A reality, but so painful.....

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Brother , when after death of prophet(peace be upon him) , in " bani saqeefa" the gathering of ansar and muhagireen ws there to decide about caliph , there came a point when it is about to fight between them on this dispute , abu bakr(ra) came there with umar(ra) and and recited the hadees that " Caliph should be from Quraish because all others arabs tribes will never accept any command except from Quraish" and brother this is 100% true .Quraish , being the guads of “Kana kaa’ba” for hundreds and thousands of years , evry arab respct them , they were free to move between “Syria” and “yemen” in hot and cold weather for trade but no one has a courage to attack the caravan of Quraish as of each tribe , there is idol in “kaa’ba” and the quraish were thier custodians .And this is also mention in sura"Quraish" of quran that Allah has freed those quraish from " Khof" and “Bhook” due to sovereinghty of “kaa’ba”.
Upon hearing this all ansars said " Allah o akbar , we accept it " . they got the point .Then abu bakr(ra) raised umar(ra) hand and said that he is one of the closest of prophet(pbuh) in his life , so accept him as caliph bu umar(ra) said no , abu bakr(ra) you are the most deserving one , we cannot even compare this with 3 days and nights of " cave of Hira" , how can we superseed you then all muhajirs and ansars unanimously accepted abu bakr(ra) as a caliph but hazrat abu ubada(ra) did not accepted it , he wanted that ansars have done a great job so caliph should be from them , but it was his point of view , even if he did not 'bait" abu bakr(ra) , we have no right to criticize that .It was his opinion and point of view.
So there were not only ummayyads but all muhajireen and ansar who unanimously elected abu bakr(ra) as a caliph .Also there was a gathering of banu hashim at ali(ra) but when caliph was chosen , all of them happily accepted this unanimous decision to avoid"fitna" and next day when ali(ra) came to"bai’t" abu bakr(ra) a bit late , abu bar(ra) asked him if you are unhappy bt ali(ra) said not at all, my wife fatima(ra) was ill due to which i could not come yesterday.

                                 And secondly brother  , only those persons got positions who fought in battles and wars  , hardly some are exceptions but mostly those got it through their efforts whether abu bakr(ra) or umar(ra) , there is nothing like prejudice to certain tribe or favouritism to other one .I am not critisizing banu hashim or ali(ra) of not taking parts in battles or wars , may be they have thier own views and thinkings , i am just telling history .And how the hell i can critisize , ali(ra) , the lion of God.If thousands like me unite , then i cannot reach even the mud stickig to the feet of hazrat Ali(ra) , i am just telling from a hitoric point of view.Now here ae some from history:

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”

  1. While Sayyiduna 'Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) might not physically have joined the campaigns, he was at the side of the khalifah in Madinah as a valued and trusted advisor - a position that is by no means less important than being at the battlefront. This is a fact documented in both Sunni and Shi`i sources. “Nahj al-Balaghah”, for example, records the advice given by Sayyiduna 'Ali to Sayyiduna 'Umar on two occasions. The first one appears as Sermon no. 133 and carries the heading “In reply to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab who consulted him about taking part in the battle against Byzantine”. The second is numbered Sermond 145 and appears under the caption “Spoken when 'Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-Mu’minin about taking part in the battle of Persia”. In both instances the advice given can clearly" be seen to be aimed at the success of the campaigns.

.2 It is also significant to note that although Sayyiduna 'Ali did not personally join the armies on their expeditions, he duly received his share of the spoils of war. Abu Ubayd has recorded that Sayyiduna 'Umar fixed Sayyiduna 'Ali’s share at 5000 dirhams, and gave both his sons Hasan and Husayn a similar share of 5000. (“al-Amwal” p. 237) Another son of Sayyiduna 'Ali, namely Muhammad, was born to him from a woman from Banu Hanifah who was brought to Madinah as a war captive by Khalid ibn al-Walid after his expedition against her tribe that had turned apostate with Musaylamah. This woman was given to Sayyiduna 'Ali by Sayyiduna Abu Bakr. (“Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d” vol. 5 p. 67) and this Muhammad is known in history as Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah.

  1. If Sayyiduna 'Ali’s not joining the campaigns of the three khulafa means that he was averse to their rule, how is one to interpret the fact that Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Husayn both took part in the conquest of Tabaristan during the rule of Sayyiduna 'Uthman under Sa’id ibn al-'As in 30 AH? (See “Tarikh at-Tabari” vol. 5 p. 103, “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah” vol. 5 p. 237)

  2. Furthermore, what is one to make of the fact that those of the Sahabah upon whom the Shi’ah took favourably as devotees of Sayyiduna 'Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt unreservedly took part in the campaigns of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman? Here one may speak of the following by way of example:

SALMAN AL-FARISI took part in Sayyiduna 'Umar’s Persian campaign and played a crucial role in the conquest of Mada’in (“al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah” vol. 5 pp. 135-140). He had also acted as governor of Mada’in for Sayyiduna 'Umar (“al-Isabah” vol. 3 p. 113) and used to actively encourage the military campaigns in Syria by narrating ahadith on the virtues of jihad ("Ansab al-Ashraf vol. 1 p. 488)

HUDHAYFAH IBN AL-YAMAN had played a leading role in the conquest of’Iraq. Like Salman, he too had acted as governor for Sayyiduna 'Umar (“al-Isabah” vol. 1 p. 332), and later joined military expeditions during the reign of Sayyiduna 'Uthman. He is described by the Shi’i scholar, al-‘Allamah Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli, as “one of the four pillars amongst the companions of Amir al-Mu’minin.” ("Jami’ ar-Ruwat" vol. 1 p. 182)

BILAL AL-HABASHI joined the campaign in Syria, either during the time of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr or Sayyiduna 'Umar. He died in Syria during the reign of the latter Umar. (“al-Isabah” vol. 1 p. 171)*

'AMMAR IBN YASIR took part in the campaign against Musaylamah in the time of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr. He fought valiantly, spurred on the Muslim forces, and lost his ear in this battle. Later, during the reign of Sayyiduna 'Umar, he accepted an appointment as the governor of Kufah under him. (“Tarikh al-Islam” vol. 2 p. 581}

ABU AYYUB AL-ANSARI is well known for his participation in several battles, not least amongst which was the expedition against Constantinople led by Yazid in the time of his father Mu’awiyah. Abu Ayyub was martyred during this expedition, and was buried under the walls of the city. (“al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah” vol. 5 p. 518)

  1. Apart from the above considerations, one also needs to keep in mind the sort of relationship that existed between Sayyiduna 'Ali and the khulafa before him. This relationship is best expressed in the fact that he named 3 of his sons Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. This is confirmed even by an avowedly Shi’i source such as Shaykh Mufid’s “Kitab al-Irshad” (pp. 268-269); and the fact that he married Umm Kulthum, his daughter from Sayyidah Fatimah, to Sayyiduna 'Umar. (For a more detailed discussion of the marriage of Umm Kultnum.

“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”
So brother , all those who strive , get their reward .There is not at all any favouritism , all those foughts at different fronts and battles , got their reward.There are many incidents but i quote only one that when in conquest of persia , the daughter of king of Persia came to madina as a " mal_e_ ghanimat" or slave ,
she was different from all , precious jewellery , clothes and very beautiful ( as irani girls and women are already very god gifted…:slight_smile: , so umar(ra)
asked who is she? someone replied "O ameerul mo’mneen , she is pincess , a “Princess of Persia” , umar(ra) smiled and answered "then she is fit for a "prince only !
go and bring our “Prince of Arabia” and hussain(ra) was brought and she was married to him after accepting islam.

                                   Still we say that ali(ra) has a bitter enemity with 3 caliphs , i accept there was a difference of opinion and approach for their policies  but that "difference" was trickfully changed to "enemity ".

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Brother one thing i already quoted that all fingers are not equal , similarly all people cannot be as pious as others .Umar(ra) and Ali(ra) are very unique not in muslim history but also in the history of human kind , believe it or not.Every body cannot have such a “justice” level which is considered as " proverb" for not muslims but europeans historians also .Similarly , the courage and valour of Ali(ra) and his " beautiful speeches and lectures" , everyone whether he was so learned or scholar , cannot even touch the heights of ali(ra)'s standard. So in that sense , i accept that usman (ra) was not at that as compared to abu bakr(ra) and umar(ra) but it is also because usman(ra) by nature was soft hearted , lenient , and kind.Remember when prophet(pbuh) asked her daughter “ruqiyya” about usman(ra)'s attitude , she replied that , O father , he is very kind hearted to me .so that on death of “ruqiyya” , prophet (pbuh) married “umm_e_ qulsoom) with him and on her death , prophet(pbuh) said " if i had another daughter i would have given to usman(ra)”

                                             In last days , usman(ra) fromm the roof of is house, spoke to rebillion, that:

*you heard not prophet(pbuh) saying , whoever buy " bara_i_Rooma" the well of water in madina for muslims, there will Jannah for him , i bought it from jews , now i am forbidden to drink water from it…
*you heard not prophet(pbuh) saying , whoever give food and camels to sahabas of battle of tabuq , he will in jannah , i gave so much that prophet(pbuh) said that , now afterwards nothing will do harm to usman(ra) now i am not allowed to to leave my house…
*you heard not prophet(pbuh) saying , whoever buy land for masjid_e_nabwi ,he will be in jannah , now i am not allowed to say prayer in it…
Rebillions said this is right but now you have changed , usman (ra) replied , mashallah , a person who did all this now have changed…then he said to sahabas the same thing they also say to you .So when ali(ra) fighted agaisnt “kharijites” , ali(ra) asked them why you want to fiht with me

  • was it not me who killed 9 leaders of makkah alone in battle of uhad…
    *was it not me who alone smashed the door of khyber…
    *was it not me who killed marhab…
    Kharjites replied , you are right ali(ra) but now u have changed

             so , you see every time these rebillions gave bad names to sahabas for thier own interests. Usman(ra) was lenient not as hardas umar(ra) but he never changed any quran and sunnah , this is totally wrong , burning of quran , he justified it that it is for unity.Secondly abuzar(ra) had conflict with muavia(ra) only not with usman(ra) at all as i gave detailed reason of this above.And most important all major positions were already in ummayyad positions because of wars and battles they fought , may be someone, as i gave the cleverness of marwan, be given by usman(ra) ,it is just a false blame of rebillions which made a mole of mountain.
    
                          Coming to your second point that usman (ra) was chosen by sahabas not Allah , brother you are 100% right but this not means that it is not the will of Allah , IF a leaf drops from tree in this world , even this is by Allah 's will.If i have fevr and doctor give me medice , and i become healthy , then this is will of Allah but means are doctor and medicine , similarly usman(ra) was chosen by sahaba , a mean , but ultimately it was Allah's will.
    

Re: A reality, but so painful…

I agree with you , for 1400 years , thereis so much written so that it is very difficult to find truth but yet if you ead an unbiased history , many things will be clere.

Re: A reality, but so painful…

I agree with you.

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilayihi Raajioon

Re: A reality, but so painful…

I agree with you Mostar , we should unite the whole world , but but but…
charity begins at home…:slight_smile:
thats i think , kiya khayal hai…?

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

Well your charity is beginning to unite muslims against all other humans on earth!

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

brother dawi_i_dil
I NEVER said that the three named individuals were from banu hashim
But the fact is that they were all martyred on the orders of muawiyah while their only crime was seeking to reform the ruling classes and protesting against the innovations introduced by them
You can consult their biography in tabari and Isabah if you want to verify it

I will answer you other posts later ...
good to see we agree on something.....

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

Thakyou that we agreed on something .....

Brother , one thing i want to clear to all muslim brothers and sisters that Allah will not ask from me , on the day of judgement , that why muavia(ra) and ali(ra) fighted and who was corect and if you give wrong answer , I will put you into hell.Brother , He will not ask me anyhing like that , He will ask me , did you offerr 5 prayers , gave zakat , kept roza , hajj, helped poor , jihad aginst your nafs and so that .He will not ask what other did , Allah will ask what i did and that what i believe in..............So we keep on fighting our whole life who is true or who is false or who is better or who is worse ,It is none of my business , Allah has the ultimate domain of ""Justice" and let him exercise this domain......
Secondly, i think , both sides have to do some concessions , because it takes two make a quarrel means " tali hamaisha do haton sai bajti hai"
I do not know from which conutry you belong but me , living in ,Pakistan , experienced many things which are not islamic but yet we do it .For example , in our marriages in indo-pak region , we do "mehandi" on first day then "barat" and finall""walima" , now this"mahaindi" has nothing to do with isalm , it is purely a "hindu" festival but now 99.99% marriages cannot take place witout "mehendi" why ? because for 1000 years we have benn living with hindus so due to this long period now , it looks very common to us .Hardly anyone , who very strictly follow quran and sunnah , not do "mehendi" otherwise everyone do it .Similarly , "juta chupai"(steal shoes) ad " doodh pilai"( to drink milk) are also very common so that with 1000 years of living , eating , drinking together , both sides have intermixed so many things , customs , rituals and festivals that now nobody knows particarly about a festival that whether is it a muslim originated or a hindu one???? just as " basant"( flying kites ) etc etc..
Similarly , the peple living in Iran and Iraq before islam , for thousand of years , under Sassanid empire , like dara , jamshed , kaikoous , kiyani , nowsherva , bahman , and the first one was "namrood" in abraham(as) period .Now all these kings called themselves as Allah in manly form(God man) , that Allah has spirtually come to earth in the form of a ruler and secodly , the"fire domes" were keep on burning for thosands of years in these two conuntries as they follow "Zartisht" or Zartosht & Zoroastrianism and religious leaders of these fire-domes had a very powerful authority over people as well as government , the took taxes , religious gifts"Nazrana" from people , people asked the religious problems and their commandment was final , they took wealth from poor people in their fire-domes with a plea that God will happy from you as much as you give your money .They were also in administration and they had a right to "punish" anyone or"relaese" anyone.So ruler also has a respect to them as people do .So this"religious" class whether we call them" pujari" , " mazbhi taikhaidar" or " nazranai khanai walay" the similar as we see in indo -pak a diffrent shrines and graves of aulia like " Ajmir sharif" or"Pak patan" etc etc.The similar was the case , in those days , in India where"Brahman" also enjoyed all thse "luxuries" and " benifets" and also in "Roman empire " where "chritians fathers" , "padriis" also have a commandment on people.
Science was abandoned and no right of freedom of speech and expression.
So when islam came in Iraq and Iran , the first thing happened that all fire -domes extinguished , secondly , the "government" of these religious classs also came to end because in islam there is no concept of such things ,To obey Allah and rasool , is a simple way .No grave , shrines and people giving wealth to them.So , this was a end of thier rule of thousands of year. Secondly , they cannot accept that thier ruler , which they consider as God in human form can ever be defeated , again anger .Third and most importantly , they could not believe that the " camel riders" and " budhhu" of "Arabia" , which they used to call them " ignorant " , barbarian and "un cultered" , how they can defeat " wold super power " in only few years .Now this thing is beyond thier mental limits that how can this be possible .We , the super power , of thousands of years , advanced in litrerature , arts , cultures , architechture , buildingds , domes , scruptures and tradionally so rich people , and how these "tribe men" living in deserts and have no culture and arts , came over us...................
So brother , their reaction is natural .Just think , if Afghanistan in 4 or 5 years " will defeat whole europe and then rled them , although create a justice system , have a freedom of religion except a small amount of " jazya" , will europe not react that these barbarian ansd tribel men of "uzbek" , "tajik" and "pakhtun" , living for centuries into mountainns and fighting over each other , cvulturally illeterate now become our ruler , the ruler of Europe , a centre of culture , arts and architechture so it was a natural behaviour of " iran" and " iaqi" people of that time .And this was the beginning of """" Clash between Arabian and Persian nationalism""""""""""""" .And the "religious" leades of fire-domes added fire to the fuel becuse they had lost thier rule .Abdullah ibne Saba , a cunning jewish , came to medina , obseved all this , then came back to egypt anf "kufa" and used all these points in his favour and and burnt such a huge flame of fire of revenge , misconceptions and hatred thar , everything disappeared into it and this also happened because some "umayyad" caliphs preached"Arabian nationalism" and showed hatred towards "persians" and "ajum" but the ultimate loss was to all muslims................
Psychologically , he played with the psyche of iranis and iraqis that who , thousands of years , have been experiencing their ruler as "god" or say it " autar " or "duata" etc.. and other thing that in persian empire , the next ruler is the closest relative of previou one and their always continued a chain of a same family ruling for thousands of years and like above i discussed about " mehaendi" in indo-pak , these two concepts are so common for iranis and iraqis that they accepted it at once that is "every prophet has a ""wasi"" and the wasi of muhammad )peace be upon him) is hazrat ali(ra) and secondly the ruler is appointed from God or himself in human form , so to obey him as like a god .Abdullah ibne Saba did exactly , exactly exactly the same technique and unfortunatlet he had a complete success in dividing the muslim nations into two .Tose "religious" leaders of fire-domes preached this concept to its all swing and deviated thousands of them so that they again "regain" thier previous rule .They could impose tax , gave rulings and exercised powe sharing with rulers .In "safvi" rulers of iran and "qachari" rule , they gained so much power that they had a firm grip on government , "Raza shah pehelvi" and "muhammad shah pehelvi" decreased thier power to great extent but after revolution , they again got their powers .Now although Iran is a complete democratical country , yet supreme is not president , or parliment but"Rahbar" who have many many powers and to appoint army , naval ,air chiefs , disapprove any electrol candidate and final ruling will be his. I am not critising anyone but just telling from history . You have observed that we use word "ayt" for verses of quran which mean "nishani" or "symbol" , the same word shia muslims use for their grand ulema" ayoutullah" means " nishani of Allah" that shows they consider them and their rulings from God , a very high place , something from divine and God's connection and to disobey them means you have disobeyed the god almighty . Just read "Al-hakoomata_i_ Islamia" from "Ayoutullah Khoemani" , you will see on pg.no 79 , 78 that " Our ulemas and faqeeh have knowledge of everything , they neither sleep nor they get tired " and on pg no. 141 he writes" we cannot expect the least mistakes from our aymma or ayatullahs" Now you see in "aytul -qursi" the same properties are mention for Allah almighty.
It is very unfortunate that abdullah ibne saba got the weak point and we easily fell prey to it ...................

Re: A reality, but so painful…

No no brother , i want to tell that first we should unite ourselves then we will think for others , that is first sweep before your own doors…

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

Please do not twist it! You want Quran in one hand and sword in the other! Not Quran in the both the hands! You want muslims to kill non-muslims!

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

[quote]
Brother , one thing i want to clear to all muslim brothers and sisters that Allah will not ask from me , on the day of judgement , that why muavia(ra) and ali(ra) fighted and who was corect and if you give wrong answer , I will put you into hell.Brother , He will not ask me anyhing like that , He will ask me , did you offerr 5 prayers , gave zakat , kept roza , hajj, helped poor , jihad aginst your nafs and so that .He will not ask what other did , Allah will ask what i did and that what i believe in
[/quote]

yes thats what i think so too

[quote]
..............So we keep on fighting our whole life who is true or who is false or who is better or who is worse ,It is none of my business
[/quote]

you say that yet you eagerly put blame for everything that went wrong on a "jew" .....either stay away from historical debates or responsibility for what you say

[quote]

,Secondly, i think , both sides have to do some concessions , because it takes two make a quarrel means " tali hamaisha do haton sai bajti hai"

[/quote]

very true but concessions should be based on historical rather than political correctness

[quote]
I do not know from which conutry you belong but me , living in ,Pakistan , experienced many things which are not islamic but yet we do it .For example , in our marriages in indo-pak region , we do "mehandi" on first day then "barat" and finall""walima" , now this"mahaindi" has nothing to do with isalm , it is purely a "hindu" festival but now 99.99% marriages cannot take place witout "mehendi" why ? because for 1000 years we have benn living with hindus so due to this long period now , it looks very common to us .
[/quote]

I agree 100% Infact i have protested against this in my family many a times and I assure you these things will not happen on my wedding

[quote]

Hardly anyone , who very strictly follow quran and sunnah , not do "mehendi" otherwise everyone do it .Similarly , "juta chupai"(steal shoes) ad " doodh pilai"( to drink milk) are also very common so that with 1000 years of living , eating , drinking together , both sides have intermixed so many things , customs , rituals and festivals that now nobody knows particarly about a festival that whether is it a muslim originated or a hindu one???? just as " basant"( flying kites ) etc etc..

[/quote]

disgusting customs totally pathetic ....couldnt agree more

.
[quote]
And the "religious" leades of fire-domes added fire to the fuel becuse they had lost thier rule .Abdullah ibne Saba , a cunning jewish , came to medina , obseved all this , then came back to egypt anf "kufa" and used all these points in his favour and and burnt such a huge flame of fire of revenge , misconceptions and hatred thar , everything disappeared into it and this also happened because some "umayyad" caliphs preached"Arabian nationalism" and showed hatred towards "persians" and "ajum" but the ultimate loss was to all muslims................
[/quote]

meray bhai ....plz
opposition to uthman was incited by the religious class the Quran readers (Sa'saah b suhan, yazid b qays, hujr b adi, kumail b ziyad etc) and led by the companions of the prophet ( adi b hatim, hashim b utbah , ammar yasir etc)
these people had more religious knowledge in their fingertip than all of us put togather ...how can they be decieved by a newly converted jew ???

[quote]
Psychologically , he played with the psyche of iranis and iraqis
[/quote]

iranians were mostly sunni till the safavids took power in 16th century
iraqis were just as arab as people of hijaz so i dont know how you can distingush the two , iraq was populated by tribes from hijaz and yemen who during time of Umar(ra) have DEFEATED and conquered the iranians .....furthermore the "kufis" included many of the best people of the their time amongst the sahab and tabeen.
The iranian mawali element in shias only first became visible during the uprisisng of amir mukhtar(ra) after 60 AH (while ibn saba supposedly was active around 36 AH), even then the leaders of shias were almost all arab

[quote]
.They could impose tax , gave rulings and exercised powe sharing with rulers .In "safvi" rulers of iran and "qachari" rule , they gained so much power that they had a firm grip on government
[/quote]

the emergence of shia clergy this has nothing to do with the shiaism in the time of early caliphate
I suggest you read moojen momens and heinz halms books on evolution of shiaism

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

I
[QUOTE]
am not critising anyone but just telling from history . You have observed that we use word "ayt" for verses of quran which mean "nishani" or "symbol" , the same word shia muslims use for their grand ulema" ayoutullah" means " nishani of Allah" that shows they consider them and their rulings from God , a very high place , something from divine and God's connection and to disobey them means you have disobeyed the god almighty
[/QUOTE]
. you are right but your criticism is only onesided ....remember that the title "caliph of Allah" was an innovation introduced by uthman he set the precedent for all later rulers to follow, while abubakr(ra) Umar(ra) considered themselves deputies of Rasulallah.

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

Its been a very good discussion between two of you! Providing in-sight into the Islamic History! But I agree more with Das!

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Brother brother , i not even said a single word about it and you are blamming me of killing non-muslims , thats not fair…

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Thankyou for the compliments but it will be more pleasurable and useful if all readers and members also participate .Regarding your agreement with brother Das , i respect your point of view, as everyone has a right and freedom to choose what he likes…

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Because in quran there is curse on jews many times , a whole surat named isra or bani israel i on thier malicious history but in quran there is not such thing for sahaba , some warnings at a particular incidents but as a whole not a single such thing as in sura Toba is that" Allah is happy with them and they are happy with Allah"
Secondly , it was initiated by a jew posing muslim , then many factors and wrong policies also added fuel to the fire…but the first one was a jew , no doubt about that.I have written in that sense so when somebody asked Imam Hassan Basri for the dispute between ali(ra) and zubair(ra), talha(a) and muavia(ra) , he replied that " The matters on which sahabas are united , we follow them and the matters on which sahabas are diveded we remain silent as Allah has prevented me from thier murder , so i will prevent my tounge from thier bad names and curse ."

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Brother , I means to say that for 1000 years of livings , both hindus and muslims excepted many things of each other unintentionally .Similarly , iraqis and iranis also accepted the rule od"wasi" and “wilayat” of ali(ra) because for thousands of years , they were also practising it..

Re: A reality, but so painful…

Yes , i agree that these sahabas have very great knowledge but brother there are also a large no. of sahabas which supported usman(ra) , like i discussed above abdullah ibne abbas(ra) requsted usman(ra) to fight with rebillions when usman(ra) made him a leader at “hajj” but usman(ra) refused and you know abdullah ibne abbas(ra) , he is known as “mufassare quran” in history whom prophet(pbuh) prayed for knowledge of quran , one iof the greatest aalim of quran and its tafseer , if he saw usman(ra) changing quran and sunnah , why he stood up with him ??? and he was son of abbas(ra), uncle of prophet(pbuh) and “pure” from banu hashim…
similarly , abdullah ibne umar(ra) , one of the piousest men of medina , son of umar(ra) , he neither denied usman(ra) , even hassan(ra) and hussain(ra) guarded usman(ra) home , and according to your faith , imamam is masoom , so guarding usman(ra) home by “two” imams on the order of third and greatest imam, ali(ra) , can this means that 3 imams which are masooms guarded the “falsehood”!!!
Thirdly , brother , it were policies rather" changing" of quran and sunnah that worse the situstion , i give it from a site below:

“”“”“”""It is true that Abdullah bin Saba and his men did much to stir up discontent against Othman. But it is equally true that under Othman several things did go wrong. Things were very smooth when Othman took over. In the years that followed, disturbing factors slowly crept in.

Omar did not allow his officers to own property outside their native city. One of his Governors once asked permission to build ahouse in the provincial capital.

“No,” replied Omar, “you have a house of your own in Medina. You do not need another as long as this one is there.”

This policy of Omar kept the leading families of Islam in the national capital. Othman gave up this policy and allowed people to settle and own property wherever they liked. The result was that the leading families of the Quraish spread out in different cities. There they built up power. This naturally lead to a race for supreme power. Each family tried to outshine all others.

Banu Umayya and Banu Hashim were old rivals. The first two Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Omar, belonged to Banu Umayya. He gave his kinsmen high offices in the State. This offended Banu Hashim and their supporters. In later years, Othman came to depend to much on one of his kinsment. Marwan, who was a very clever man and was disliked by the people.

During Othman’s calpihate, the expansion of the Muslim empire almost came to an end. Man who had been kept busy by military campaigns now began to take interest in politics.

Kufa, Basra, Egypt and Syria were important military bases. These bases were mostly in the hands of men who had spent no time in the company of the Holy Prophet. The ultra-democratic spirit of Islam was a thing unknown to them. As soon as Omar’s strong hand was gone, these officers went back to old ways of dealing with people. They tried to be the rulers of people, rather than their servants. They tried to have for themselves the same comforts and luxuries as the old rulers of Iran and Byzantium enjoyed.

This created a distance between the rulers and the ruled. There free spirit of Islam got a set-back. Naturally people who knew what equality was felt bitter. And the common man who had tasted of it in full measure during Omar’s regime, put the whole blame on the new Caliph.
“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”“”

and the real “dispute” btween muavia(ra) and abuzar ghaffari(ra) was again a “difference” of opinion and approach , not that muavia(ra) hs changed quran or sunnah:Since Omar’s day, Muawia had been the governor of Syria. Muawia was a very wise and tactful ruler. He knew how to keep the situation in hand. So the Sabaite agents had no success in Syria.

Abu Dhar Ghiffari, a well-known Companion of the Holy Prophet, lived in Syria. He always kept aloof from the affairs of the world and its riches. He held that public income should be spent on the poor the moment it was received. He was against hoarding any money in the public treasury. “Public money is people’s money,” he said, “and should be spent on people the moment it comes in.” Muawia was of a different view. He thought that public income could be kept in the treasury to meet unforseen public needs of the future. He called public money “Allah’s money.” He said that the ruler, as the agent of Allah, had a right to spend public money as he thought fit. Abu Dhar thought otherwise.

In Syria Saba tried to take advantage of the difference of opinion between the Governor and Abu Dhar, the noted Companion. He went to Abu Dhar and said, “It is strange that Muawia calls public money, ‘the money of Allah.’ He means there by that people should have no say about the way public money is spent.”

Abu Dhar easily fell into the Sabaite trap. He went straight to Muawia and said, “How is it that you call public money the ‘money of Allah’?”

“Oh Abu Dhar?” replied Muawia mildly, “we are all the servants of Allah. So all our money is Allah’s money.”

The reply did not satisfy Abu Dhar.

“All right,” siad Muawia, “in future I will call this money public money.”

Now Abu Dhar raised another point. He preached that the rich had no right to amass wealth. Whatever was over and above their immediate needs, he said, should be given away to the poor. In support of this, he cited the following words of the Qur’an:

“They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, tell them of a painful doom on the day when it will all be heated in the fire of hell. Then their foreheads, their flanks and their backs will be branded therwith. Here is what you hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what you used to hoard.”

Here again Muawia differed with Abu Dhar. He held that after a man had paid the poor-rate of two and a half percent, he was free to own health.

Abu Dhar’s views made a great appeal to the masses. The great majority of people were poor. They wanted to share the comforts of the rich. Abu Dhar’s movement began to gain ground rather rapidly.

Muawia wrote about this to Othman. The Caliph wrote back that Abu Dhar be sent to Medina, with all the honor due to him.

In Medina, Abu Dhar started the same movement. Othman called him and said, “O Abu Dhar, I will force people to pay whatever they owe to Allah and His Apostle. In return, I will grant them the rights they have over me. But I can force no one to give up the world.”

“Well, then send me out of Medina,” said Abu Dhar, “The Prophet of Allah told me to leave Medina when it had expanded up to Salah.”

So Othman sent Abu Dhar to a small village away from Medina. He gave him some camels and also two servants to look after him.



So saying this everything is wrong isnot true , some thing is wrong aand i give it abobe from a site but sabai , most of the time , exagerratedthe matter for thier own interest and created misconceptions among the sahabas…

Re: A reality, but so painful.....

And the plan of abdullah ibne sabah was very tactful:Abdullah bin Saba, a clever Jew or Yemen, played a leading role in this drama. During Othman's calpihate, he came to Medina, and made a show of becoming a devout Muslim, but he had his own plans. He stayed for some months in Medina and studied things. He saw that Banu Hashim regarded the Caliphate their natural right. They thought that Ali, and not Othman, should have been the Caliph. Abdullah bin Saba determined to make capital out of this.

With great cunning, he set about his task. He made "love of the Holy Prophet and his relatives" his starting-point. Out of this, he spun a clever story. Every Prophet, he said, left behind a "Wasi." The Wasi must be a near relative of the Prophet. Aaron was the Wasi of Moses. In the same way, the Holy Prophet must also have a Wasi, to carry on his mission. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last of the Prophets. So, his Wasi, Ali, was the last of the Wasis. Being the Wasi, Ali was the only rightful man to be the Caliph. Othman, therefore had to be removed from the caliphate.

Abdullah bin Saba began to preach his views secretly. He visited important cities in the Muslim empire. In each city, he set up a secret society. He picked up men who lent an easy ear to what he said. These were generally the men who had some real or imaginary complaint against the officers. It was easy to tell these men that the Caliph was the real cause of all trouble.

*When the network of secret societies was complete, Abdullah bin Saba set up his headquarters in Egypt. The secret societies rapidly increased their strength. For this they used the following method:

*Their members made a great show of piety. They posed as the real well wishers of the people.

*They invented complaints against Othman and his officers. Some of the complaints were no doubt real. Under cover of these, they also said things that did not exist.

*A regular campaign was started against all officers. They were described as irreligions and inefficient.

********Forged letters were sent from city to city. These letters talked of injustice and unrest in the city of origin. The Sabaites read out the letters to as many people as possible. Letters were also forged to show that Ali, Talha, Zubair and other noted Companions had full sympathy with the movement. This led people to think that there was widespread unrest and that the leading Companions wanted to remove the Caliph.