Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

^ plz..reply for ibne Sadique excellent posts...do not twist the topic.....

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

yes .... and they have quoted in previous pages and that Kashi is the one of the greatest scholar of shiaism.....and its book is consider as authority on Isma Rijal ....

now here see ...3 Infallibles imams have made deceived for "Imaginary" personality....

The references you quoted are also saying that Ibn Saba appeared during the caliphate of Ali [as] and deemed him God (nauzobillah), a incident in history which most of the people do believe. So there isnt anything new.

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@bin adam

By the way who are Ahlul Bayt of Ali in your Treasury of Shi'ism? Zakirs and Maatamis who beat themselves up for crimes their forefathers have done?

also for a notes on which Baba Jee Quad-i-azam tasweer is pasted .... :D

[binAadam]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

interesting stuff posted by Contra,

Dear Bro,

i have some material , saying that whatever happend in kerbala was narrated only by one person and Scholar of Science of MEN, says that person was a Liar.

what u have to say about it., should i post the whole thing.

And Karbala is the gunpowder which fills their minds with fire, lol. They are recognised by Karbala stories though such stories are made up by a Liar Abu Mikhnaf Lut bin Yahya, who was again not an Infallible, lol.

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@malangalida

dawa-e-dil sahab agar aap quan aur apni books perhtay to shayed pait mein bal na perta...kiun keh umar ne nauman ki wafat per matam kiya,ayesha ne Rasool ki wafat per matam kiya,Nabion ne matam kiya...usman ke qatal per uss ki biwi aur betion ne matam kiya...aur bhi bohat se waqiyat hain tumhari books mein....aik mulla ke mernay per 400 students ne masjid ka mimber toar diya,pen toar diye aur 1 saal tak uss ke gham mein matam kiya...ab yeh ja ker aap perho phir batana keh pair mein bal para ya nhi.

Yeh sahab pehlay bhi matam par kaafi shor macha rahay thay lakin jab main nay ayesha ka matam karna aur in logon ki fiqh kay mutabiq matamdaar ka musalmaan na hona saabit kia to janab ki bolti band ho gyee thi, lakin nasibiat ka taqaza bayghairati hai lehaza ab phir matam par shor utha hai :D

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@nice boy

The references you quoted are also saying that Ibn Saba appeared during the caliphate of Ali [as] and deemed him God (nauzobillah), a incident in history which most of the people do believe. So there isnt anything new

Ya Allah ...kidhar sajda karoo :) :) :) :) :)

Thanksssssssssssssssss God

atleast you accepted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

Lo mairai bhai logo aur pyari bahan logo...

yahooooooooooooooooooooo..............

tara rum tara rum tara rum tara rummmmmmmmmmm

its prove by nice boy that.............

the founder of shiaism ================ Ibne Saba

tara rum tara rum :) :)

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

lets finish the game...buddies :D

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

Baharo phool barsao maira mehboob aya hai .........:D :D :D

[malangalida]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@BOY-NICE

Yeh sahab pehlay bhi matam par kaafi shor macha rahay thay lakin jab main nay ayesha ka matam karna aur in logon ki fiqh kay mutabiq matamdaar ka musalmaan na hona saabit kia to janab ki bolti band ho gyee thi, lakin nasibiat ka taqaza bayghairati hai lehaza ab phir matam par shor utha hai :D

Boy Nice! aap meray baray mein keh rahay hain ?? aray bhai mein ne to 1st time hi post ki hai,aap ne kahan dekh liya mujhay shoar machatay huay ??

[binAadam]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@BOY-NICE

Yeh sahab pehlay bhi matam par kaafi shor macha rahay thay lakin jab main nay ayesha ka matam karna aur in logon ki fiqh kay mutabiq matamdaar ka musalmaan na hona saabit kia to janab ki bolti band ho gyee thi, lakin nasibiat ka taqaza bayghairati hai lehaza ab phir matam par shor utha hai :D

Narrations which attribute maatam to Ummul Mumineen have been fabricated by Rafidhi Liars, this is because they hadn't separated their hadith literature from sunnis until a few centuries then Yaqub Koleni compiled first ever shias' book of Fabrications. This is the reason why we still have thousands of narrations which shias have included to our hadith literature but our hadith scholars have scrutinized all of them and keep doing that as this is an ongoing process.
What else you can expect from criminals, they attribute their crimes to those who are righteous.

[binAadam]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

Anyways, I would like a CONFESSION from you, Boy.
Do you agree that the 'aqeedah of Imamat in Shi'ism isn't proven by any Infallible Source, or not?

If there is no Infallible source to 'Aqeedah of Imamat in shi'ism then what is left in Shi'ism except Fake Stories?

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@binAadam

lol, even if I accept your argument the two witnesses come from Ahkaam and not 'Aqeedah as your so called 'Aqeedah of Imamat is, so get a life, find your Imams in the real world.

Wow! so Ahkam e Ilahi can be rejected according to you guys now! As for Imamate in Quran, then as i have said, unlike to your pathetic logic of few people selecting kind of this mankind lol, there are verses in Quran that clearly shows that only Allah can appoint guide/imam.

What is Ahlul Bayt in Quran?
Does Quran say anywhere that 'Ali is Ahlul Bayt or his wife and children are Ahlul Bayt of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam?

One of the popular female character of your school has narrated the incident of the revealation of last part of verse 33:33, making it clear as to who is included in Ahlulbayt [as] and who isnt.

Your so called Imams are Ahlul Bayt of 'Ali not of Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam?

This is the first time I am reading such a pathetic thing. Even some of the prominent Sunni scholars too have not rejected the Imams being from the Ahlulbayt [as] of Prophet [s] but here comes a Mufti, with his insane logics.

By the way who are Ahlul Bayt of Ali in your Treasury of Shi’ism? Zakirs and Maatamis who beat themselves up for crimes their forefathers have done

If according to your insane logic, doing matam is the sign of crimes committed by one’s forefather then would you be kind enough to tell me the crimes of Ayesh’as forefathers, since she was beating her face along with other women at the time of Prophet’s death.

lol, once again pathetic response. ‘Umar was a Believer though he didn’t believe in Khulafa Rashideen. Their being Khulafa is a fact, since all Muslims accepted them as their Khulafa, we also accept them, we are not Kharijites like Shi’ites to build Masjid Zaraar against Believers. We don’t get cut off from the Ijma’ of Ummah. Khulafa of Rashideen don’t make up our 'Aqeedah, get another life, lol.

Since I am not amongst the follower of those who kept prostating idols to the half of their lives, rather I am from the followers of Baab ul Ilm, hence do not ever try to play games with me According to Sunnies, if somone doesnt believe in the caliphate , oh no, in the “imamate” of Shaykhain, he is Kaafir, and yet you are bringing stupid excuses that it doesnt make uo your aqeedah!!! Take some examples:

Sunni author in his anti-Shia book quoting from various Hanafi authority works declares the rejecter of their caliphs to be Kaafir. For example he quotes from Barjundi Sharah Naqayah, Volume 4 page 21 published in Lucknow which quoted Fatwa e Zaheeriya:

“The rejecter of the Imamate of Siddiq Akbar [ra] is Kaafir and some have said that such a person is ill-madhab and not a Kaafir while the correct view is that he is Kaafir and similarly the rejecter of the Imamate of Farooq Azam [ra] is also Kaafir according to correct view.
… Bahar al Raiq, Volume 5 page 131 published in Egypt states that the rejecter of the Imamate and Khilafat of Abu Bakr or Umar is Kaafir”
‘Imam Ahmed Raza aur Shia Madhab’ page 53 (Ahmed Raza Publishers, Lahore)

The author cites similar kinds of edicts from Kiafaya Sharh Hidayah, Vol 1 (Bombay) and Mustakhlis al Haqaiq Shrah Kanz al Dhaqaiq, page 32 (Ahmedi publishers).

In order to show how ignorant you have been in your claim about the obligation of adhering to the imamate of yourcaliphs, let us cite the authority Sunni work ‘Hashiat al-Tahawi ala al-Maraaqi’ Volume 2 page 299:

“If somone denies the Khilafa of al-Siddiq he is kafir like the one who denied al-Isra”
Hashiat al-Tahawi ala al-Maraaq, Volume 2 page 299

We also read in ‘Sawaiq al Muhriqa’ by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Volume 1 page 138:

“The doctrine of Abu Hanifa may Allah be pleased with him is that whoever denies the khilafa of the Siddiq or Umar is kafir”
[Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Volume 1 page 138"]Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Volume 1 page 138](http://www.answering-ansar.org/aDecors/html_ico.gif(http://www.islammessage.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=464&id=135)

If this is not suffice to show the ignorance about the belief you are trying to defend, let us further cite from ‘Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa’ Volume 1 page 145:

“The Hanafi Imams have declared anyone who denies the khilafa of Abu bakr and Umar may Allah be pleased of them as Kafir. the statement is recorded in al-Ghaya and other books as it is mentioned in the book of Muhammad bin al-Hassan may Allah have mercy upon him and it appear that they took the judgment from their Imam Abu Hanifa may Allah be pleased with him”
Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqa, Volume 1 page 145](http://www.islammessage.com/booksww/book_search_results.php?bkid=464&id=141)

So a beleif in your school, the rejection of which would result in Kufr, yet we do not find its bases in Quran :S

Why would I take your definition of Taqiyyah while you believe in Taqiyyah, lol?

Then you wont even take the definition of Taqqiyah from Prophet [s] and Sunni scholar since they also believed in it lol .

Was there any man among your so called Infallibles to challenge those Nasibis?Or all of them lived their lives in cowardice?

If not challenging the tyrant is cowardness according to you then I dont know what you will call Holy Prophet [s] since he kept facing opression and hardships throughout his life :S

[system]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

^^your every "chapa" from different sites is useless now...you have accepted ibne saba ==== shiaism .......:) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@binAadam

Narrations which attribute maatam to Ummul Mumineen have been fabricated by Rafidhi Liars, this is because they hadn’t separated their hadith literature from sunnis until a few centuries then Yaqub Koleni compiled first ever shias’ book of Fabrications. .

“… Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (2:111)

Otherwise no need to transmit the stories which your elders have been narrating to you at bed time

The one of the most prominent anti-Shia scholar having Nasibi tendencies namely Ibn Kathir, who has the habit of commenting every tradition he records didnt find any objection in the matam of Ayesha yet you come after so many years to claim it a lie !!!

What else you can expect from criminals, they attribute their crimes to those who are righteous.

What you have to say about those criminals who left Prophet [s] alone during wars and ran away like chickens and cowards from the battle fields

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@dawa_i_dil

^^your every “chapa” from different sites is useless now…you have accepted ibne saba ==== shiaism …

If hinda comes alive along with her four male friends, even then you wont be able to prove any link of Ibn Saba to the Shias of Ali [as] that have been praised by the blessed tongue of Holy Prophet [s]. On the other hand, we see you people being proud of having Najis Nasibi and Khariji ancestors, abaduntly found in Saha Satta

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@binAadam

Anyways, I would like a CONFESSION from you, Boy. Do you agree that the 'aqeedah of Imamat in Shi'ism isn't proven by any Infallible Source, or not?

No I dont agree, it is proven from Quran and Ahlulbayt [as] :)

[BOY-NICE]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@dawa_i_dil

Ya Allah ...kidhar sajda karoo :) :) :) :) :)

Thanksssssssssssssssss God

atleast you accepted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Had you paid some attention instead of being hilarious, you would have known that I have always accepted that Ibn Saba believed Ali [as] as God (nauzobillah) and hence he was killed by Ali [as]. So there isnt anything new about it.

[binAadam]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@BOY-NICE

If hinda comes alive along with her four male friends, even then you wont be able to prove any link of Ibn Saba to the Shias of Ali [as] that have been praised by the blessed tongue of Holy Prophet [s]. On the other hand, we see you people being proud of having Najis Nasibi and Khariji ancestors, abaduntly found in Saha Satta

This is the religion of Rafidha Kuffar that when they don’t have any answer to the weaknesses of their faith, they start doing Tabarra upon Sahabah and Mothers of Believers. Saiyidah Hind radhiyAllahu 'anha is a Sahabiyah who embraced Islam and died as a Muslim and any shia who slanders her as this Kafir Rafidhi Boy has done, is not less than a Kafir and Zindeeq.

If you keep continuing the Dirt and S.h.i.t with which your religion is decorated then I have to remind you that one of your so called Infallible was a B.a.s.t.a.r.d according to your own narrations.

[binAadam]

Re: Abdullah ibn Saba - The Myth Exposed

@BOY-NICE

Wow! so Ahkam e Ilahi can be rejected according to you guys now! As for Imamate in Quran, then as i have said, unlike to your pathetic logic of few people selecting kind of this mankind lol, there are verses in Quran that clearly shows that only Allah can appoint guide/imam.

What a Rafidhi-Monkey!
The point wasn’t rejecting a Hukm but teaching you the difference between Ahkaam and 'Aqayed ya Rafidhi Jahil.
Of course we are not Kafirs like you to reject Ahkaam and 'Aqayed mentioned in Quran.
Secondly answer my question and don’t run away like your Last Naked Warrior, tell me if you accept that your Fake 'aqeedah of Imamat is dictated by Fallibles or not?

One of the popular female character of your school has narrated the incident of the revealation of last part of verse 33:33, making it clear as to who is included in Ahlulbayt [as] and who isnt.

lol, isn’t that incident reported through Fallibles? (narrators of hadith)
Since you are the followers of Fallibles (imams), give me a fallible evidence in case of Ahlul Bayt.

This is the first time I am reading such a pathetic thing. Even some of the prominent Sunni scholars too have not rejected the Imams being from the Ahlulbayt [as] of Prophet [s] but here comes a Mufti, with his insane logics.

My logic is very simple, that each and every pillar of your Ruined-Faith is founded on marshy foundations, i.e Fallible sources.

If according to your insane logic, doing matam is the sign of crimes committed by one’s forefather then would you be kind enough to tell me the crimes of Ayesh’as forefathers, since she was beating her face along with other women at the time of Prophet’s death.

Suppose Ummul Mumineen did beat her face at the time of Prophet’s death, then did she do the same maatam every year as your Psycho Monkeys do every year in Muharram?
Or Ummul Mumineen’s grief and its expression was limited to a point of time only?

Since I am not amongst the follower of those who kept prostating idols to the half of their lives, rather I am from the followers of Baab ul Ilm, hence do not ever try to play games with me

Aren’t you the follower of the Naked Imam who ran away for the fear of Nasibis and the coward is still at large?

According to Sunnies, if somone doesnt believe in the caliphate , oh no, in the “imamate” of Shaykhain, he is Kaafir, and yet you are bringing stupid excuses that it doesnt make uo your aqeedah!!! Take some examples:

Well, according to our faith, which has been deduced from Quran, whoever is the Rejector of Ijma’ of Ummah is a Kafir, since Ummah is united upon the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and 'Umar radhiyAllahu 'anhum, whoever denies their Khilafah is a Kafir like you Rafidha.
So, the point is not Khilafat of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but of Ijma’ of Ummah.

So a beleif in your school, the rejection of which would result in Kufr, yet we do not find its bases in Quran :S

The belief that the rejector of Ijma’ of Ummah is a Kafir has been deduced from Quran and it is concerned with Fiqh, though your stupid 'aqeedah of Imamat is not concerned with Fiqh rather this is your fundamental belief.

Then you wont even take the definition of Taqqiyah from Prophet [s] and Sunni scholar since they also believed in it lol .

As I said, criminals attribute their claims to those who are righteous in order to find excuses.

If not challenging the tyrant is cowardness according to you then I dont know what you will call Holy Prophet [s] since he kept facing opression and hardships throughout his life :S

My Prophet Muhammad sallAllahu 'alayhe wasallam can never be like your so called Infallibles. His whole life passed doing Jihad and Qitaal, he defeated Pagans and established Shari’ah and an Islamic state unlike your Imams who lived their lives as Cowards e.g the Naked Imam of the Time.