amen aloud, raising the hands [during the prayer], folding the arms on the chest, and reciting the Al-Hamd behind the Imam, are excluded from the Sunnis, and are like other misguided sects, because many of their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. It is not permissible to pray behind them. To mix with them socially and sit with them, and to let them enter mosques at their pleasure, is prohibited in Islamic Shari‘ah.”
(This bears the seals of nearly seventy Ulama. Reference the book: Arguments with regard to the expulsion of Wahabis from mosques, p. 8.)

“He who calls conformism (taqlid) as prohibited, and conformists as polytheists, is a kafir according to Islamic Shari‘ah, and in fact a murtadd [apostate].”
(Book: Discipline of mosques with regard to the expulsion of mischief-makers from mosques)

“It is obligatory upon the Ulama and Muftis that, by merely hearing of such a thing, they should not hesitate to issue fatwas of heresy and apostasy. Otherwise, they themselves would be included among the apostates.” (ibid.)

Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, has quoted the beliefs of all sections of the non-conformists, and given the fatwa:
“All these groups are murtadd and kafir. He who doubts their being kafirs, is himself a kafir.”

(Book Hisam al Haramain)

Fatwas of non-conformists against conformists
“Question: What say the Ulama and the Muftis regarding the conformist (muqallid) group, who follow only one Imam [i.e. Hanafis]. Are they Sunnis or not? Is it valid to pray behind them or not? Is it permissible to allow them into mosques, and to mix with them socially?
“Answer: Undoubtedly, prayers are not permissible behind conformists because their beliefs and practices are opposed to those of the Sunnis. In fact, some of their beliefs and practices lead to polytheism, and others spoil prayers. It is not correct in Islamic Shari‘ah to allow such conformists into mosques.”

This bears the seals of nineteen priests. (Reference the book: Collection of Fatwas, pp. 54 – 55)

The late Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan wrote:
“The word polytheist can be applied to conformists, and polytheism can be applied to conformism. Most people today are conformists. The Quranic verse, ‘Most people believe not, they are but polytheists’, applies quite well to them.”

(Iqtarab as-Sa‘a, p. 16)

Not only Hanafis, but all of them:
“The followers of all the four Imams and the followers of the four Sufi orders, viz. Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Maliki, Hanbali, Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, Naqshbandiyya and Mujaddidiyya are all kafirs.”
(Jami al-Shuhood, p. 2)

Fatwa of three hundred Ulama against Deobandis
“The Deobandis, because of their contempt and insult, in their acts of worship, towards all saints, prophets, and even the Holy Prophet Muhammad and the very Person of God Himself, are definitely murtadd and kafir. Their apostasy and heresy is of the worst kind, so that anyone who doubts their apostasy and heresy even slightly is himself a murtadd and kafir. Muslims should be very cautious of them, and stay away from them. Let alone praying behind them, one should not let them pray behind one, or allow them into mosques, or eat the animal slaughtered by them, or join them on happy or sad occasions, or let them come near one, or visit them in illness, or attend their funerals, or give them space in Muslim grave-yards. To sum up, one must stay away from them completely.”
(See the Unanimous Fatwa of Three Hundred Ulama, published by Muhammad Ibrahim of Bhagalpur)

Deobandis should be declared non-Muslim minority
In March 1953, a poster was put up on walls in Karachi headed: “Demands: Deoband sect should be declared a separate minority”. Among other things it said:
“Just as Sikhs originated from Hinduism, but are not Hindus, and Protestants came from Roman Catholicism, but are not Catholics, similarly, the Deobandi sect originated in the Sunni community, but are not Sunnis. The representatives of this minority sect are Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Sayyid Sulaiman Nadawi, Ihtasham-ul-Haqq, and Abul Ala Maudoodi, etc.”
After this it was demanded that this sect be declared a non-Muslim minority. It was signed by 28 persons (see Tulu‘-i-Islam, May 1953, p. 64).
Fatwa of Deobandis against Barelvis
Maulavi Sayyid Muhammad Murtaza of Deoband has, in his book, tried to show that Ahmad Raza Khan, the Barelvi leader, was a kafir, a great kafir, Anti- Christ of this century, murtadd, and excluded from Islam. (See the booklet Radd at-Takfir ala-l-fahash at-Tanzir.)
The opposite side
Ahmad Raza Khan (Barelvi) has noted the beliefs of Muhammad Qasim Nanotavi (founder of the school at Deoband) and Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (of Deoband), and then added:
“They are all murtadd [apostate] according to the unanimous view (ijma) of Muslims.”
This fatwa bears the signatures and seals of Ulama of Makka and Madina, and other Muftis and Islamic judges. Three reasons have been given for calling them kafir:
They deny the finality of prophethood;
They insult the Holy Prophet;
They believe that God can tell a lie.
Hence it is written about them:
“He who doubts that they are kafirs, is himself a kafir.”
(Hisam al-Haramain, pp. 100 and 113)

You will have seen that all the sects, whether Hanafis, Ahl-i Hadith, Deobandi, or Barelvi, and all the Sufi orders such as Chishtiyya, Qadiriyya, etc., have had fatwas of heresy and apostasy pronounced against them. And not only sects, but the prominent men of these sects have had fatwas directed against them individually.
Fatwas against individual leaders
Maulana Nazir Husain of Delhi (Ahl-i Hadith) was called disputant, doubter, follower of base passions, jealous, dishonest and alterer (of the Quran).
Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalavi, along with the above Maulana, was called devil, atheist, stupid, senseless, faithless, etc. This fatwa bears the seals of 82 Ulama of Arabia and elsewhere. (Book Nazar al-Haq)

Maulana Sana-Ullah of Amritsar (Ahl-i Hadith) had fatwas directed against him which were obtained in Makka. It is written about his commentary of the Quran:

“It is the writing of a misguided person, one who has invented new doctrines. In his commentary he has collected beliefs such as re-incarnation and the doctrines of the Mu‘tazila [an early extreme Muslim sect]. It is neither permissible to obtain knowledge from Maulana Sana-ullah, nor to follow him. His evidence cannot be accepted, nor can he lead prayers. There is no doubt regarding his heresy and apostasy. ... His commentary deserves to be cut to pieces. In fact, it is forbidden to see it except for the purpose of refuting it.”
(Faisila Makka, pp. 15 – 20)

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi):
Referring to an article of his, the weekly Tarjuman Islam of Lahore carried the following extract in its issue for 10 November 1961:

“Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, Deobandi, was a first-rate scholar and servant of Quran and Hadith. He needs no introduction. But one was very shocked by a letter of his which contained the grotesque idea of the denial of Hadith. This concept goes beyond the Mu‘tazila, and breaks the records of the ideologies of Chakralvi and Pervez.”
All those whose record is said to be broken by Husain Ahmad Madani, have had fatwas of kufr directed against them. This makes it clear that Maulana Madani too is considered a kafir.

Maulana Maudoodi:

Abul Ala Maudoodi and his party have been the subject of fatwas by Ulama of nearly every sect.

Mufti Muhzar-ullah, of Jami Fatehpuri in Delhi, wrote in his fatwa:
“On the very face of it, these things [beliefs of Maudoodi’s party] exclude a Muslim from the Sunnis, and lead to divisions among the believers, and is the basis of making a new sect. But looking closely, these things take one to heresy. In this case, they do not make a new sect, but result in one’s entry into the group of apostates.”

Maulana Hafiz-ullah of Aligarh has written:
“Whatever was the position of the Zarar mosque, similar is the position of this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party.”

[Note: The Zarar mosque was a mosque built by some hypocrite Muslims in Madina during the Holy Prophet’s time for the purpose of conspiring against Islam].

The word kufr is used about the Zarar mosque in the Holy Quran. Hence the same word applies to these people.

Maulana Izaz Ali, Deobandi, wrote in his fatwa:
“I consider this [i.e. Maudoodi’s] party to be even more harmful for the faith of the Muslims than are the Ahmadis.”

Mufti Sayyid Mahdi Hasan, President-Mufti of the theological school at Deoband, writes in his fatwa:
“If an Imam of a mosque agrees with the views of Maudoodi, it is a hateful matter to pray behind him.”

Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani (Deobandi) wrote in a letter to Maudoodi:
“Your ‘Islamic’ movement is against the righteous tradition in Islam. It is like the [extremist] sects of old such as Mu‘tazila, Khwarij and Rafiz. It resembles modern sects such as Qadiani, Chakralvi [deniers of Hadith], Naturi [rationalist], and Baha’i [i.e. the Baha’i religion]. It seeks to make a new Islam. It is based on principles, beliefs and practices which are against the Sunnis and Islam.”

The Committee of Ulama of Maulana Ahmad Ali wrote in a poster against Maudoodi:
“His reasoning is devilry against the Quran.”

It is then added:

“May God save all Muslims from Maudoodi and the evil and deceit of his so-called Islamic Party.”

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan [prominent Muslim modernist leader and founder of the Aligarh University for Muslims, d. 1898]:
In his biography Hayat-i Jawaid by Maulana Hali, the storm of condemnation and takfir against Sir Sayyid is fully detailed. Read some of these lines:

“Sir Sayyid was called atheist, irreligious, Christian, nature-worshipper, anti-Christ, and many other things. Fatwas that he was a kafir were prepared, and signatures of Maulavis of every town and city were obtained. Even those who remained silent against Sir Sayyid as regards takfir, were called kafir.” (p. 623)

“All the Muslim sects in India, be they Sunni or Shiah, conformist or non-conformist, the seals and signatures of the known and unknown Ulama and priests of all these are on these fatwas.” (p. 627)

A fatwa was obtained from Makka, bearing the seals of Muftis of all the four schools, in which it was written:
“This man is an heretic, or he was inclined to unbelief (kufr) from Islamic law in some aspect. ... If he repents before he is arrested, and turns away from his misguided views, and there are clear signs of repentance from him, then he should not be killed. Otherwise, it is obligatory to kill him for the sake of the faith.” (p. 633)
Jinnah and Iqbal [revered in Pakistan as fathers of the nation]:
Sir Sayyid had at least expressed views on religious matters. But these people also called Jinnah as “the great kafir”. Even a true believer like Iqbal had a fatwa of kufr directed against him.

Fatwas of kufr against early savants
The pastime of declaring people as kafir is not a product of the present age. Unfortunately, this disease is very old, and there can hardly be anyone from among the great figures of Muslim religious history who escaped being a subject of such fatwas. Let us look at the great leaders of religion after the age of the Holy Prophet’s Companions.

Abu Hanifa: He was disgraced, called ignorant, inventor of new beliefs, hypocrite and kafir. He was imprisoned and poisoned. He died in 150 A.H. [circa 768 C.E.].

Imam Shafi‘i: He was called devil and imprisoned. Prayers were said for his death. He was taken in captivity from Yemen to Baghdad, in a condition of humiliation and degradation. He died in 204 A.H. [circa 820 C.E.].

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: He was kept in prison for 28 months, with a heavy chain around his feet. He was publicly humiliated, slapped and spat upon. Every evening he used to be flogged. All this was because of the controversy regarding whether the Quran was ‘uncreated’ or ‘created’.

Imam Malik: A resident of Madina, he too was imprisoned and flogged.

Bukhari [Collector of Hadith]: He was exiled and died in 256 A.H. [circa 871 C.E.].

Nasa’i [Collector of Hadith]: He was disgraced and beaten in a mosque so much that he died.

Abdul Qadir Jilani [Saint of Baghdad, d. 1166 C.E.] was called kafir by the jurists.

Muhiyud-Din Ibn Arabi [great philosopher and saint, d. 1240 C.E.]: The Ulama issued a fatwa against him saying: “His unbelief is greater than that of Jews and Christians”. All his followers were declared kafir, so much so that those who doubted his unbelief were called kafir.

Rumi, Jami and Attar [now world famous Muslim saints and writers of Persia] were called kafir, and anyone not calling them kafir was also called kafir.

Imam Ghazali [philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1111 C.E.] was called kafir, and burning his books and cursing him was declared a good deed.

Ibn Taimiyya [Muslim philosopher and mujaddid, d. 1327 C.E.]: The King of Egypt asked for a fatwa to put him to death.

Hafiz ibn Qayyim: imprisoned and exiled.

Shaikh Ahmad of Sirhind [d. 1624 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called kafir.

Shah Wali-ullah [d. 1763 C.E., mujaddid in India]: called inventor of new beliefs and misguided.

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi [d. 1831 C.E., mujaddid and military leader in India]: called kafir.

Shah Ismail Shaheed [deputy of above mujaddid]: Fatwas of heresy against him obtained from Makka.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF QUOTATION

salam PERVEZ.
bro sunni's have 5 madhabs we all agree.. if u read my articles on last page of this site i have shown also how shia have segregated to at least 21 different groups from 12 imamat to durzi and alawi etc...
so yes i know sunnah r divided and yes i know shia r divided.. but i dont believe anyone who says they r kuffar unless there is "shirk". i can explain how alawiyya (FROM SHIA) worship ali literally.. but again i no need to go further coz i already explained this.
Dear PERVEZ..... allah and my prohpet mohammad (SAW) said if someone says la ilaha illa allah, and mohammad rasool allah.. then he is ur brother in islam.
Therefor i am not a kafir to u nor my other sunni sects. if someone else decides to disagree on this matter then he is a jahil and a liar. and we know hell is inshallah where he shall enter.

The prophet warned us that muslims will be divided into 73 sects and only one shall enter heaven..but he didnt say the rest r kuffar!!
yes they might be punished n yes they might be missguided but still allah judges each person individually.
There r saying by the prohet about the ends of time..."some of ur muslim brothers will only know the word ALLAH, and by saying this word allah will grant them the gates of heaven".
Dear PERVEZ we r living in hardship times and lot of hypocricy so shia or sunni we as young adults have so much to learn about the turth n maybe we become too old to actually find out the truth .
ALlah only knows best
Do ur best n stop hating n calling others kafir coz allah has a bigger mercy than my shia brothers who resent me :) so am not bothered myself.

ma3 al salama

SALLAM

BROTHERS IN ISLAM,IF TWELEVE IMMAMS WHERE REALLY SINLESS AND SO PERFECT IN THE DEEN ALL TWELVE IMMAMS HAVE FAILED,LOOK HOW SMALL YOU MINIORITY DONT YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF THEY WERE SINLESS MEANING PERFECT IN THEIR DUTY AND PRACTISE AND INSPARTION THAT MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BECOME BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED??? 12 IMMAMS AND ONLY 10 PERCENT FOLLOWED WHY ONLY 10 PERCENT????
THE LAST MEHDI HAS ALOT OF WEIREDS THINGD AROUND HIM LIKE NO ONE EVER SEEN HIM OR IF HE REALLY EXISTS PLSE INFORM ME MORE INSHALLAH

PLSE NO SWEARING OR ABUSING WE HAVE OTHER NON MUSLIMS THAT ARE READING OUR POST PLSE HAVE SUNNAH ALROOSL.

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

aaaaahhhhh sunnis calling sunnis kafir....LOL

Amer it's not the Imam who failed...it's you who failed to understand them and chose the path of disbelievers.... You ignored not only Imams but ignored Allah's and Prophet's (pbuh) command as well.

The Ahlal Bait are the Godly ones of the Family of the Holy Prophet whom the Muslim World as a whole unanimously acknowledges as the Pure Personalities and hold them as INFALLIBLE Holy ones PURIFIED By God Himself.

* The Almighty Allah has bestowed His trust on Ale Muhammad (The descendants of Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Them), who are the Strongholds of His Commandments. From where they are expounded and interpreted. They are The Fountain Heads of Knowledge Created by Him, Shelters for His Teachings, Forts for Heavenly Books, And lofty Citadels to defend His Religion. Islam needed help and support, By them Allah made Islam strong and powerful.*

"And We assigned from among them some Imams(Leaders) who guide by Our Authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs. (Qur'an 32:24)

And, He it is who made the stars for you that ye maybe rightly guided by observing them in the darkness of the land and the sea; Indeed we have made plain the Signs for the people who can know. (Qur'an 6:97).

The Holy Prophet said:

" As the stars in the sky are the Source of guidance to the travellers, The Holy Ones of my Ahlal Bait ( The Twelve Imams) are The Source of Guidance for the people. And, as the stars will remain in the sky until The Day of Judgment, The earth will never be without a Divinely Guide from My Ahlal Bait, That is an Imam".

And say those who disbelieve: "why hath not a sign been sent down unto him(Muhammad); Verily thou art a warner and for every people there is a guide (13:7)

Firmly Ground in Knowledge:

"He (God) is He Who Has revealed The Book (Quran) to you. Some of its verses are decisive; they are the Essence of The Book and the others are ambiguous; so as for those in whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is ambiguous, seeking to mislead (people) and seeking to give it ( their own) interpretation. But NONE knows its interpretation , Save God and those who are firmly established in Knowledge".(Qur'an 3:7).

"Nay These are The Verses of The Qur'an in the Breast of those who are gifted with Knowledge. (Qur'an: 29:49).

The Blessed Ones:

Guide us in the straight path: The path of those whom Thou hast blessed. (1:6&7).

They are those whom Allah has blessed among the Prophets and the truthfuls, and the martyrs and the righteous. (4:69)

These are The Ones on The Guidance from their Lord and these are The Ones shall be The successful ones. (Qur'an: 2:5).

The Purified Ones:

Verily It is Qur'an honourable,In a Book hidden, Toucheth It not save
the purified ones
. Sent down by The Lord of the Worlds. (56:77 to 80).

The Highest degree of purity means to be kept constantly away from all the causes of impurity. This is termed as the State of Infallibility in Knowledge, character and action. It could have been applied generally to the whole mankind who are keeping aloof from all the impurities as The Word of God Commands; But, God expressively Has confined His Order to certain Group of Individuals by excluding the rest of the mankind from it in His Divine Will by declaring the 'Ahlal Bait' as the persons purified by Him to be constantly in touch with the Qur'an in its original, hidden, well protected, exalted and purified form. It was Allah's Wish to remove all Blemish from them:

Verily, verily God intendeth to keep off from you (every kind of filth), "O' ye The People of The House (Ahlul Bait), and purify you with a thorough purification. (Qur'an: 33:33).

Commandment to love Ahlal Bait

In this Last Word of God (Qur'an), The Holy Prophet is being Commanded to ask the believers to love his kith and kin (that is his Ahlal Bait) and that would be the return of his apostleship.

That is of which God Give the glad tidings unto His servants who believe and do good deeds; Say thou ('O' Apostle Muhammad!) " I demand not of you any recompense for it (the toils of apostleship) save THE LOVE OF (MY) RELATIVES...(42:23).

Ordinance of God :

And after returning from City of Mecca after his last or the parting Pilgrimage (Hajjatul Vida) at a place called Ghadeer e Khum this verse was revealed to The Holy Prophet Muhammad, which occupies a very important and a leading position in The Holy Qur'an and forms a very vital part of The Word of God:

"O Apostle! deliver what has been Revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His Message, and Allah will protect you from the people, surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people" (5:67)

Acknowledgement of Ali as the Successor:

History reports how the Holy Prophet stopped the caravan, delivered a long sermon, before a mammoth assemble of thousands of the pilgrims and he was standing there to convey the Message to the Muslims and to perform the duty he was ordered to perform. Continuing the sermon, he said

"O people! Shortly I shall be called (to the Heaven),I am leaving amidst you, two most precious things, worthy of obedience, THE BOOK of ALLAH (THE HOLY QUR'AN), and 'MY AHLAL BAIT' (The members of his family, Ali and Fatima and their Godly issues), Should ye be attached to these Two, Never shall ye get astray after me, for Verily these TWO will not separate from each other until they meet me at the Fountain of Kausar (Paradise)."And then he called Ali Ibne Abi Taleb and raising him with the miraculous strength of his apostolic arms declared:

'Man kunto Maulaho fa haaza Ali-yun Maulahu' that is:

Whomsoever I am The Maula,(Lord, Master), This ALI is his Maula.

And declared him as The Ameer ul Momeyneen(Commander of the faithful).

Then the Prophet said "Go now, and let those who have been present here today repeat and convey to those who are absent all that they have seen and heard."

Approval of The Religion:

And immediately after this historic event, the Divine inspiration again descended revealing:

"This day I perfected for you, your religion, and have completed my favor on you and chosen for you ISLAM (to be ) the Religion", ….(5:3).

Commandment To Believe:

Mankind! Verily The Apostle Mohammed hath come unto you with TRUTH from your Lord. Believe then unto him, it is good for you and if you disbelieve then God is whatever is in the Heavens and the Earth and God is All Knowing, All Wise. (4:170).

And We made them Imams (Leaders) by OUR Command and We revealed to them the doing of Good and the keeping up of Prayers and giving of the alms. (And Us)(Alone) did they serve (21:73)

God is He who sent down The Book with Truth and The Balance. What shall make you know , haply the hour (of Reckoning) be nigh (42:17)

"The Two inseparable Associates each one of whom stands as a witness to the truth of the other."

**Since the Ahlal Bait carry as much weight in the eyes of Allah as The Holy Quran,the former has the same qualities as the latter. Just as the Qur'an is true from beginning to end without the shadow of untruth in it, and just as it is incumbent(duty) of every Muslim to obey its commands, so also must the

Ahlal Bait be perfectly true and sincere guides whose commands must be followed by all. Therefore there can be no escape of accepting their leadership and following their creed and faith. The Muslims are bound by the sayings of prophet to follow them and no one else.**

Those who have faith in god and do righteous deeds they are the best of creatures (khairul barriya). (98:7)

These are none but our Infallible Imams.

***
Peace And The Mercy Of God Be Upon Muhammad And His Descendants.
Lord Who distinguished Muhammad and His descendants with Excellence;
Entrusted them with Thy mission;
And favored them with Thy privilege (of intercession);
Who made them The Heirs to The Prophets;
Who sealed upon them the succession and Guardianship of the Religion;
Who taught them The knowledge of all what was and all that remains;
Who made the hearts for mankind yearn for them.
Lord, Bless Muhammad and his descendants, The Pure Ones, and Do unto us what Thou art Worthy of doing in this world, and the hereafter. Verily Thou Has Power over all things.

786/92/110

THE SUCCESSOR

‘Ali is the Master of all those of whom I am Master’.

Hadith of Holy Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h.- Sahih Al-Muslim

Did you know?

The first Imam Ali a.s. was in fact the immediate successor to the Last Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h. .

The basis of Islam, or of being a Muslim in itself does not rest upon belief, in the acceptance in the leadership of the so-called ‘Khalifah e Rashidun – The Rightly Guided Caliphs’.

From the Shi’a point of view evidence for this lies in the most authoritative Sunni collection of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari. Within the chapter on The Battle of the Camel, circumstances are clearly explained as to how Imam Ali a.s. did not accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr for a period of six months.

Although Shi’as themselves believe that the Imam Ali alayhissalaam did not accept his Caliphate at all, it is enough for the Sunni’s to consider as to why on Earth he did not accept Abu Bakr’s Caliphate in the first instance.

This is especially in view of the fact that the Imam Ali a.s. is considered by all Muslims to be the first male of that time to attest his belief in the Shahadah. In other words he was the first Muslim amongst men, after the Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h.

So what would be the significance of him being the last amongst men to accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr? Is there some kind of secret sign or hidden agenda in this?

The Sunnis will say “Well, he accepted it in the end didn’t he”? The Shi’as will think, that even if Imam Ali a.s. took the space of a day in deciding the matter, it would be enough to prove, that the basis of being a Muslim does not rest in the belief of Abu Bakr’s succession.

Having established this fact, the debate as to who in fact was the true successor to The Last Prophet becomes permissible to all Muslims.
One may decide, through their own research that the First Imam Ali a.s. was indeed the immediate, physical, spiritual and political successor to the Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h.

An authentic Sunni tradition from Sahih Tirmidhi states:

‘Ali is from me and I am from Ali and nobody can discharge my duty except me or Ali’.
The Holy Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h.

If the Shi’a and the Sunni schools of thought are to unite then it must be on the strength of this foundation.

There should be no mix-up or uncertainty as to who truly succeeded the Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h. in controlling the state and spiritual affairs of the Muslims. Confusion, is not what Ali alayhissalaam intended for the ummah, by refusing to accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.

Instead, a clarified and open road lies in the guidance of The First Imam as he leads the battles at Khaybar and Khandaq. The differences of the Muslims are solved through his unswerving strength and determination at the battles of Jamal against Aisha, and Siffeen against Mu'awiah.

As the Sahabis fought the Sahabis, killing each other in the bloodshed of civil war, it was only Imam Ali a.s. who had the ability in deciphering to the masses, truth, from falsehood and hypocrisy.

May the Muslims remain united under the same sword that defeated the Jews at Khaybar. Let us fight together, under the same banner that is the ‘Party of God’.

‘Laa Fataa illaa Ali, Laa Sayfa illaa Zulfiqaar’.

‘There is no Youth like Ali. There is no sword like Zulfiqaar’.

Hadith of Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h.- Authentic Sunni Tradition

To quote

'so the only fucker will be ur mama or ur sister coz am sure they have done it to keep up with ur neighbours!!'

Posted by: muslim at July 26, 2005 03:25 PM

You have taken as your own mother Ayesha whom after the death of the Prophet freely wondered and roamed the bazaars looking for young boys to fuck, according to your own traditions, and was famed for it especially after the time of the battle of the camel when Allah decided for her rope to get even longer than it already had been.

So. Allow me to politely say that the 'fucker' is your mother and your fiance and yourself who is the biggest fucker of them all.

To quote

'yet i trust a shia dog to come n twist the words to suite their needs :)'

Posted by: muslim at July 26, 2005 03:25 PM

In accordance with your own prejudiced views of The Shi'ah it may be assumed that YOU are to be married to a shiah dog, the shi'ah dog will have children, your sons and daughters may claim immediate ancestry from a dog, sorry a bitch whom they can proudly say you are married to.

To quote

'Dee u piece of shit i dont know who u are n wer u come from, u can also kiss my ass...'

Posted by: muslim at July 26, 2005 03:25 PM

I think you mean 'kiss my ARSE' unless your spelling IS correct in which case we must suppose that you are in ownership of a donkey.

If we are to suppose that you desire tod to kiss your arse however, then it can only be assumed that you are as perverted as the Hadiths claim Umar to be, ie he gave it in the backside, of young boys , and we shall pray instead for your recovery from his satanic influence.

If you desire however, to see tod kiss your donkey, then furthermore we may assume that your spiritual influences go back to your beloved Caliph Yazid, son of your beloved Mu'awiah, who was famed for interactive sex with animals.

Request

You are unlikely to overpow Tod with your influence for sexual perversion so could you please refrain from asking him to carry out these unislamic activities.

We pray for your guidance

To quote

'BROTHERS IN ISLAM,IF TWELEVE IMMAMS WHERE REALLY SINLESS AND SO PERFECT IN THE DEEN ALL TWELVE IMMAMS HAVE FAILED'

Posted by: Amerislam at July 27, 2005 06:32 PM

Ayesha FAILED when she decided to fight Imam Ali.
The Muslim Majority FAILED when they decided not to follow Imam Hussain.The Sunni Imam shaafi FAILED when he stopped following Imam Ja'afar us Saadiq.The Infallible Imams did not FAIL they were FAILED by the masses who chose leaders like Uthman,Mu'awiah and Yazid above them.

It was only a few months ago when the supreme liar Seyyedina/Realest (who has since run like an Abu Hurayrian chicken from our midst) (but perhaps has come back in the wallaby guise of 'muslim', judging by the flowery language) had managed to convince you that The Prophet's were SINLESS.The fact that you find it hard to believe the same for his purified family is hardly a surprise.

'LOOK HOW SMALL YOU MINIORITY DONT YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF THEY WERE SINLESS MEANING PERFECT IN THEIR DUTY AND PRACTISE AND INSPARTION THAT MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BECOME BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED???'

Posted by: Amerislam at July 27, 2005 06:32 PM

Billions of people ARE following Islam BECAUSE of the sacrifice of Shi'ah Imams such as Imam Hussain and BECAUSE of the safeguarded knowledge of the sixth SHI'AH Imam Ja'afer us Saadiq.

Was there any need for your Sunni Imams to set up there own schools of thought, AGAINST the teachings of Imam Saadiq?

You must admit that they could not have been the best of his pupils.

'12 IMMAMS AND ONLY 10 PERCENT FOLLOWED WHY ONLY 10 PERCENT????'

Posted by: Amerislam at July 27, 2005 06:32 PM

You still haven't answered MY question. There were less than 10 percent Muslims in Imam Hussains army. According to your own logic Yazid's army was in the right because the majority of muslims were on his side.

WHY LESS THAN 10PERCENT ON IMAM HUSSAIN'S SIDE SIDE AND MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS ON SIDE OF YAZID???

'THE LAST MEHDI HAS ALOT OF WEIREDS THINGD AROUND HIM LIKE NO ONE EVER SEEN HIM OR IF HE REALLY EXISTS PLSE INFORM ME MORE INSHALLAH'

Posted by: Amerislam at July 27, 2005 06:32 PM

There are MANY reports of him having been seen but quite frankly Sunni's have never been interested, as you will know from 'muslim', who has decided to create from his own ill informed researches, a list of his own version of 12 Imams and is stuck on Imam Hussain for the present, not knowing which direction to turn to next.

'PLSE NO SWEARING OR ABUSING WE HAVE OTHER NON MUSLIMS THAT ARE READING OUR POST PLSE HAVE SUNNAH ALROOSL.'

Posted by: Amerislam at July 27, 2005 06:32 PM

Ask muslim to first of all to shut his dirty trap. Mutah was prohibited by Umar FACT. We don't follow him or his policies and that decision belongs to us.It is not an excuse for you to to start insulting our mothers and sisters, many of whom belong to SEYYED families and are descendents of Fatema tu Zahra.This is an offence.If he continues we will not let up in relation to the absurdities we find in our own books in relation to your 'great' female battle leaders.

Wassalaam

Salam.

I seriously think that Muslim is not a follower of the prophet Muhammad saaw. He's barbaric! A follower of Prophet would never say horrible words like he did. He's definitely anything but Islam.

He became very angry that satan (devil) managed to get into his blood, because he has been defeated many times and proved wrong. The devil inside of him couldn't take it anymore so it managed to drive him to react in devil's way.

I think Muslim is just a very small person with a little tiny brain.

Amer, you have done a wise thing indeed by trying to stop Muslim from using the most terrible words, but i don't think he will listen to your constructive advice because he's been influenced by the devil.

He already ran out of ideas so he started attacking others with his uneducated words. What a pathetic human being indeed!

Ma'asalam

Salam Ali Ameem and Tod.

Your postings/words never failed to give me lights of guidance. You've only presented facts from history. May Allah protect you both and all the Muslims who strive in His rope, from devil's victims like 'Muslim'.

Amer, i know that you won't accept whatever Ali Ameem and Tod present you with. Whatever you decide to believe in, it is your full right and you will still be our brother in Islam. And i pray to Allah that you will never become like Muslim (oh my... it chils me everytime i mention his name, i really don't think the name fits him).

Ma'asalam

sallam to all on this post

Q.what is sunnah al rousool
A.WHAT the prophet did in his daily activities and practised and worshipped when he was alive.
whom the prophet pbuh prohibted the bad and practised the hallal.
prevented people from speaking evil words and replacing them with the words of ALLAH(quran)
teaching his students what islam was and what the quran mentioned and WHO was mentioned in it.
Islam came to man kind Not to the prophet Mohammad pbuh.
Quran came to mohammad pbuh so he was made a prophet above any man after him,no man would share any qualaties(in status) that prophet mohammad pbuh would be given from ALLAH.
The prophet mohammad recived revalation from ALLAH through gabriel pbuh subahhana Allah.
Moahmmad pbuh seen Hell and heaven,seen Gabriel and isfaril and malik pbuh,spoke to ALLAH and was given the salat and only the salat that ALLAH had given mohammad directly to mohammad pbuh.we know the story.
The Quran states the "we have created oh mohammad with an exhalted character".
Many many miracules mohammad pbuh witnessed from ALLAH.
many victories mohammad had won bi izn ALLAH.

SO with all this great mercy to mohammad pbuh from ALLAH swt,do you really think that ALLAH the creator of mankind,the merciful the comapssionate,the king of the worlds and knower of all affairs,the knower of the unseen,
THE ALL WISE,would it befit islam that if peopele were going to disown and curse and slandder the companions,the students of MOAHMMAD pbuh,would it befit ALLAH to place mohammad with people NoN bELIVERS WOULD one day say how can you say that your prophet was the best of creations with the exalted character and was sent to man kind only as a mercy(quran quotes) and the people that where with him (companions)other people from you religon say that they werent even followers,and that they were liers and evil and even his wives were disobendent to him and evil,So what kind of person was your so called sinless best of creations prophet mohammad,he must of been a stupid weak dumb person or he was just like his people that the other people speak ill,IF he was a real prophet with all the miracules,revalations and seeing the unseen would not walk with would not fight with,would not travel with,would not pray with,would not give sallam to,would not marry his beloved daughters to and so on.
This is what a non beliving muslim would use against our beloved prophet mohammad pbuh.
ALLAH BLESSED HIM WITH HIS MERCY.
REMEMBER SUNNAH IS WHEN MOHAMMAD WAS ALIVE,WHAT HIS DAILY ACTIVITES WHERE,PICTURE IT IN YOUR HEADS AND MAKE A MOVIE WOULD MOHAMMAD REALLY LOVE AND FIGHT FOR AND CRY FOR THESE ILL,EVIL WRONGER DOERS AND NON BEILIVING MEN IF YES WELL YOUR PROPHET WAS NO BETTER THAN THEM,MY PROPHET WAS BETTER THAN THEM AND THEY WERE TRYING TO BE LIKE HIM A BELIVER,A SOLDIER OF ALLAH FOLLOWING SUNNAH ALROOSUL.
KELL BIDA DOLLALAH KELL DOLLALATING FILL NAAR.

MAY ALLAH THE KNOWER THE WISE GUIDE US AND BESTOW HIS MERCY TO US AND REMOVE THE EVIL FROM OUR HEARTS INSHALLAH

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
amerislam

Salaam

Picture in your mind, the next time you pray your Salaat and you come to the part where you ask Allah to bless Mohammed and his family, as you blessed Ibraheem and his family, Mohammed's family, Hassan, Hussain, Fatima, Mohammed AND Ali.

Know that in your own prayers is the proof that AFTER Mohammed, next to him, most important to him, on the spiritual level and on the political level also, within your own worship, exists none other than his FAMILY.

Anything, anyone that goes against that, goes against the very spirit of their own worship and defies the desire for The Prophet of Allah's Family to be loved.

The pure JUSTICE, KINDNESS and MERCY of Mohammed, to the same companions who later went onto raise the sword against his own family, cannot be interpreted as 'dumbness and stupidity' astaghfirullah.

His actions merely reflected the kindness and mercy of Allah to one and all, as even Allah had given respite to Shaitan by not throwing him into the hellfire straight away.

Justice, compassion and mercy to those my friend, who were themselves unjust, uncompassionate and unmerciful.

There is not a single person alive on this earth who can Justify that Imam Ali was guilty, to be punished by war and bloodshed against his own people.

Instead kindess, mercy and respect was shown to the very Hypocrites of Islam - by the exemplary character of Imam Hussain's father; and in doing so he clearly showed the diffrerence between Truth and Falsehood.

Mohammed's Family represents Truth.

All that go against them represent

Hypocrisy and Falsehood.

Wassalaam

good evening boys........

Dee am not evil i would like to think i am one of those muslim men who fight for the truth and word of allah n his messenger..so when i see wrong i go crazy and fight against liars. ANYWAYS,
time to show more truth and cut down on anger with the unknowledgable creatures such as urselves.

Plz read my articles from now on as i will not be arguing and swearing... i need to show others some sense in all this and facts....YES FACTS.

Imaamology of shia
1.) They believe in 12 Imaams after Rasulullaah .
2.) First being Ali (R.A).
3.) Last being the 12th Imaam (mahdi)
4.) Who is in a Cave 'Surra - Man- Raa'.
5.) Imaams they believe are Masoom- innocent.
6.) They can make Halaal- Haraam and Haraam - Halaal .
7.) They can change Deen- Sharia.
8.) They are born of their mothers thighs.
9.) They have the knowledge of the Unseen.
10.) They say Imaams are higher in status than the Ambiyaa including our Nabi .
11.) No concession regarding Wilaayah- (absolute necessary belief).
12.) If one does not accept Imaams then one is a Kaafir.

References:
(1.) Usul -e - Kafi. (2.) Usul -e - Kafi. (3.) Usul -e - Kafi. (4.) Usul -e - Kafi. (5.) Usul -e - Kafi Vol 1 P225 / Kafi - Kitaabul Hujjuah. (6.) Usul -e - Kafi Vol 1 P225. (7.) Ibid. (8.) Ibid /Haqqul Yaqeen P126.(9.) Usul -e - Kafi Vol 1 P225. (10.) Ibid / Al Hukumatul - Islaamiyaa - 52 Khomeni. Hayaatul Qutoob Vol 3, P10 /Ibid Vol 2. P787. Footnote. (11.) Usul -e- Kafi Vol 2. P278. (12.) Usul -e- Kafi Vol 1. P225.

Before i show more facts let me explain a few things here plz.

ATHEN (Azaan) is "Ash Hadu Anna - ali Waliullah Wasu Rasulullah was Khalifatu hu bila faslrin"

shia claim they r the real sunnah of the prophet yet they have no proof that the prophet asked for athan (azan) to be called out whilst mentioning Ali's name? WAKE UP! this in itself shows how shia change sunnah and islamic methods of the prophet.

stating that shia have knowldge of the unseen is an example to how they created Al askari story of him dreaming of a roman princess by the name of Narjis who he shall capture then marry then have AL mahdi lol.. They also claimed that Narjis had a similar dream and jesus , mary, mohammad and all 11 imams wer in her dream and told her to go with the roman troops n be captured by al askari army lol wallah this is funny stuff.
so not even imams have knowldge of the unseen from allah but roman princesses have same principle here? WAKE UP! nahh not yet shia brothers?
People please....... allah said in quran Mohammad(SAW) is the sealant of all prophet and the end of Wahi (wahi = no more angel no more jibreel no more heavenly messages from allah) why do u disagree??????? DO U KNOW WHY SHIA DISAGREE? let me explain some more :
what shia say about Allah
1.) He has the Quality of 'Badaa'.
2.) This means he forgets.
3.) He makes mistakes.
4.) He plans but this does not take effect.
5.) He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam.
6.) "We (shias) do not worship such a god who gives authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu'awiyyah and Uthmaan."
7.) They say "Ali says.....I am the first and I am the last. I am the manifest and I am the hidden and I am the heir of earth."
8.) Shias say that the Imaams are the face of Allaah,
9.) The eyes of Allaah among his creation.
10.) The tongue of Allaah among his creation.
References :
(1.) Usul Kafi- Babul bad'aa - Al- Kafi Vol- 1 -P283 India Ed. ( 2.) Ibid (3.) Ibid .(4.) Ibid. (5.) Ibid. (6.) Kashful Asraar - 107 - Khomeni.. (7.) Rijaal Kashsi . 138. India Print. (8.) Usul- e-Kaafi -83. (9.) Ibid. 10.) Ibid.

If any shia boy or girl in here says am lying then u know nothing about ur shiasm and know nothing about ur books..ur a follower to whatever religion or sect u were born into..thats all.

salamz

more FACTS?

Qur'aan to shia
1.Not Completed.
2.Has 17,000 Aayats.
3.Our's has 6,666.
4.Abu Bakr's opposed the text of the Quraan.
5.Original Quraan with 12th Imaam Mahdi.
6.Do not produce Haafiz.
7.Do not perform Taraweeh.
8.Quraan will be read/ learnt when 12th Imaam brings it.
9.Ali (R.A) showd original Quraan to Sahabah(R.A) who rejected it.
10.Passages mentioning virtures of Ali(R.A) has been purposefully deleted from the Quraan.
11.There are 2,000 shiah traditions making many additions and subtractions in Quraan.
12.The 'Murtaddeen'- renegrades have removed the name of Ali (R.A).

Again shia brothers if u disagree then u r not a shia coz am proving statements from ur refrences.

References:
(1.) Usul Kafi 1:228/ Faslul Kitaab fi Tahrif. Kitaabi Raabul Arbaa of Nuri Tibarsi approved by Khomeni in ' Al- Hukumaat -ul- Islamiyaa". (2.) Usul Kafi P671. (3.) Usul Kafi P671. (4.) Kashful Asraar P111.(5.) Usul Kafi 2-632. (6.) See Iran. (7.) See Iran. (8.) Usul Kafi - p622. (9.) Maqbool - 1067 - Usul Kafi Vol1 P228. (10.)Tafseer Ali Qummi-308 /Usul Kafi 1:416/Footnotes of Maqbool's translation 637/ Al- Ihtijaj- Tabarsi- 1-254/ Tafseer of Saafi- 1- 32/ Muqaddamah 6 , from Tafseer Saafi P32 Vol -1. (11.) Usul Kafi 1:228/ Faslul Kitaab fi Tahrif. Kitaabi Raabul Arbaa of Nuri Tabarsi.(12.) Surah Muhammad, Ayat 9, Para 26- Molvi Maqbool Dehli P1011.

To end this night peacfully, i like to stress that many shia's i speak to who are unaware of their history do tell me that the quran is complete and unchanged... but what i dont understand is how are u a shia if ur going against ur scholars n sayid words? they already say quran is not complete and only imam Mahdi has the complete full book.

Allahu A"lam. i am always angry when i read shia books.. NO Dee not coz i hate u, i hate those who changed history to misslead innocent people like yourself.

salamo alaikum all :)

U know what hurts me most about shia from proven references i just stated above. the fact that they have power to change halal and haram and sharia (Deen)

this means i can never win if they say something then proved wrong ..coz the next man will say no am wrong we have changed since then.

hey Ggaire Muslim!

I will tell you what we believe and what we Shia Muslim don't;
your quote and my answer in YES and NO;
1.) They believe in 12 Imaams after Rasulullaah. YES
2.) First being Ali (AS). YES
3.) Last being the 12th Imaam Mehdi (AS)). YES
4.) Who is in a Cave 'Surra - Man- Raa'. WHAT??
5.) Imaams they believe are Masoom- innocent. YES
6.) They can make Halaal- Haraam and Haraam - Halaal . NO
7.) They can change Deen- Sharia. NO
8.) They are born of their mothers thighs. WHAT??
9.) They have the knowledge of the Unseen. YES, ALLH taught them all.
10.) They say Imaams are higher in status than the Ambiyaa including our Nabi . YES but including Nabi NO
11.) No concession regarding Wilaayah- (absolute necessary belief). YES...without accepting wilaaya your Deen will not be acceptable.
12.) If one does not accept Imaams then one is a Kaafir. NO

Your Quote;
ATHEN (Azaan) is "Ash Hadu Anna - ali Waliullah Wasu Rasulullah was Khalifatu hu bila faslrin"

shia claim they r the real sunnah of the prophet yet they have no proof that the prophet asked for athan (azan) to be called out whilst mentioning Ali's name? WAKE UP! this in itself shows how shia change sunnah and islamic methods of the prophet."

Answer: it was called in by Abudhar-e-Ghaffari at Ghadeer and your famous Ssahaba complined to prophet that Abudhar was calling "Ali Waliullah" in the Azaan. The Prophet (pbuh) answerd to them "Did you not hear me what I had just told you in my sermon that Ali was your Maula just like I was Maula for you and he was Waliullah". All Sahabas accepted that from Prophet (pbuh) and did not say anything after Prophet's answer. What was added in Azaan after Prophet's (pbuh) passed away was a bidah that started by Umar. It was addition to Fajr prayer as "Assalato Khairun minan naum". Umar had habit of staying in bed late and he used to skip Fajr prayer, one day his slave woke him up and said to him that "Salaat is better then sleeping" he like it so much that he asked that it should be added to the Azaan.

Your Quote;
what shia say about Allah
1.) He has the Quality of 'Badaa'. NO
2.) This means he forgets. NO
3.) He makes mistakes. NO
4.) He plans but this does not take effect. NO
5.) He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam. NO
6.) "We (shias) do not worship such a god who gives authority to rascals like Yazid, Mu'awiyyah and Uthmaan." YES..it depends what their view of God is.
7.) They say "Ali says.....I am the first and I am the last. I am the manifest and I am the hidden and I am the heir of earth." YES but taken out of comtext.
8.) Shias say that the Imaams are the face of Allaah, YES...Ali (as) was called face of Allah.
9.) The eyes of Allaah among his creation. YES ...Ali (as) was called
10.) The tongue of Allaah among his creation. YES Ali (as) was caleld "lisaanullah".

Example of Allah's eye:
A person was doing tawaf of Kaaba and during tawaf he was looking at a woman as well. Ali (as) noticed that and he slapped on his face. This persom went to his Khalifah Umar and complained about Ali (as) and asked for justice. Umar asked him which side of the face he slapped? He said left side, Umar hit him with a big slap on the right side of his face and said "Don't you know Ali(as) eyes are like Allah's eyes and his hands are like Allah's hand. He was you doing haraam and Allah's hand slapped you on left side of your face, so what have you come here to complain about".

Your Quote;
Qur'aan to shia
1.Not Completed. NO
2.Has 17,000 Aayats. NO its a sunni's book quote
3.Our's has 6,666. NO its a sunni book quote
4.Abu Bakr's opposed the text of the Quraan. YES
5.Original Quraan with 12th Imaam Mahdi. YES..it was originaly collected by Ali (as) with Tafseer and it had Ayats with the proper order of Nuzool and who the Ayats came for such as "Surah Munafiqoon" Ali (as) wrote the names of the Munafiqeen there in its Tafseer. (I bet Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's names were there thats why Abu Bakr, Umar did not accepted collection of Quran from Ali (as)....LOL)
6.Do not produce Haafiz. NO
7.Do not perform Taraweeh. YES...Prophet (PBUH) prohbited to add to Ibadah. Umar Started it.
8.Quraan will be read/ learnt when 12th Imaam brings it. What?? you can learn Quran now but Actual meaning are known to "Rasikhoona filIlam".
9.Ali (R.A) showd original Quraan to Sahabah(R.A) who rejected it. YES...see answer to question 5 above.
10.Passages mentioning virtures of Ali(R.A) has been purposefully deleted from the Quraan. What??
Surah Dahar is enough to describe virtues.
11.There are 2,000 shiah traditions making many additions and subtractions in Quraan. What?? Explain please.
12.The 'Murtaddeen'- renegrades have removed the name of Ali (R.A). What? Ali(as) name is everywhere.

your Quote:
"Allahu A"lam. i am always angry when i read shia books.. NO Dee not coz i hate u, i hate those who changed history to misslead innocent people like yourself."

Answer:
hahahaha...we always talk with your history books...we did not change any history...you did.
Good try to misslead innocent people...but it wont work since we Shia Muslims are here to catch you.

Your Quote;
U know what hurts me most about shia from proven references i just stated above. the fact that they have power to change halal and haram and sharia (Deen)

Answer:
Umar did change Halal and Haram...none of our Imam changed anything in Islam.
Example: Umar made "Twaful Nisa" (Mutahul Hajj) haram after Prophet(pbuh) passing away and after Abu Bakr's rule although it was Halal at that time. Now all sunnis are born out of wedlock... how is that for a chnage...LOL

You can never win unless you join the righteous people like Shia Muslims....hahahahahahaha

Dear Muslim

I would like to express a few things here.

Is it possible for you to differentiate between the weak and strong traditions within the quotes that you have given within our own books?

I am a professed Shi'ah and I am honestly telling you that I can't because I have not studied Shi'ah Hadith literature.

Have you?

Whatever. Quotes that go against the common sense of Basic belief in the authenticity of the Qur'an I personally do not believe. Niether does the Shi'ah Madhhab.

There is a hadith that says if there is ANY tradition that is heard that goes against the basis of Al Quraan then throw it against the wall.

I will be the first to admit that there is a lot of unauthenticities that have been collected, which are certainly not Sahih but it is up to the Scholars and ourselves to decipher, and hadiths had been collected at random and under difficult circumstances, at a time when the Scholarly books of the Shi'ah were being burned by oppressive caliphs of their time.

You say you are marrying a Shi'ah. Why? If she believes in all the above that you have just quoted then surely she is not even muslim.

If we go through a fine toothcomb through what your scholars have said also we are bound to find many discrepancies in there as well.

We have only just come up with quotes as to how some of your greatest scholars from medieval times up until the present have been labeled as Kaafir by your own people, for whatever reason.

I've got literature as well which (if I could be bothered)I could type out proving that your great scholars in their great books believe that the Quran has been changed also.

In fact there must be a whole heap of rubbish from books outside and within your Sahih Sittah, written and collected by others,which Shi'ah's are likely and able to use against yourselves, proving that Sunnis believe Allah has a physical form and further nonsenses.

If people have dreams whereby they are guided by Imams, prophets and Angels then so what?

The dream that Narjis Khaatoon that you have describied is no 'funnier' than the dream that 'seyyidinna' had, which included the Prophet Mohammed practically instructing him to not convert to Shia'ism...ok, we didn't believe him but nobody came up with the idea that this implied 'Wahi' had come to Seyyedina!

I don't mean to be picky but the quote below about Shi'ah

'6.Do not produce Haafiz'.

is completely untrue and you know it.

Haven't you heard of the five year old genius Mohammed Hussain Tabatabai? I challenge any one member of the Sunni community to come up with quality like him. Even they admitted that this little child from Qum was a miracle, the like of which Islamic history books from the medieval ages only talked about.

So why quote propagantist nonsense? I mean where is your evidence for this and where did you get your information from, another Wahabbi site??

to quote

'If any shia boy or girl in here says am lying then u know nothing about ur shiasm and know nothing about ur books..ur a follower to whatever religion or sect u were born into..thats all'.

I was not born into Shi'aism I converted when I found out about Abu Sufyan, Mua'awiah, Yazid and Ayeshah and how they all fought either the Prophet Mohammed or his family, it was so clear I didn't need to ask any further questions about succession and the like. It was plain obvious to me.

I am not Shi'ah because of what the Scholars have written and collated, good or bad.

My identity as a Shi'ah lies first and foremost in the fact that I believe Imam Ali was the immediate spiritual and political successor to Mohammed, and I say that even if your are a Sunni and believe the same as that then to me you ARE a Shi'ah.

But that's the first thing your sect rejects, the legitimate successorship to Mohammed; worse than this is that the very Sahabi e Rasool rejected it and that point bites like a bullet.

The blame goes on them more than it does on you.

Imam Ali saved Islam from disunity in the light of the political events that formed, by exercising patience.

To quote

'9.Ali (R.A) showed original Quraan to Sahabah(R.A) who rejected it'

You mention 'Original Quran' without making it clear as to whether or not you mean original as in first written copy, or Quran with the legitimate and genuine tafsir.

The issue WAS to do do with Tafsir then as it is to do with Tafsir now.

Who ARE the Ahlul Bayt?

What do we MEAN by 'purified'?

Who were the ones that REALLY wanted to see it changed?

The ones whom Allah spoke about for having gone against the command of their own Prophet? The disobedient ones? Think about it. The accusation my friend lies with the Hypocrites of Mohammed's age who failed in their attempt to change that which was written by them.

Whilst the head of Al Hussain was hoisted on to a spear at the Battle of Karbala, it spoke Quranic Aayaats and verses.

The Quran that we have and believe in today on the Universal level was saved from the corruptions of your evil illigitemate Caliph Yazid, through the very sacrifice of Imam Hussain, who proved to the Muslim Ummah that THE QURAAN would still be safegaurded via the very spirit of The Ahlul Bayt.

To quote

'6.) They can make Halaal- Haraam and Haraam - Halaal '.

Brother, if you had no where else to pray aside from on quicksand then I ask you, would it be halaal or haraam for you to pray on it?

Furthermore what was Ayesha doing when she made it halaal for the Ummah to wage war aginst Mohammed's family??!!

To quote

'8.) Shias say that the Imaams are the face of Allaah',

Excuse me but it is the Sunnis who have given Imam Ali the title of 'Karram Allah o WAJJho,' 'The Face of Allah', so what are you chatting about?

Haven't you ever heard of Metaphor?

To quote,

Shi'ahs
'7.Do not perform Taraweeh'.

The information that you've given here proves that this information is pre written for Sunnis specifically, not for me or Dee, as it only comes as a shock for your community that we do not practice the bidat of Umar.

Can you give me a quote ANYWHERE within your own Sahih literature that the prophet Mohammed ever lead the Jam'aat of Taraawih?

To quote, we believe

'1.) He (Allah) has the Quality of 'Badaa''.

Can you first of all blease give the Arabic translation of 'Badaa' and then explain EXACTLY where you obtained your refferences from in relation to proving your point?

To quote you, the Shi'ah believe in the existence of

'9.) The eyes of Allaah among his creation.
10.) The tongue of Allaah among his creation'.

You forgot 'The Hand of Allah' my friend, something which The Quraan itself alludes to.
Once again you fail to understand, like the thick headed Wahabbis, the concept of Metaphor.

You say

'Allahu A"lam. i am always angry when i read shia books.. NO Dee not coz i hate u, i hate those who changed history to misslead innocent people like yourself'.

I say

I am always angry when I find the obvious truths amongst some of the jargon that lies within the Sahih of Al Bukhari. When certain things are so obvious it pains me to explain them again and again. The people that 'I' hate most are not the ones who in todays day and age make the mistake under their own weakness and passion, of disobeying The Last Prophet, but the one's who in the very prescence of Mohammed in his lifetime OPENELY disobeyed him, betraying their own belief in Prophethood and the Ordinances of The same Quraan that they themselves claimed to believe in.

Wassalaam

hi guys...

i just got up so am not going to write much here :) i will come back to u on all those points later.
What u fail to realise here is that most things u reject r usually involved with Umar. You say he made halal haram and vice versa!!
Now ur claiming us sunni's changed history?

Okay well, let me see,
Imam Ali (RA) is the face of allah? imam Ali is the eyes of allah? Imam Ali is the hands of allah? WE ALL AGREE.!!
Then u say Umar slapped the man who complained about Ali for slapping him on the left cheek.
claiming Ali is the hands n eyes of allah.

Tell me bro's if Ali is the hands n eyes then am sure he is a powerful great figure of islam , a man who doesnt allow a sinner to go by without being heard n punished. RIGHT? i agree here and u agree too, but,
When 3 caliphs such as abu bakr umar and uthman take power wrongfully and and r considered liars n unbelievers by shia then HOW is ALi so powerful?
You have taken all of ali's characters away from him u have rejected his powers and his knowledge.
he is weak coz he let 3 men stand for the muslim ummah to destory us not to actually lead us?

Shia claim they r going to hell yet Ali stood by and let them take charge?
Where r the hands of allah n eyes? u make no sense

Then u say abu bakr and umar resented the real text of the Quran coz Ali had it? so why do u say NO to my point when i say shia believe quran is not complete? i know in Quran allah says my book is complete and will never be changed hmmmm

Then ali goes to marry his daughter Um Kalthoom to umar lol after he has broken the door on Fatimah and after he is considered a bad evil leader lol man am tired of this hypocricy.
Umar is a sinner yet ALi found sense in marrying his daughter to him?
Allahu A3lam

I am marrying a shia coz allah made it halal for me. i dont mind debating and i dont mind who's in the wrong. i didnt change history i am just reading and learning everyday as my wife does. if am in the wrong or she is then i leave it in allah's hands. but our job in life is to seek knowledge until god shows u guidance. if i dont reach this knowledge before i die then only allah knows how much i tried :)

U know if umar didnt marry Ali's daughter and if Al mahdi's mother Narjis existed in history i might just see some sense in beliving shias.

in the meantime you are very uninformed.

salam

i believe its misinformed not uninformed lol i correct my spelling b4 one of u bad boys does so :)

In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abubakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]'s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?
If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.
If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities, does this make sense?

liers...liers... pants on fire...hahahahaha

Ali (as) did his jobas Khalifatullah when Umar was sititng on the mimber peeling his banana...LOL...monkey business...
"la ikraha fiddeen", there is no compusion in religion. Ali (as) had his Khalifatullah even Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman were seated on the thron. Don't look at wordly khilafah and compare it with the devinely Khilafah which none had power to steal from Ali (as). Ali (as) wanted to keep the Deen united he did not want early muslims to get involved in the civil war. Thats why he confined to his house and did his duties as Khalifatullah. He solved people's problems...he solved political and even problems where your Khalifahs did not know what to do. Even Umar had to say nine times during his rule that "If Ali (as) would not have been there I would have been killed". So I don't think it was a sign of weakness on the part of Imam Ali (as), I would say it was the part of his wisdome that he saved Islam, saved muslims and saved oneness of allah (SWT) till the day of iternity.

tod ?
what are u on about? when fatimah was asked by umar and abu bakr the prophet refused on one main reason. jibreel (AS) came down to mohammad (SAW) and told him that allah chose Ali for Fatimah. even if she was young so what? her father has every right to choose whatever!
How do u say Ali was wise to sit and do his duties... did he know he was going to live longer than umar abu bakr and uthman? he would keep 3 bad leaders in command of muslims and wait for their death knowing he will out live them, take over leadership then fix islam as it was meant to be?
Not even mohammad would predict such a thing about his own life... Fate is in allah's hands man.
and if this is wise then how comes muslims r so seperated now ? sunni's have all been united under one shari'a .
shia' have seperated to 15-20 different sects after the death of every imam came another sect bro!! i beg u to look into the different muslim sects out there. from my studies 25 have existed from 12imamat (i.e durzi..alawi etc)
WAKE UP.......ALi was wise and was a great friend to umar othman and all the other companions as they were to him. which father would marry his child to a man unless he loved n trusted him?
how do u disagree? think about it man? u have a daughter n u would marry her to a kafir? a hypocrite? its so simple to understand why do u turn a blind eye?

U keep telling me Ali this n Ali that...but i already know how great Ali was. and what he done for islam and even umar? so what u dont change anything about facts. he was still the 4th caliph. he accepted it. why cant u ?
if Ali married his daughter to umar that shows there was no indifferences between them. umar broke the door on Fatimah as u guys claim? again ALi done nothing to protect his home? WAKE UP!!

someone wants to break into ur house and abuse ur wife..ur telling me u will let him do it? then say its fine i will also marry u to my daughter lol.man u shia make Ali so weak am begining to think this is not same man we're talking about.

Ali was imam after uthman...the likes of muwaiya Yazid n their followers r kuffar for turning aginst Ali. so dont say they r sunni's coz to us they r kuffar. imam hasan and hussain r 5th n 6th imams to sunni's. after them it was hard to nominate a leader coz all nominated amongst their own families and islam was seperated by then.

AliAmeen

Ur Quote
I don't mean to be picky but the quote below about Shi'ah

6.Do not produce Haafiz'.

is completely untrue and you know it.

My common sense answer to this is Yes it is untrue. But bro in history ur scholars refused to accept the Quran as complete. I already mentioned a point stating shia make halal haram and haram halal. this i presented alongside Haafiz to show u how shia scholars find it easy to change the Deen as time moves on. when errors r found new stories r made to correct it. Now shia accept Haafiz. ur past books do not.
To Quote
You say you are marrying a Shi'ah. Why? If she believes in all the above that you have just quoted then surely she is not even muslim.

I never blame the people of today and how they understand islam. For all i know shia and sunni's could all be in the wrong. Shia to me isnt kafir. the way ALi hasan and hussain were treated makes me cry n full of rage. it makes u want to hate some muslims also so i know how shia feel about some extreme sunnis. i love ahl al bayt. The real followers of ahl al bayt r shia's. from you our scholars learnt about them after Ali's death. u r my brothers in islam but its mainly shia who resent us. maybe not today but yesterday u did (in history). why does an act of 1 bad leader talks on behalf of all sunni muslims such as Yazid?

AliAmeen
in past articles i wrote a verse from quran saying " mohammad is the last of the prophecies and after him be end of Wahi (end of heavenly messages from GOD). its written in quran man..WAKE UP!! then.........
Every shia quotes all imams have knowldge of the unseen and r connected to allah in some way or another okay! if this is true then Quran is false am i right? think about it with no contradictions plz. and this is why i turn back to u and say my quote previously :
what shia say about Allah
2.) This means he forgets. (NO tod answers)
3.) He makes mistakes. (NO tod answers)
4.) He plans but this does not take effect. (NO tod answers)
5.) He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam. (NO tod answers)

u claim imams get knowledge from above yet allah in quran states clearly no more wahi from above..where r we going wrong here ya allah?

then i say fine this might be okay coz shia say quran isnt complete so lot of stuff missing about 12 imamat and more heavenly message verses!! but now u say quran is complete? tomorrow u say quran isnt complete then i say no haafiz then u then me and on and on again because u never have normal straight answers. islam never been this hard. islam is a way of life.. islam isnt favourtism. allah would want a leader elected by the people for his wisdom and bravery. not because he is from so n so family?

You say when we make shihada we need to believe shia r right coz we say mohammad n his family? okay but we say ibraheem n his family so what? look at the jews now and how they kill us? we r still praying for them but that doesnt mean allah will send them jewish leaders to heaven? it doesnt mean the whole family have more rights than normal people. allah made us all pray and sit down for shahada... this way we r all meeting shoulder to shoulder and nobody is higher than the other.
allahu akbar and salam

dont u know the story about jbreel and mohammad (SAW). Jews asked mohammad 2 questions and he said he will give them answer tomorrow when he shall meet the angel. he forgot to say inshallah and jibreel didnt show up for 15 days just after the jews gave up n call mohammad a liar.
Great story this if u all listen or read it in full... but the main understanding behind it is mohammad forgetting to say Inshallah. n that he upset allah slightly for making a rational statement to the jews. But we all know allah loves him dearly :) anyways point is even mohammad made a few mistakes .. i wouldnt say major haram sins but some mistakes. and u guys r telling all 12 shia imams r going to be without fault and sins lol? wallah amazing

OMG...now I understand...
Your God is different than Shia Muslims.
Your Prophet is differnt than Shia Muslims.
Your Imams are different than shia Muslims.
Your Khalifahs are differnt than Shia Muslims.

Our God dones not make muistakes. Yours does.
Our Prophet does not make mistakes. yours does
Our Imams do not make mistakes, you have no Imams
Our Kahlifahs are infiables, yours are not.

Brother...as Quran says "your deen is for you and our deen is for us"... thare is no arguement now...so I call it a quite.

Nice talking to you all....take care and make sure you save your ass from Ashab-e-Kahaf's dog since he will be sitting at the door of Jannat and all will end up there at the end regardless of your religions.
hahahahahaha

Dear Muslim

To quote you briefly, as I do not presently have enough time to reply to all points in your last messages,

'anyways point is even mohammad made a few mistakes .. i wouldnt say major haram sins but some mistakes'

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

As you will have noted from Tods reaction, this is THE MAJOR difference between the Shi'ah and the 'misinformed' Sunni.

The SINLESSNESS of Mohammed.

I will ask you this first. If Islam is a PERFECT religion, as The Quran testifies to, then why would Allah send an imperfect Prophet to prove it?

Why should we believe in what Mohammed says if he is prone to making mistakes?

I won't take this any further but of all the points that we are able to pick on this is by far your weakest point, and you should be made well aware of it for your own sake. I request to you as a fellow Muslim brother, for your view of Mohammed peace be upon him in this respect to be re-adjusted.

Furthermore.

I want you to quote me from which sources have you found that Imam Ali married his daughter to Umar? For me to even start to consider what you're saying, I expect SAHIH Hadith's from SHI'AH sources and decisions from OUR scholars that are UNANIMOUS on the incident.

The other question I would ask is was it his REAL daughter or his adopted daughter? As the Quran talks about Ibrahim and his 'father', who refused to stop worshipping the sun. By way of Tafsir however it is explained that it is his guardian, and not 'true' father.

I further bring you once again to Tods argument against the notion that you suggest

'In Mishkat Shareef, it is reported that when Abubakr and Umar asked the holy Prophet[saww] for his daughter, Lady Fatima[sa]'s hand the Prophet[saww] replied she is too young to marry, is this a correct report?
If it is wrong then prove it with full evidence both intellectual and textual.

If this is correct then think rationally over the fact that, Umme Kulthum[sa] whose mother was too young to marry these people, marries these same personalities',

Posted by: Tod at July 31, 2005 02:31 PM

Further concerns in relation to recent posts:

to quote

'My common sense answer to this is Yes it is untrue. But bro in history ur scholars refused to accept the Quran as complete'.

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

Which ones, all of them or just some of them?

'allah would want a leader elected by the people for his wisdom and bravery. not because he is from so n so family?'

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

Mohammed's family is not from a 'so n so' family.

mohammed's family is the same family for which your prayers are incomplete without mention of them.

If Allah wanted a leader ELECTED by the people then why have you chosen Imam Hussain as your fifth Caliph when the majority of people were following Yazid?

To quote

'it doesnt mean the whole family have more rights than normal people'

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

The Khums money from the Muslim Ummah, which is mentioned specifically in the Quran, had been designated soley for Mohammed's Family, so YES, they do not only have more right THAN others but they also have a right OVER others.

To quote

'U know if umar didnt marry Ali's daughter and if Al mahdi's mother Narjis existed in history i might just see some sense in beliving shias'.

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

In as much as you wish to assert that Narjis did not exist you are unable to feasibly prove the same.

The dispute for you is with regard to her lineage.

We do need to go to the books of Western Scholars to prove our own historical evidences.

Nor do we need to reffer to them to assert the existence of a son that had been born unto the eleventh Imam Hassan Al Askari.

To quote

'and this is why i turn back to u and say my quote previously :

what shia say about Allah
2.) This means he forgets.
3.) He makes mistakes.
4.) He plans but this does not take effect.
5.) He does not know who to appoint as the next message conveyor, the next Imaam'.

Posted by: muslim at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

Firstly let me say that I do not believe this is a quote from ur self but is taken from 'other' sources the like of which I have come across on the internet itself.

Secondly I would ask you to prove on the literary level, point for point that which you assert for what The Shi'ah believe, in relation to Allah as suggested in the above quote.

Wassalaam

Ali Ameen ,
Bro i have read many shia books over Narjis and the time they claim she was born in and her full shia story from shia texts n sites.
I then searched her down the lines of romans and no shia nor roman text can prove who her father was.. and the names given didnt even exist man . so please do not say am making false claims. i do my own research. i was born a sunni but i tried to prove sunnah wrong many times.. i have tried to back up shia stories.. but i failed bro. coz sunni texts won most arguments. nobody has ever talked to me about Narjis. i just like to sit n find the truth in my own time...so far no shia man has proved me the existance of Narjis, thats all am saying.
About me coming back to explain my points in details i can do that for u . again i am not showing u articles i see.. i am pasting you texts that i save on my pc after my own studies from books i go through. it will be hard proving all points as u know i have said lots. but in time i will and i will be working on it from tonight :)
i read about shia coz i want the truth... i want to know what is the right group for me.. so far sunni ways win over shia... and i finally decided which side i want to be with :)
Tod mentions the ayaa in surt AL-Kafiroon lol? he claims am a kafir, he has his own deeen and i have mine..doesnt this show u how shia regard other muslims?
Allah made it halal for me to marry a christian or a jew... yet i find a shia say am a kafir lol

Please dont say i called mohammad a sinner. i didnt say he was. I told u the story about how he forgot to say inshallah. allah was not angry with him he just wanted this incident to be passed on to people like us to learn that we need to mention inshallah in our every actions.
Allah called us INSAN (human) Insan is a word part of forgetting. We are forgetful and allah accepts this and is willing to help us learn and repent with his willingness. My point on this article was to make u understand ur imams r pure but wont be as perfect as mohammad for he was one of a kind. believe it or not its ur choice.

ALi

YOU SAY : in respect to Narjis
"We do need to go to the books of Western Scholars to prove our own historical evidences"

Who's best to go to to learn about the roman empire than romans themselves? The history and life of all roman empires r there man. and no!! shia's do not know about the roman empire more than romans themselves. Books, recorded history and lives of all roman empires and sons n daughters r there in simple plain books. shia didnt write it it was the romans.... romans is history written by the west now yes, not us arabs.

Dear AliAmeen

The marriage of `Umar with Umm Kulthum al-Hashimiyya (b. 6) the daughter of `Ali and Fatima did take place. i dont know why ur telling me to show u proof?
Ali gave her away to Umar upon her request although he was afraid at first that Umar might not accept her due to her youth. not the other way around as shia claim lol
The dowry was 40,000 dirhams. She bore him Zayd al-Akbar, known as Ibn al-Khalifatayn (Son of the Two Caliphs i.e. Umar and Ali) who became renowned for his great beauty, and a daughter, Ruqayya. am sure u already know those two names? have u ever looked into who their father was m8?
After Umar died she remarried, upon Ali's order, with Awn ibn Ja`far ibn Abi Talib. When Awn died Ali remarried her with Muhammad ibn Ja`far then, when the latter also died, with Abd Allah ibn Ja`far who survived her.
problem here is shia hate umar so they like to agree on um kalthum being married to all 3 brothers (sons of ja'far) but refuse to consider umar as her first lol calling it force or something!! this is why i say to u how could ALi the powerful man of islam allow such an act if this is really force..if umar was really bad and evil leader?
Zayd died a young man, childless, from a stone throw in the time of Mu`awiya. Umm Kulthum died at the same time and either Abd Allah ibn Umar or Sa`id ibn al-As ibn Sa`id [who had asked for Umm Kulthum's hand after Umar died] prayed over the both of them, Allah have mercy on them

Sources: Ibn Sa`d, Tabaqat (8:337-340=8:463-464); al-Siyar wal-Maghazi (p. 248); Tarikh al-Ya`qubi (2:260); Nasab Quraysh (p. 352); al-Tabari, Tarikh (4:199 and 5:335); Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Isti`ab (4:490-491); al-Nawawi, Tahdhib al-Asma' wa al-Lughat (2:267 #1219); al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 5:22-24) and Tarikh al-Islam (4:58-59, 4:137-139, 4:227); Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba (4:492 #1481); Ibn al-Athir, Usd al-Ghaba (7:387-388) and al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (3:54, 4:12)

how much more proof do u want bro?
i dont understand why u say u only want proof from shia books? this is very wrong of u to do? if u want to learn something u need to see both sides of every story? otherwise u'll never know whos right or wrong.
i even studied christianity and judism to see if islam is a better religion or not. thats what u call gaining knowledge. being closed minded is very bad when ur trying to seek the truth!

allah knows best and salam

Too much arguing is forbidden in islam.The issue has not been resolved for 1400 years,& reading your views I dont think you are any near a solution either.Get a life,a cat,a plant.
They were all beter than us(at least me)& abusing any of them is certainly going to blacklist us in the eyes of Allah.Ours is a graceful religion please stop this mudslinging.

Dear Muslim

I am uninclined to believe any hadith, from Shi'ah or Sunni sources that puts Mohammed in the light of mistakemaker or 'minor' sinner as you suggest.

This is because I believe it is fundamental for our Final Prophet to be perfected thoroughly.

The example that you put forward, using Mohammed as the person who suffered as a consequence for not saying 'inshallah' I therefore, personally consider dodgy. That's just my own view.

Furthermore if the Hadith IS meant to be a SAHIH one from your own books then you will understand why I am requesting evidences from Shi'ah sources in relation to your claim that Imam Ali married his daughter to Umar.

In short we cannot be expected to believe in the Sunni version of historical events unless they co relate with the Shi'ah version at the same time.

ie. if you are able to envisage a Christian attempting to prove Christianity on the basis of the evidences that rest in the Bible, then you will understand where I am coming from.

Furthermore you have failed to impress me with your argument that it is necessary for Roman Historians to have concerned themselves with their own history to the point of documenting absolutely everything.

Furthermore I impress to you once again that it is you who are failing to disprove the birth of a son unto the eleventh Imam Hassan al Askari, as Arab historians have already recorded it.

In as much as you may wish to suggest that the lineage of Narjis Khatoon is a fallacy (you must bear in mind that Major figures in Islamic History have always been given varying titles in place of their own names), the same suggestion is put forward to you that your argument for the non existence of Mohammed ibne Hassan al Askari is equally (in the very least)flawed.

This is because prominent Scholars from your own sect have recognised and accepted his existence, which puts your argument, within scholarly circles at least, by the wayside - the same Sunni historians have also accepted the Shi'ah version of 'Twelve Imams' from Imam Ali to Imam Mohammed Al Mehdi, Imam for Imam.If you wish me to further refferences with regard to this then I am able to.

As you have decided for yourself to engage in your own research let me say that you are the first person I have known of to come up with a select list of Imams starting from Abu Bakr ending in Imam Hussain.

This would make you exceptionally unique I believe amongst the people of your own school of thought .

I want you to inform me as soon as you are able, how you intend to go about researching the remaining seven Imams, as you have obviously managed to take a track from the outset, going against the popular narration that they are all from Mohammed's progeny.

Wassalaam

I found out an amazing fact that word "Imam" is used 12 times in the Holy Quran. Exect number of Imams we have been telling you all along.
Eat your heart out unbelivers.

Allah (swt) says in Quran:

وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى الَّذِينَ اسْتُضْعِفُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَنَجْعَلَهُمْ أَئِمَّةً وَنَجْعَلَهُمُ الْوَارِثِينَ {5}
[Shakir 28:5] And We desired to bestow a favor upon those who were deemed weak in the land, and to make them the Imams, and to make them the heirs,
[Pooya/Ali Commentary 28:5]
Imam Ali ibn abi Talib says in the Nahj al Balagha that "those who were deemed weak" refers to the Ahl ul Bayt.

When Imam Muhammad bin Hasan al-Mahdi would appear and Islam would be established in the whole world with his coming, the entire earth would be ruled by him and all disbelievers will vanish from the face of the earth.

Salaams.
This is the first time i am visiting this site and honestly speaking, i am astonished. This is where all the fights break out, the differences erupt although there isnt much of it. Instead of the sunni and shia merging, you are falling apart. You are cursing and giving names for no reason. I am not saying not to debate, but for God's sake, debate humbly with good words, thats the only way to win the opponents heart. Dont let people see the differences between muslims, this is why the Americans are still in Iraq and causing such great Havoc, because they know we are not united, and they are sucking Iraq dry of its oil.
As for Michael Williams, I dont know what you are up to, but one of your questions was regaring Ghadeer, you can get the reference to that in any islamic book, Sahih Bhukhari, Sahih Muslim as well as the Shia books.

sallam

brother muslim,dont waste your time about people,ask the shia people about their foundation.
Umar wasnt a prophet,or Ali or ABU BAKR R.A havent you noticed that the curse people,and all this evil talk has nothing to do with islamic aqqedah.
o ye shia you curse the comapnions and other so dont go to mecca,where their all buried next mohammad pbuh.
i read the the immams see the unseen,wow that way way way off islam dudes they see the unseen,surley if they did the would of done a better job.
A man comes to mohammad pbuh and ask him when is judgenmnet day so he replies that question can not be answerd by the questioner himself.
so if mohammad did not see the unseeen i dont think a normal yes normal immam can.
Talk about the foundation of islam not about people.
their is a differnce between muslims and islam.

MAY ALLAH BESTOW HIS MERCY UPON ALL OF US AND BESTOW HIS GUIDENCE UPON US,OH SHIA ARE ALREADY GUIDED SORRY ALLAH.
BACK TO MY QUESTION ABOUT 2 WEEKS AGO WHERE DOES IMMAM ALI AND HIS SONS AND IMMAM JAFFAR AND HIS FATHER THE FOUNDER OF SHIISM CURSE THE GREAT COMPANIONS?????????????????????????????????????

ALLAH KNOWS BEST
AMERISLAM

Micheal willams answer my questions please read above refer to you and your people.

The crusaders kill more people than the hiroshima bomb,are the western governments walking in their foot stepps?
I belive so.

concernd australian

You all dont know what you are chatting about.

In Sahih Bukari it states that the Prophet said 'Who ever angers Fatima (sa) angers me and whoever angers Allah is angry with them'

With light to this Hadith weather it be a companion or not i hate and curse them to hell as Imam Bukari has stated so and his book is Sahih. Also the Prophet is on my side and also Allah.

The love and so do Shia love all companions but those who made Fatima angry.

sallam
which were?

If you belive that the prophet is on your side,then the prophet also states that Abu bakr is the of people after me then Umar The Uthma R.A,DO WE AGREE

allah knows best
amerislam

sallam
is the best of people

sallam
May Alla rid the rid the evil out of iraq and all the muslim lands inshallah

sallam to my muslim and non muslim people

ALLA KNOWS BEST
amerislam

religion is the root of evil. you are all deluded. instead of creating a true heaven on earth, you slander or kill yourselves and your brothers.