Since we have 2Pak and the shia crew determined to insult the beliefs of the Sunnis I think it is only right that the other point of view is shared. This site is a critique of Shia beliefs and is very extensive. I have already said that I think this sort of discussion is pointless but if people aren’t going to listen then we might as well have both points of view. The site is;
Another Sunni website to insult Shia Islam.
It doesn't negate/change the fact that Sunnis have hijacked true Islam and have used mis-intrepretations, like this website that you refer to, to protect 'the Companions' and to suit their (the Sunnis)ends/purpose.
In the end, logic & truth will prevail; it always does. Yours is not truth - it is 'mullaism'.
Hi Xtreme,
Its me Fanatic in case you don't know and didn't read my post in the previous century. So that was an interesting site. Maybe they would care to explain why the word SHIA is in the Koran and not the word Sunni?
[quote]
Originally posted by 2PaK:
Hi Xtreme,
Maybe they would care to explain why the word SHIA is in the Koran and not the word Sunni?
[/quote]
Im sorry but is this argument supposed to make sense? If it is, then congratulations to you on the fact that the word SHIA is in the Quran. And oh, by the way, the word KAFIR is in the Quran too..so is FAAJIR..so is MUSHRIK..so is KAAZIB....but i hang my head in shame, since the word sunni isnt in the Quran.
Akif,
You should know that one-fourth of the Quran is in praise of the Ahl-al-Bayt and there are 300 verses in praise of Hazrat Ali. Do you think this was only a coincidence?
The reason why the word Sunni is not in the Holy Book is because Sunni & Kafir is one and same.
Note: Not meant to hurt the well-meaning Sunni muslim brothers; this is necessary to convey a very strong message to Akif or Asif and of course, who can forget, Mr. Xtreme.
Thanks buddy, thats exactly what we need on Eid.. people going around calling each other kafir. Masha'Allah. I'm very impressed by the maturity shown here. All I know is that I think I'll leave the judging for Allah, I think He knows best what is in the hearts of all the Muslims, whether they are Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Ismaili or any other sect.
2Pak, iknow who you are, and wowyi i have one question for you;
how long has that Peshawar Nights thread been going before I put a Sunni version here for you to look at? I already said that I think this is all a waste of time, but you people would rather fight Sunnis than jews and mushriks so you took no notice.
Now you have hindus like realpaki from Fakistan jumping with delight. Well done.
[quote]
Originally posted by wowyi:
*Akif,
You should know that one-fourth of the Quran is in praise of the Ahl-al-Bayt and there are 300 verses in praise of Hazrat Ali. Do you think this was only a coincidence?
The reason why the word Sunni is not in the Holy Book is because Sunni & Kafir is one and same.
*
[/quote]
Yes, and ahl-e-bait are followers of Prophet SAW, and so is Hazrat Ali RA, one of the Khulafai Rashideen, all of whom are part of ashra-e-mubasharra. The deviatory group of people who call themselves followers of 12 imams or 14 imams, and call all the beloved sahaba nasty names are nothing but deviants. Whats gonna happen to them, or anyone else for that matter, is in Allah SWTs hands. I am not gonna send u to hell, and you are not gonna send me to hell. We all have our own accounts to pay, and one thing Im satisfied about is that Im not cursing out any of the beloved sahaba and will never do so.
Xtreme says,
"I put a Sunni version here for you to look at? I already said that I think this is all a waste of time, but you people would rather fight Sunnis than jews and mushriks so you took no notice. Now you have hindus like realpaki from Fakistan jumping with delight. Well done."
First, what you posted is not a Sunni version of Peshawar Nights; did you bother to even compare or glance at it; or, simply posted it out of service to your Sunni Faith. What you posted was an anti-shia baseless propaganda.
You also say,
"I already said that I think this is all a waste of time ....;"
You thought it was a waste of time, yet you chose to post it; Why don't you post some more.
I am actually glad that RealPaki and others are taking note and learning some facts about what makes you all tick.
Akif,
Who are you to call us deviants and then top it off with yet the biggest hypocrisy by saying "Allah knows best" as your cohorts always resort to; in this case, you have used:
"Whats gonna happen to them, or anyone else for that matter, is in Allah SWTs hands."
You ceaselessly denigrate us and then offer lip service like this regularly in your post. Get real, man. If you want to spread anti-shia venom, I am willing to take you on.
Who are you to call us deviants and then top it off with yet the biggest hypocrisy by saying "Allah knows best" as your cohorts always resort to;
Anyone who ignores the sayings of Allah SWT and teachings of Prophet SAW is a deviant.
"If you want to spread anti-shia venom, I am willing to take you on."
I am sure you are willing to take me on, but I dont think you are worth it. One who cant understand the wide open facts of Islam doesnt deserve time of day. Your heaviest concentration resides in Iran, and Iran has been the target of the most earthquakes during the past century. If you cant understand these signs of Allah SWTs anger with you and your people, then who am I to say anything.
Akif,
Pls don't play the numbers game or claim, yet again, that Shias are ignorant and only Sunnis are on the right path. You are afraid to face the truth; you rely on false accusations to boost you 'shaky' Iman.
Akif- so, who's is ignorant and who is a rafizi? And, how does it feel when the shoe's on the other foot or, when the position reverses and this Shia now condemns you as a rafizi?
Good Luck !
Letter from Sipahe Sahabah the SUNNI terrorist organization.
Bismillah Ir Rahman Ir Raheem
As-Salaamu Alaikum Waramatullah Wabarakatuh..
How powerful can propaganda be in this age? Flooded by publication in so many language, the Shi'a, for so many years, continously uttered falsehood as truth. For those who are ignorant of the Shi'a Beliefs, as every Muslim's duty, Sipah-e-Sahaba-USA intend to enlighten our brothers and sisters especially the REVERT MUSLIMS trying to understand the difference between being a Muslim and being a Shi'a.
Shi'a Beliefs according to their own BOOKS.
1.Belief of the Immamat. The standard of Immamat is higher than the Prophethood. ( Hayatul Qaloob Vol. 3 pg. 10) 2.Angels bring WEHI to the Immamas:every Friday, they go to MIRAJ ( Asool-e-Kaafi pg. 135, 155) 3.Every year the BOOK reveals on the Immam of the Time of the night of the Qadr ( Comt. Asool-e- Kaafi Vol. 2 pg.229) 4.Their Immams got higher status, that can't be achieved by the Angels nor the Prophet. ( Khomeini . Hakoomatil Islamia pg.52) 5.Alteration in the Qur'an. A big part of the Qur'an is missing (Sani Comt. Asool-e-Kaafi Vol. 6 pg. 75) 6.Like the Torah and the Bible, they claim that the Qur'an is also corrupted and there were changes made in it. (Fazal-ul-Katab pg.70 ) 7.Shi'a beliefs of 17,000 ayats (verses) in Qur'an ( Asool-e-Kaafi pg 671) 8.Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umer were never became true Muslims according to the Shi'a. ( Jal'l Ayuoon pg. 45 ) 9.After the Prophet ( Sallalahu Alayhis Wasallam) passed away, all the Sahabas left Islam except for three. ( Qur'an Kaafi Vol. 3 pg. 115 ) 10.Mutt'a ( temporary marriage) In the name of Mutt'a, Shi'a faith allows its followers to commit adultery. They allow man and woman to have sexual relations without having the NIKKAH. Mutt'a is a temporary Nikkah whereby you do not need witnesses. If the man and woman agreed, they can do Mutt'a. Mutt'a could be performed for ONE hour, ONE day, ONE month or whatever time limit was agreed upon by the two consenting parties. Mutt'a could be done with any women even professional prostitutes. (Froaiy Kaafi Vol.2 pg.189) Mutt'a is higher than SALAT, FASTING, and HAJJ. When after performing Mutt'a , man and woman take Ghussul ( bath) , Allah(swt) forgive their sins in the amount of the hair in their bodies those became wet during the Ghussal ( Minal Yahderul Faqih pg. 431) 11.TAQIYYAH (lying) is an act of IBADAH ( worship ) in SHI'ASM. One who hides the faith (Shi'a), will be disgraced by Allah(swt). (Asool-e-Kaafi pg. 485) Taqiyyah is wajib(mandatory) . One who does not do Taqiyyah has no iman (faith) (Asool-e-Kaafi pg484)
Who can say these above mentioned aquaid (beliefs) to be Islamic? This is nothing but KUFR... Do not be mislead ! To the Muslim Ummah , SIPAH-e-SAHABA-USA, Inc. ( guardians of the SAHABA) urge all Believing Muslims to participate in this GREAT JIHAD, that Shi'a are not MUSLIMS...
In service to Allah (swt),
K.Zafar
SIPAH-e-SAHABA-U.S.A. , Inc.
P.O.BOX 795
BROOKLYN,
NEW YORK 11230
TELEPHONE: (718) 390 8816
In the name of Allah, Most Beneficient, Most Merciful,
Was Salamu Ala ManiTtabaa'l Huda
A write up by K. Zafar of Sipahe Sahaba (U.S.A.) entitled 'Are Shia Muslims?' has found its place in the internet, loaded with the time worn objections and arguments against the Shia sect of Islam. These have been adequately and amply answered time and again by the Shia scholars, but the zeal of Sipahe Sahaba to create dissention and disunity among the Ummah of Islam remains unabated.
Two cardinal points have to be clarified before we proceed with answering the objections raised by the writer:
1.It must be borne in mind that according to Shia belief, every book authored by a human mortal can be subject to error, and, therefore, unlike the Sunni brothers, they do not consider their books of Ahadith as 'SAHIH' or fully authentic and sound. While the Sunni school has 6 books labelled as 'SIHAH', eg SAHIH OF BUKHARI and MUSLIM etc., the Shias believe that the only book which can be classified as pristine and unsullied is the Book of Allah, the Holy Qur'an.
2.The quotations given by K Zafar are wholly inadequate. She does not quote from Usool al Kafi by giving Chapter and Hadith numbers, and contents herself by giving page numbers. As there are various editions of Usool al Kafi and the other books quoted by her, it is indeed difficult to verify their accuracy.
K Zafar says:
(1) "Belief of the Imamat. The standard of Imamat is higher than the Prophethood".
It is impossible to find anything objectionable in this belief, because it is based on the Holy Qur'an, see verse 124 of Sura Al Baqarah: "And when Ibrahim was tried by his Lord with certain Words, and he fulfilled them, He (Allah) said: Surely I will make you an Imam to the people,..."
This verse clearly states that the elevation of status to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, came in the form of a WAHY (a revelation). This means that he was being promoted from Nubuwwah to Imamah.
(2) "Angels bring WEHI (sic) to the Imams: every Friday they go to MIRAJ(sic)".
The writer may like to consider the following verses from the Holy Qur'an:
"And your Lord sent WAHY to the bee to build its cells in hills...." (al Nahl, verse 68)
"So We sent WAHY to the mother of Musa that suckle him...." (al Shua'raa, verse 7)
"And we made them Imams, guiding men by Our command and We sent WAHY to them to do good deeds..." (al Anbiya', verse 73).
From the verses quoted above, it is evident that WAHY is used by the Holy Qur'an to mean inspirations, intuitive knowledge, apart from the WAHY in the form of a revelation to the Prophets. WAHY to Imams came as the inspirations as vouched by the Holy Qur'an. That is the meaning of revelation on the night of Qadr, coming to the righteous Imams.
(3,4) "Their Imams got higher status, that can't be achieved by the Angels nor the Prophet"
This objection is very surprising. For both Sunni and Shia schools agree that not only the Imams, but also an ordinary MU'MIN, following the Shariah of Islam can achieve higher status than the angels. Angels do not have emotions, passions and desires. Humans have to combat all the evils to achieve purity. Therefore, when he frees himself from base desires and obeys his Master, he has a higher place.
As for our Prophet, peace be upon him and his proginy, no Shia scholar has ever claimed a higher status for any Imam.
(5,6,7) These deal with quotations from Shia sources saying that the Holy Qur'an has had omissions or changes.
At the very outset, I made it clear that such reports are not accepted as sound. We, Shias, unlike our Sunni brothers do not accord the status of 'SAHIH' to any book other than the Holy Qur'an. Every report is subjected to a meticulous study, based on the laid down standards of RIJAAL and SANAD. Time and again we have reiterated that the Holy Qur'an as it exists is the WHOLE book, having no interpolations at all.
It might interest K Zafar and other partisans of Siph-e-Sahaba to consider the following reports from SAHIH books of Sunni school:
(i)"Reported from Caliph Umar(Rad.) who said from the pulpit: Surely Allah sent Muhammad, peace be upon him, with Truth, and sent down to him the Book, and among the things revealed therein was the verse of RAJM. We read it, understood it and assimilated it. (That is, the verse about stoning the adulterer: tr.) The Prophet stoned the adulterer and we did the same after his passing away. So, I fear that with the passage of time, someone may say that we do not find this verse in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by not practising that which has been ordained. The mention of RAJM in the Book of Allah is truth for the one who commits adultery." (Al Bukhari,Vol4/120. The chapter of Rajmul HUbla min al Zina. Kitabul Hudood).
According to this report appearing from Al Bukhari, which is SAHIH according to SUNNI school, a verse from the Holy Qur'an is missing.
In the SAHIH of Ibn MAJAH, Ayesha, the wife of our Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, is reported as under:
"The verse of RAJM and about suckling a child at least 10 times, had indeed been revealed and they were written on a page which was under my bed, but when the Prophet died, while we were occupied with the tragedy, a domestic animal entered and ate the page up." (SUNAN ibn MAJAH: Hadith no 1944 and 2553).
Hadhrat Ayesha tells us of the irretrievable loss of a verse from the Holy Qur'an.
In spite of the above reports from their own sources, which they consider as 'SAHIH', K Zafar and her likes have the audacity of throwing stones while living in glass houses. We, the Shias, believe that these reports appearing in Al Bukhari and Ibn MAJAH are false, and neither SUNNI nor SHIA believe in any change having occured in the Holy Book.
(8,9) About the SAHABA being true Muslims.
We Shia believe that Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umar were MUSLIMS. And the SAHABA who survived the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, were MUSLIMS. The qualifying term "true" is judged by the actions of an individual.
- K. Zafar's hue and cry against MUTA'H is very amusing. This practice of MUTA'H was ordained by the HOLY Quran is its verse:
" And for the pleasure you derive from them, give them their dowers, as prescribed...... "(al Nisa, V 24)
In order to understand the verse from SUNNI sources, refer to Tafseer of al-Tabari elucidating the verse from a report by Habib b. Ali Thabit. Also see al Bayhaqi in his SUNAH 7/205, Sharah of SAHIH MUSLIM by al-Nawawi 9/179, al-Kasshaf by Zama Khshari 1/519, Tafseer of Ibn Katheer 1/474, and also al-Durr al Manthoor of Suyuti 2/140-141.
Now, in order to explain to K. Zafar what MUTA'H actually means in the FIQH of ISLAM, I quote herebelow from TAUDHIHUL MASAIL according to the Fatawa of Shia scholars, because she has levelled allegations against the Shias.
"Whether marriage is permanent or temporary, the formal formula must be pronounced; mere tacit approval and consent, or written agreement, is not sufficient. And the formula (Sigha) of the marriage contract is pronounced either by the man and the woman themselves, or by a person who is appointed by them as their representatives to recite it on their behalf.
"If a woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, makes a condition that her husband will not have sexual intercourse with her, the marriage as well as the condition imposed by her will be valid, and the husband can then derive only other pleasures from her. However, if she agrees to sexual intercourse later, her husband can have sexual intercourse with her, and this rule applies to permanent marriage as well.
"A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted, is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of husband, and does not inherit from him, and the husband, too, does not inherit from her. However, if one or both lay down a condition regarding inheriting each other, such a stipulation is a matter of Ishkal as far as its validity is concerned, but even then, precaution should be exercised by putting it into efefct.
"If a wife of temporary marriage goes out of the house without the permission of her husband, and the right of the husband is in anyway violated, it is haram for her to leave. And if the right of her husband remains protected, it is recommended precaution that she should not leave the house without the permission.
"If a man contracted a temporary marriage with a woman, and the period of her Iddah has not ended yet, he is allowed to contract a permanent marriage with her or renew a contract for temporary marriage with her."
From those ramifications, it is easy to observe that MUTA'H is a contract, just like NIKAH in a permanent marriage, it has a formula to pronounce, and it has certain responsibilities. This was ordained to prevent MUSLIMS from committing adultery and fornication, and from demeaning the status of MUSLIM women. Today, this ordinance is even more pertinent and relevant.
In his MUSNAD, Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal reports from Abu Saeed al-KHUDARI, who said: "We contracted MUTA'H during the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in lieu of the cloth. (see MUSNAD of AHMAD 3/22).
In the SAHIH of MUSLIM, a report from ATA' appears who said: "JABIR b. Abdillah once came for Umrah, and we met him in his house. People gathered there asked him a few things, and then they mentioned MUTA'H. He said: "Yes, we contracted MUTA'H during the times of the Prophet, peace be upon him, and of Abu Bakr and Umar" (see SAHIH MUSLIM. KITAB AN-NIKAH, Hadith No. 1405, page 1023).
It was Umar b. Khattab, who later forbade MUTA'H, and opened the gate of vices for MUSLIMS. In his Tafsir al-Kabir, Imam Fakhr Al-Razi says: "Had it not been for Umar who forbade MUTA'H, no one would have indulged in fornication except the wretched one". (see Tafseer al-Kabir - 3/200 in the exegesis of the Ayah).
- K. Zafar has totally misunderstood the meaning of Taqayyah. It is not lying. It is hiding ones faith in a situation which justifies it.
The Holy Quran says:-
"A believing Man, from among the people of Pharaoh who had concealed his faith said...." (al MO'MIN v. 28)
For the one who was concealing his faith, the verse says he was "RAJULUN MOMINUN". So, what is wrong if one has to conceal his faith if circumstances warrant? The early history of Islam is fraught with incidents when the early converts had to conceal their faith. The most glowing example is that of Ammar b. Yasir. And yet, when he came to the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, ashamed of what he had done by way of simulation, the Prophet said: "Faith has covered Ammar from his heed to his toes".
Inshallah, these explanations will allow Sipahe Sahaba to understand Shia beliefs dispassionately. Let the Ummah of Islam be saved from the unscrupulous hands, and from the enemies within and without, Amin.
Our final prayer is that "All Praise belong to the Lord of the worlds".
Asgharali M.M. Jaffer
•Return to The Big Issue Index Page
Rejoicing OF THE MISSIONARIES AND
ORIENTALISTS
Upon the publication of the book Faslul-Khitaab over eighty years
ago, there was great rejoicing amongst the enemies of Islam, in par-
ticular, the missionaries and orientalists. They liked the book so much
that they decided to translate it into their own languages. It is no
wonder, since it contained hundreds of lies such as those mentioned
above, along with slanderous fabrications against Allah and the
choicest of His creation, the Holy Prophet of Islam (upon whom be
peace), and against the venerable Companions (may Allah be pleased
with them all).15
There are two clear texts from Al-Kaafi of Al-Kulaini, which
elucidate the Shi'ites' perverse position regarding the Qur'an. The first
reads:
I heard Abu Jafar (upon whom be peace) say: "None of the people
has claimed that he collected the Quran completely as it was reveal-
ed except a liar. No one collected and memorized the Qur'an as it
was revealed except 'Ali bin Abi Taalib and the Imams after him. 16
Every Shi'ite is required to believe in this text from Al-Kaafi as an
article of their faith.
As for us, Ahlus-Sunnah, we say that in fact the Shi'ites have false-
ly attributed the above text to Al-Baaqir Abu Ja'far. The proof of our
position is that 'Ali, during the period of his caliphate in Kufah, never
resorted to or applied any version of the Qur'an other than that with
which Allah had favored the Caliph 'Uthman by the distinction of its
collection, publication and popularization and by its legal application
in all Islamic lands for all time up to the Day of Judgment. If it were true
that 'Ali had a different version of the Qur'an he surely would have ap-
plied it in making legal rulings, and he would have commanded the
Muslims to abide by its injunctions and guidance. Clearly, since he was
the supreme ruler, none would have challenged his authority to do this.
Furthermore, if indeed 'Ali had a different version of the Qur'an
and concealed it from the Muslims, then he would have betrayed
Allah, His Messenger and the religion of Islam by so doing. As for
Jaabir Al-Ju'fi who claims that he heard that blasphemous conversation
from the Imam Abi la'far Muhammad Al-Baaqir, it must be noted that
although the Shi'ites consider him a trustworthy narrator of traditions,
the fact is that he is well known in the Sunni schools of theology as a
liar and forger of traditions. Abu Yahya Al-Hammani reported that he
heard the Imam Abu Hanifa saying, "Ataa' is the best i.e., the most
truthful and precise in reporting from amongst those I have come
across in the field of transmitting traditions, while Jaabir Al-Ju'fi is the
greatest liar I have come across amongst them." 17
The second of the two texts from Al-Kaafi mentioned above, is at-
tributed to the son of Ja'far As-Saadiq. It reads:
It is related that Abu Baser said: "I entered upon Abu 'Abdullah
[Ja'far As-Sadiq]... [Who] said 'Verily we have with us the Qur'an of
Fatimah (upon whom be peace).' I said: 'What is the Qur'an of
Fatimah?' He replied: 'It contains three times as much as this Qur'an
of yours. By Allah, it does not contain one single letter of your
Qur'an' . P
These fabricated Shi'ite texts which are falsely attributed to the
Imams of Ahlul-Bait are of fairly early date. They were recorded by
Muhammed bin Ya'qoob Al-Kulaini Ar-Razi in the book Al-Kaafi over a
thousand years ago, and they are from before his time, because they
were narrated on the authority of his ancestors, the master engineers
of the false foundations of Shi'ism. During the time when Spain was
under the reign of Arab Muslims, the Imam Abu Muhammad bin
Hazam used to debate with Spain's priests regarding the texts of their
sacred books. He used to bring forth proofs which established their
having been tampered with, and altered so much that their authentic
origins had been lost. Those priests used to argue with Ibn Hazam that
the Shi'ites had asserted that the Qur'an also had been altered. Ibn
Hazam refuted their argument by replying that the allegation of the
Shi'ites is not a proof against the Qur'an, nor against the Muslims,
because Shi'ites are not Muslims.
taken from the website above.
Earthquakes?
How stupid can you be? Don't you know that all sunni countries in the Middle East are being controlled by USA? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain etc. And all these rich powerful countries need protection from another Sunni country which is Iraq. Iraq? That is one of the poorest countries in the world. What capabilities it has to destroy rich powerful countries in the Middle East? Our sunni brothers and sisters will never get rid off western occupation like the Shias in Iran did in 1979. Israel would have been destroyed by now if it weren't for these stupid Sunni countries who bow and beg on thier knees to the west.
This excerpt was taken from "Then I Was Guided" by Muhammad Samawi Tijani who WAS a Tunisian Sunni but then became a Shia after reading SUNNI BOOKS
1. The text regarding the succession to the Caliphate
I have committed myself, before embarking on this study, to never depending on any reference unless it is considered authentic by the two parties, and to discarding those references that are solely referred to by only one of the parties.
Thus, I shall investigate the idea regarding the preference between Abu Bakr and Ali ibn Abi Talib, and that the succession of the caliphate was by written text [Dictate] for Ali, as the Shiites claim, and not by election and Shura [consultation] as the Sunnis claim.
Any researcher in this subject, if he considers nothing but the truth, will find that the text in support of Ali is very clear, like the following saying by the Messenger of Allah: Whoever considers me his master, then Ali is his master. He said it at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including** Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers**." [64]
[64]
Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
Siyar al Amin, al Ghazali, p 12
Tadhkirat al Awas, Ibn al Jawzi, p 29
Al Riyadh al Nazarah, al Tabari, vol 2 p 169
al Bidayah wan Nihayah, vol 5 p 212
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 50
Tafsir, al Razi, vol 3 p 63
al Hawi lil Fatawi, al Suyuti, vol 1 p 112
**This text has been agreed on by both Shiites and Sunnis, and in fact I have only referred in this study to some Sunni references. and not to all of them, for they are so many.
If the reader wants more information, he may read "al- Ghadir" by al-Amini (thirteen Volumes) in which the writer classifies the sayings of the Prophet according to the Sunnis. **
As for the alleged popular election of Abu Bakr on "The Day of al-Saqifah" and his subsequent acclamation in the mosque; it seems that it was just an allegation without foundation. How could it be by popular agreement when so many people were absent during the acclamation? People like: Ali, al-Abbas, most of the house of Bani Hashim, Usama ibn Zayd, al-Zubayr, Salman al-Farisi, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar ibn Yasir, Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Abu Burayd al-Aslami, al-Bura ibn Azib, Abu Ka'b, Sahl ibn Hanif, Saad ibn Ubada, Qays ibn Saad, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Jabir ibn Saad, Khalid ibn Saad, and many others. [65]
[65]
Tarikh, al Tabari
Ibn al Athir
Suyuti
Baghdadi
So where was that alleged popular agreement? The absence of Ali alone from the acclamation is sufficient to criticize that meeting because he was the only candidate for the caliphate, nominated by the Messenger of Allah, on the assumption that there was no direct text regarding such a nomination.
The acclamation of Abu Bakr was without consultation, in fact it took the people by surprise, especially when the men in charge of the Muslim affairs were busy preparing for the funeral of the Messenger of Allah. The citizens of al-Medinah were shocked by the death of their Prophet, and then they forced the acclamation [66] on the people. and even threatened to burn the house of Fatima if those who were absent from the acclamation refused to leave it. So how could we say that the acclamation was implemented through consultation and popular agreement?
[66]
Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 18
Umar ibn al-Khattab himself testified that that acclamation was a mistake - may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil -, and that whoever repeated it should be killed, or he might have said that if someone called for a similar action there would he no acclamation for him or for those who acclaimed him. [67]
Sahih, Bukhari, vol 4 p 127
Imam Ali said about that acclamation: By Allah, Ibn Abi Quhafa has got it! And he knows that my position [regarding the caliphate] is like that of the pole in relation to the millstone! The torrent flows from me, and the bird will never reach me! [68]
[68]
Sharh, Muhammad Abduh, vol 1 p 34, Sermon as Shaqshaqiyah
Saad ibn Ubada, a prominent man from al-Ansar, attacked Abu Bakr and Umar on the day of "al-Saqifah", and tried hard to keep them away from the caliphate, but could not sustain his efforts, for he was ill and unable to stand, and after al-Ansar paid homage to Abu Bakr, Saad said: "By Allah I shall never pay homage to you until I cast my last arrow at you, and pierce you with my lance, and attack you with my sword, with all the power in my hand, and fight you with all the members of my family and clan. By Allah, even if all the Jinns [invisible beings] and the human beings gathered to support you, I will never acclaim you, until I meet my God." He never prayed with them, he never sat in their company, he never performed the pilgrimage with them, and if he found a group of people willing to fight them, he would give them all his support, and if somebody acclaimed him to fight them, he would have fought them. He remained thus until he died in Syria during the caliphate of Umar. [69]
[69]
Tarikh, Qutaybah, vol 1 p 17
If that was a mistake (may Allah protect the Muslims from its evil) as Umar put it (and he was one of its architects, and knew what happened to the Muslims as a result of it), and if that succession to the caliphate was illegal (as Imam Ali described it when he said that he was the lawful nominee for it),** and if that acclamation was unjust (as according to Saad ibn Ubada the leader of al-Ansar who left al-Jamaah because of it), and if that acclamation was unlawful due to the absence of the leading figures of the Companions, including al-Abbas, the uncle of the Prophet, so what is the evidence and proof which supports the legality of the Abu Bakr's succession to the caliphate? **
*The answer, is that there is no evidence or proof with the Sunnis and al-Jamaah. *
Therefore, what the Shiites say regarding this issue is right,** because it has been established that the Sunnis have the text which proves the succession of Ali to the caliphate, but they deliberately misinterpret it to maintain the Companion's honour.** Thus, the just and fair person has no choice but to accept the text, especially if he knows the circumstances that surrounded the case. [70]
[70]
al Saqifah wal Khulafah by Abdul Fattah Abdul Maqsood
al Saqifah by Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar
Lets see whos stupid and how stupid they can get. Iraq is a sunni country...since when? and u call urself a shia? hah. Iraq is 60% shias, 20% sunnis, 15% christians, and rest are minorities, ala yazidis, kurds etc. Remember the decade long Iran-Iraq war? Yes sir, it was your very own shia bretheren fighting against each other, firing one bullet a day, being the cowards that they are. By the way, the Iranians themselves have rejected the hard nosed Khomeinism that had been destroying and isolating the country for the past 2 decades, and as it stands now, after repeated warnings by Allah SWT in the form of the most earthquakes to hit any country in the past century, ur very own Khamenei has softened his stance on a lot of issues, and is trying to step forward to liberalism. How far he will get remains to be seen, but to compare Iran with Saudi Arabia or Kuwait etc is ridiculous. Regardless of the American presence in the mideast, which i myself dislike, Allah SWT has given them endless wealth, since HE himself is the protector of HIS house that Ibrahim AS built.
[This message has been edited by Akif (edited January 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Akif (edited January 10, 2000).]
Let's think about this for a minute: The Sunnis, for generations have called Shias kafirs but their(Sunnis') real intention is far more sinister, which is, to suppress & conceal the betrayal of the Companions.
The Companions were plotting as our beloved Prophet lay dying(PBUH&HF). They turned against the true successor to the Prophet whose nomination was thru authority of Allah.
If the Quran & Hadiths are logically analyzed - even a uninformed can conclude that Hazrat Ali(PBUH&HF)was the successor. Islam would have looked different today if Hazrat Ali did succeed the Prophet as ordained by Allah!
Again, the blood-curling insult by Hazrat Umar towards the beloved prophet when the prophet asked for pen & paper so he may write down his last will. Insults are also documented against Bibi Ayesha towards the beloved Prophet.
Shias do not have to answer to the Sunnis; rather, it is they (the Sunnis) who have to answer.
AKIF - Pls do a little research before you open your mouth. Yes, Iraq is predominantly Shia, but the rulers (Saddam Hussain +) are Sunnis -- it was the Sunnis cliche that started the war against Shia Iran. Also, inspite of the decade old blocade against Iraq, the people of Iraq - being the most educated in the middle east, were able to sustain and rebuild their infrastructure. Again, Iran, is comparatively, better educated and well-off than most of the Arab middle-east where most of the wealth is concentrated in hands of the royal family and their cohorts.
Not that you can ever have any regard for the Ashra-e-Mubasharra, but does the fact that Hazrat Abubakr RA, Hazrat Umar RA, Hazrat Usman RA and Hazrat ALi RA all are part of that group mean anything to you? And under those circumstances, do u think Allah SWT didnt know how his designated jannatis would act after the Prophet SAW died? Or is it that (naoozubillah) Allah SWT made a mistake by designating them as jannatis, and that ALlah SWT didnt know that people like Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Usman and Hazrat Abubakr would come back to revolt against the ways of Prophet SAW?
And if Iran and Iraq are in such good shape, why do you see Irani men AND women migrating to USA in more numbers since the advent of Khomeini than ever before? Why dont we see such an influx from rest of the middle east? Could it be that perhaps they are the ones in better shape?
When is iraq a shia nation? Saddam Hussein is sunni and no shia is allowed to hold political office in Iraq. Why? Because sunnis are and have always been and will always be Rascist. So how can Iraq be a Shia country? Allah has given them wealth so America can take it from them. They have not used their wealth to give a better image to Islam, destroy Israel, help Palestine, Libya etc.
Abu Bakr, Usman, Umar are all rich incoherent bastards and were no better than Yazid.
It is people like you who are incoherent bastards, m***s,a*les. If only you were in front of me for desecrating the sahaba I would've pounded your cowardly ass from here to hell where you and the rest of the shia bastards belong. The shias are the worst of the munafiqs and will inshaAllah burn in the lowest grade of Hell.