Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
abay copy paster atlease make some effort and edit the document first before submitting...all i see is verdana verdana verdana font font font haha lol
it just shows how clueless you really are
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Abbay its your computer. 
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
'abay'. . .its mine computer as well. Sheraz is right. Edit your post and make it readable. I just can't read it man. 20 Verdanas 10 fonts followed by a line and again 10 fonts and 20 verdanans. Can't figure out what it is. . .
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Agree with you 100 %… That is the reason why i posted in this long thread that politically you have a choice which you think “smart” for the caliphate… and unanimously all the muslims chose abu bakr(ra) and** banu hashim** , which were first reluctant to accept his caliphate and wanted the caliphate to remain in thier family , it does not mean that to** change** even the minute detail of religion and establish a parallel religion opposite to 85 % majority ahle sunnah waljama and beilieve me , banu hashim and 12 imams never did this and never changed the religion By God , they were on the same religion as ahle sunnah wal jama as same as of prophet(pbuh) … as same as sahabas… But latter on the revenge of Persian conquest of arab and clash of arabian and persian civilization… first shias blammed the consensus of 3 caliphs , then started cursing sahabs and latter on in "Safyad" dynasty of iran in **15 century … the whole shia doctrine was established … just an opposite to majority of muslims in every aqeeda , ibadat **and aspect …just 180 degrees with majority…
Here are proofs of all i have said above :
Safavid dynasty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Safavids (Persian: صفویان ) were a native Iranian[1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#_note-EoI)[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#_note-0)[3]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#_note-Meyers) dynasty, founded by Azeri Turks that ruled Iran from 1501 to 1736.[4]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#_note-1)
Safavids, patronized Iranian culture in the manner of their predecessors, with the difference that they were of Iranian stock. It was Safavids who made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shi’ism against the onslaughts of orthodox Sunni Islam, and the repository of Persian cultural traditions and self-awareness of Iranianhood. [5]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_dynasty#_note-2) and acting as a bridge to modern Iran. The founder of the dynasty, Shah Isma’il adopted the title of “Persian Emperor” Pādišah-ī Īrān, with its implicit notion of an Iranian state stretching from the Afghanistan as far as Euphrates, and from the Oxus to the southern Territories of Persian Gulf. [6]](Safavid dynasty - Wikipedia)
Establishment of Shi’ism as the state religion
Even though Safavids were not the first Shia rulers in Iran, they played the most crucial role in making Shia Islam the official religion in the whole of Iran. There were large Shia communities in some cities like Qom](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qom) and Sabzevar](Sabzevar - Wikipedia) as early as 8th century. In the 10th and 11th centuries the Buwayhids who were of Zeydi](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zeydi&action=edit)a branch of Shi’ism ruled inFars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fars)**, Isfahan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isfahan_(city)) and Baghdad](Baghdad - Wikipedia). As a result of Mongol conquest, and the relative religious tolerance of the Ilkhanids, Shia dynasties were re-established in Iran -Sarbedaran](Sarbadars - Wikipedia) in **Khorasan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khorasan) being the most important. ShahÖljeitü](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Öljeitü) - the sultan of Ilkhanate converted to Twelver Shiism in 13th century, however the population of Iran](Iran - Wikipedia) stayed largely Sunni](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) until Safavid period.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1a/Hatemipersianarmy.JPG/250px-Hatemipersianarmy.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Persian Army- Watercolor by Haydar Hatemi-2002
Following the conquest of **Iran](Iran - Wikipedia), Ismail I made conversion mandatory for the largely Sunni](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) population. The Sunni Ulama](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema) were either killed or exiled. Ismail I, despite his heterodox Shia beliefs, which were not compatible with orthodox Shi’ism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi’ism) (Momen, 1985) brought in Shi’a religious leaders, granted them land and money in return for loyalty. Later during Safavid and especially Qajar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qajar) period the role of Shia ulema increased and they were able to exercise a role, independent of or compatible with the government’s. Despite Safavid’s Sufi origins, most Sunni or Shia Sufi groups were prohibited bar Nimatullahi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimatullahi) order. Iran became a feudal theocracy: there was no separation of religion and state; the Shah was held to be divinely ordained head of both. In the following centuries, this religious schism would both cement both Iran’s internal cohesion and national feelings and provoke attacks by its Sunni](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) neighbors.**
Constant wars with the Ottomans made Shah Tahmasp I move the capital from Tabriz, into the interior city of Qazvin in 1548. Later, Shah Abbas I moved the capital even deeper into central Iranian city of Isfahan, building a new city next to the ancient Persian one. From this time the state began to take on a more Persian character. The Safavids ultimately succeeded in establishing a new Persian national monarchy.
This is the real “history” of shiaism as confirmed by not only sunnis but all western historians…
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
His honourable title "Siddiq" was given by Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam). Addressing him, said, O' Abu Bakr! You are "Siddiq" (Tafseer Quni, P‑157, published Iran).
Imam Jafar Sadiq (RA) says, "Abu Bakr" is Siddiq, is Siddiq, is Siddiq and he, who does not recognise him as Siddiq, Allaah Almighty may not allow him to be true to this world as well as in the other world. (Kashfulgamah, p‑22, published Iran).
Imam Baqar (RA) says that when Allaah Almighty ordered Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) for migration, he also asked him to take Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) along with him, (Tafseer Imam Hassan Askri, p‑194, Iran).
Hadhrat Ali(R.A) says, "Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) said to me, people would take the oath of allegiance for Abu Bakr" (Furu Kafi Kitab‑ul‑Roza, p‑160)
Hadhrat Ali Murtaza (R.A) used to offer prayers as follower of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (*Ihtijaj Tabri, p‑60, Iran). *
Hadhrat Abu Bakr(R.A) along with Hadhrat Umar motivated Hadhrat Ali for marriage with Sayyiditina Fatima (Jalalul Ayoon, p‑111). The dowry of Sayyiditina Fatima Al Zohra (R.A) was given by Abu Bakr (R.A) (*Biharul Anwar, V ‑ 10, p‑35, Iran). *
Sayyiditina Fatima Al Zohra (R.A) died during the period of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) and the wife of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) had given bath to Sayyiditina Fatima** (Biharul Anwaar, V‑10, p‑55). **
Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam), in his last time, had nominated Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as Imam in Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam's) place (Nisikh‑ul‑Tawarikh, V‑1, p‑547).
Excellent excellent post.... just telling the truth from shia own sources... Now my shia sisters and brothers cannot say about wahabi virus sites against shias....
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
A bulk of Sunni historians say that 'Ali paid allegiance after the death of Sayeda Fatimah. Some say he paid allegiance after six months. Can I ask, from where did you come up with the idea that 'Ali paid allegiance on the second day?
Yes , there is differencein that ... but there is no difference in that thing that whether after second day or six months....... he ultimately baait to abu bakr(ra) with his free will and accepted him the caliph ...so , you should also follow the footsteps of your "Imam" as it is necesaary to follow "Everything" in the doctrine of "Immamah" ........:)
Zakat was supposed to be paid to the ruler who would then distribute it. So after the Prophet [pbuh], Abu Bakar became the head of the state. When governmental officials went to collect zakat from Malik's tribe and told him that Abu Bakar sent them, he refused to pay to them because he was expecting 'Ali to be the Caliph. It was then Khalid bin Walid drew his sword and killed Malik. Malik [ra] wasn't a denier of Zakat. Also check how Umar tried to punish Khalid bin Walid for his wrongdoing but was stopped by Abu Bakar.
Wasslam
Brother ...keep on going with your history like "Dastan-e- Ameer Hamza "..!!!!!!!
Maliks tribe refuse to pay zakat as they "Expected" ali(ra) to be caliph.... Sir, with due respect, can i ask the reason for this "EXPECTATION" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again false history... brother just tell me from which beautiful book of history you are quoting.......
I know that some shia sources even blammed the khalid(ra) , the sword of allah . that , he killed malik , for his wife , laila , very beautiful........!!!!!!
Such a disrespect you show to sahabas ,,, why !!!!!!!
The matter was that khalid(ra) in haste killed malik and married his wife the very first day , without of being her Iddat **, when news came to abu bakr(ra) , **he strictly condemned this marriage act of khalid(ra) and saud that this should not be happened in future as Iddat of a women should be followed... and khalid(ra) acceptd this mistake and promise to remain careful in future...as umar(ra) , very strict in matter of justice , keep on insisting abu bakr(ra) to punish him, abu bakr(ra) keep on denying this request , atlast when umar's(ra) request increases very much.... abu bakr(ra) said the historical golden words that O umar , i cannot put that sword in "Niyyam" whom the prophet(ra) declared as "Sword of Allah"........ and umar(ra) agreed......
Latter on , when umar(ra) , during his regime, heard about khalid "Unbelieaveable" Conquests at the fronts of Iraq and Syria , he replied that :"""""""""""O Allah should Mercy on abu bakr(ra) ... he Knew the people of such qualities more then me......."""""""""
For that of the reason why abu bakr(ra) once said with a great joy and enthusiasm that """""""""Now the motheres of Arab are unable to produce a single man like Khalid(ra) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And these words are true ....in 1400 years and till qiyamat.... we will never see such a military commander who succedded in his "ALL" wars including the one which he foufht against prophet(pbuh) and muslims... the UHAD ..........
MAy peace , mercy and billions and trillions of praises of Allah on this unique Military Commander of human history...........
""""""""""'""""""""
Jis kai samany pooray room-o-ujam nai ghutnai taik diyay thay... fasadion ki jar kat daina wala.... Mahaur-ul-uqool karnamo ka malik... Ai tareeka-i-islam kai lafani hero ...jab tak yai dunya rahai gi ...log aap ki azmat kai geet gatai rahain gai aur aap kai karnamo kai aagay un kai sur kham rahain gai ......Hum aap ki azmat ko salam paish kartai hain aur hamaisha aap ki yaad bahaduro kai dilo ko garmati rahai gi .......aaap sa shask na phalay paida hua or na kabhi paida ho ga """""""""""""
But your Dastan-e-Ameer Hamza's writers always write things except the truth...........LOL
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Hazrat Ali ra. continuously reaffirmed that his caliphate was based on the caliphate of first three Caliphs. In a letter, he wrote, Those, who had nominated Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyAllaahu anhu), after that Hadhrat Umar (radhiyAllaahu anhu) and then after them Hadhrat Uthmaan (R.A) as caliphs, have also nominated me as caliph and on the same terms and conditions as for all of them. This leaves no option for anybody to adopt any other course. Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) himself does not claim that he was appointed as Caliph, so all this about Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) having been nominated was and is a **concoction **of the Shias.
Nihajal Balaga, V‑3, p1, published "Egypt".
Again excellent in-sight into the history !!!!!
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Some My frieds here continuously denying the wedding of umme kulsoom with umar(ra) , so i give the reference from shias own sources , grand ayatullahs **and fuqhas** whose attributes and virtues are such that :
"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"
1.Kalini , rawait it from muavia bin ammar that """" i asked from imam saqiq that if a women husband dies , where she do her iddat , he replied where she suits whether in her own house or anywhere .Ali(ra) brought umme qulsoom , to his home immediately after his death """""
*Fraug-e-Kafi Babul matwaffi unha wagha madkool biha aina tahdaag Volume 2 pg.211 printed in India *
2.Tusi rawait from imam baqir that """"""umme kulsoom and her son zaid bin umar bin khattab **died just after one another and no one knew who breathed last first...""""
**Tahzeeb-ul-Ahkam by Tusi Kitabul Meraas Volume 2 pj.380 printed in Iran.
3.when some one asked from Imam sadiq about this marriage. **he replied that " this sharamgah was snatched from us """ ( may curse on them who used such words )
**Farauh-e-Kafi Vol.2 pj. 141 printed India
4.From the** fatima(ra)** , hassan , hussain , mohsin , zainul kubraand umme kulsoom born and umme kulsoom married umar(ra) .......
Manaqib-e- Aal-e-Abi Talib by Ibne Sahar Ashoub Mazindrani Vol.3 Pg.162 printed Bombay , India.
5.prophet(pbuh) married 2 daughters to usman(ra) and ali(ra) married is daughter to umar(ra) , both were non-hashmi..""""
Masalik-ul-afham Kitabul Nikkah Vol.1 printed Iran (1282 higri)
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
In Saqeefa Bani Sa'adah, when the Ansaar intended to appoint a caliph from among themselves, had anybody raised the matter that it was incorrect **to make a decision when Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) has already **appointed Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) as caliph?** Laters*, when a few migrated companions (radhiyAllaahu anhum) reached there and said that the caliph should be from among the* muhaajireen** (migratees) and the Ansars kept silent, nobody stood up and said that none from the new comers should be the caliph because Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had already given the caliphate to Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu). If this was true. This would have been the best place to say so. Even at this golden opportunity, no one did so.
With these facts a researching student is forced to come to the correct conclusion that Rasulullaah (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) had not nominated his successor. The Islaamic system of government is the system of Shura (consultation). The issue of appointing Hadhrat Ali (radhiyAllaahu anhu) at Gadeer‑I‑Khum is no more than a fabrication. The wish concerning the bequeath of his caliphate also shows that** no declaration** with regard to anybody's caliphate was made at the bank of the pond at Khum.
Very true and excellent explanation of the whole matter... Yes islamic shura has a ultimate authority to decide about thier caliph... Prophetr(pbuh) never imposed his rulings in "wordly Affairs" on sahabas , in wars , about prisioners , in war plans .. he always consulted all the sahabas and do you now think , on issue of caliphate , he will "Impose" his family to all the ummah.... No sir !!!! Prophet(pbuh) was free from such unjustice.... No doubt that ahle bait have very high respect and maqamo martaba , but this never ever mean that , they have a "Right" to rule "Forever" on this "ummah" and no ummah's decision and freedom of expression and speech is allowed... No Sir..........!!!! never ever.......It is totally unjustice , resembling to Sassanid rule of Iran that the same chain of family will have to rule , our prophet(pbuh) , the most just ruler of human history cannot do such Unjustice ... we cannot even think about him of this unjustice !!!!!!!!.
Let me again into the pool of history :
By all these incidents , i certainly do not mean to some sort of De-grading ahle bait but only proving that despite of virtues of ahle -bait , they were never given some "Special Status" in the society by prophet(pbuh) themselves and thet were as normal as others ............For allah says in Quran that (** Verily , near Allah , the more noble is who has greater taqwa and piety """""**
and we believe in that ........
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
It is the Rabic verse "Lilla fla bila falan" ... there is difference between elaborator( shareen) of nehgul balagha about it is abu bakr(ra) or umar(ra) but all agreed that it one of the both is mentioned here ... And this is written on the page 219 of book "al shia wal sunnia" ... and nehjul balagha has printed in Bierut and this sermon is writeen on pg.350 , as sermon no. is not given , so i cannot provide it to you ....
But you will also accept about the sermon where ali(ra) advised umar(ra) not to go for a battle of Qadsiyya as he said that O umar(ra) your personality is a source of satisfaction for muslims...if muslims defeated ... they will not find a personality like you to rely upon ....
(Nehgul balagha pg.193 Bairoot)
Anbd further said that O umar(ra) you are like a necklace *, if strings breaks , everything **scatters *, you are like a **"Chakki" ariund which muslims** rotate** , if something happened to you , muslims will lose heart **so plz. keep stay in medina ..." and umar replied that **Ali(ra) .. you give a very right decision and umar(ra) acted accordingly
(Nehgul balagha pg.203 , 204 , Bairoot)
Now brother ... also reject this one ...!!!!!!
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Just check what was the stance of the head of Ansar, {probably Sa'ad bin Abada or Abu abada Ansari, I dont remember the name correctly}, what did he say at Saqifaa and what was his and his supporters' conduct in subsequent years. I hope you also regard the head of Ansar as one of the respected companians of the Prophet [pbuh] and include him among those [infact "ALL" as you say] who paid allegiance to Abu Bakar.
Just another** Dastan*...... The only thing happened that at saqeefa when there was a dispute between ansar and muhajireen and abu bakr(ra) said the authoritative statement ... everyone accepted this but **Saad bin ubada(ra)* had a view that it should be from Ansars as they have given the great sacrifice in islam and everything to thier prophet (pbuh) and this is 100 % right ... but the logic is the whole arabs cannot accept the rule of ansars of medina except the quraish , as they were for centuries , the custodians of Makkah and khana Kaaba and the whole arab respect them and accept thier authorirty.., Sahabas from ansars amd muhajireen tried to convince him but he had his own point of views and thinkinkgs ,.. so he did not bait to abu nakr(ra) ....... But he never did "Anything" against abu bakr(ra) or muslim ummah ** afterwards , just remained quite , .......for the **welfare of ummah ... never uttered a word against muslims common interest... this was the whole story...
He was one of the** greatest** sahaba , is greatest sahaba and will remain the greatest sahaba of prophet(pbuh) ..... No doubt that he had his own views and thinkings ... actually he was the same man who on** fatha Makkah ,** said that today , blood will allowed even in kaba , and prohet(pbuh) not liked these words and took a flag from him... and this was the same great sahabi of prophet(pbuh) that on occasion of incidence of Ayesha disgrace blame **, the raisul munafiqeen , **abdullah ibne ubai was from the same tribe of unsar as saad bin ubada , when saad bin muaza (ra), another ansar tribe leader wanted to kill the abdullah ibne ubai , saad bin ubada rose up with anger that you cannot kill a a person of my tribe ... And prophet(pbuh) said to both that plz, sit down.. do not fight .. i will take my matter to allah and then allah reveled the ayats as in quran......
So , point is to be noted that , saad bi ubada (ra) , no doubt one of the greatest sahabi of prophet(pbuh) and his deeds for islam are great but he was a bit little touchy *about his *"Tribal Nationalism" and "Ansar Superiority" ...so he did not agree with all **the companions at bani saqeefa ... But it never ever means that we start **cursing this great sahabi of prophet(pbuh) ... Yes . he had his own view and we respect that ....... May allah send his billions of praises on him (Ameen)
Brother , we sunnis never say even a single bad word to a sahabi who did not bait abu bakr(ra) and respect him equally but sorry to say, shias give vulgur names and curses to almost all the sahabas except 5 or 6 ... Is this a justice !!!!!!!
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
And this is the real beauty of islamic shura system... when majority declared **abu bakr(ra) the caliph ,... despite that **saad bin ubada(ra) never agreed with this but he remained quiet and never produced uprest in ummah... and that is the reason why ali(ra) and whole banu hashim, atlast also accepted abu bakr(ra) that almost all of muhajireen and ansars have accepted this and bani hashim had no way left either to accept the majority or openly revolt against him... but they chose the right and correct path , the majority of all the muslims and accepted the abu bakr(ra), may allah give his billions of praise on bani hashim ......... and this also happened when umar(ra) and usman(ra) made caliphs ,... all muslims accepted them as caliphs .. unanimously.. and this is the real democracy... yes... the majority has to rule and minority , whatever its differences and inner feelings, it is a nice , noble and respectable way to accept this rule because prophet(pbuh) completely left it on ummah to decide with majority , who was thier caliph... and when same majority rule could not applied to Yazeed **... so that most of sunnis not considered him a **caliph.... It is so simple as a crystal.. what is complex about that ....
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
err…ok. Each one of those references… PLEASE BELIEVE ME…are FALSE. I am writing in capital in the hope that you can visualize me screaming those words at you. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here by putting the blame on this book “al shia wal sunnia”. Now give ms some credit and believe me when I tell you NONE of these sermons are in Nahjul Balagha. Go to any number of the online editions of NAhjul Balagha and show me these sermons…OR buy the book and give me the sermon numbers. But PLEASE STOP TRUMPETING THE SAME CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL BECOME TRUE. The onus to prove your references is on YOU not ME. So dont tell me to buy “al shia wal sunnia”, YOU go out and buy Nahjul Balagha and FIND these sermons. Otherwise your credibility on this forum is finished! Come back either with those sermon numbers or with an apology. Anything else will just make you dig urself deeper in the hole that youve dug for urself.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
If that was the criteria than it was the Banu Hashim who were the custodians of the Kaaba and not Banu Taym (the tribe of Abu Bakr). So Abu Bakr’s argument didnt really stand. Another argument put forward by the Quraish was their kinship with the prophet pbuh&hf, but again even according to this criteria Banu Hashim excelled over all the tribes present at Saqifa. Even according to sunnis, Umar realized the chaotic nature of Saqifa and forbade a repitition of it:
Sahih Bukhari Vol 8 Book 82 Hadith 817 :
’ (O people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says, 'By Allah, if ‘Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person.’ One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. **Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed. **
I wonder why it became evil suddenly when Umar himself saw it fit to sudenly nominate Abu Bakr out of the blue himself.
Regarding the rest of your post and Ali a.s. giving baya to Abu Bakr, I will mention the hadith from Tareekh Tabari, one of the most renowned sunni historians:
Ibn Humayd - Jarir - Mughirah - Ziyad b. Kulayb: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."
Al Tabari Vol.9 Page 187
Many other sunni books narrate this incident. If you want I can post all those references here.
Also during the shura that resulted in Usman becoming caliph, both sunni and shia agree it was Ali’s a.s. refusal to follow the precendents of the sheikheen (abu bakr and Umar) that resulted in him not being selected. Add to that the fact that even Hazrat fatima s.a. stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and died angry with him (according to both sunni and shia again) and you will see that Abu Bakr’s claim to caliphate was haphazard, and without the consultation ket alone presence of the prophets pbuh&hf family and Banu Hashim were not at all happy with this situation.
The reason for you not saying anything bad about sahaba is that you have prevented anyone from investigating anything about sahaba. Since if u start looking at the actions of the sahaba then you will have to condemn a sahaba for his wrongs no matter who he his…and that will lead you back to you know who. As for shias giving vulgar names…that goes without saying is inexcusable. But do not make all the shias defend the actions of a few. I certainly dont ask you to defend the actions of every sunni tom dick or harry.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE DISAGREEMENT!!! Neither does that make sense, nor was it in the best interests of muslims (otherwise we woudnt be having so many sects!!) and neither does that hold when we examine hadiths.
I see you conveniently left out Muawia. 
increase your knowledge my friend…thats all I can say for you.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
There is no tribal superioity in islam .. islam camwe to break all these prestiges and arragonce…As in quran ( We have made your tribes to distinguisg yourself from others) and also( verily , the greater among people is with greater taqwa ) clearly shows that there was not any “Superiority” attached to banu hashim…It is just a custom of **JAhilliyah **and this was declared by prohet(pbuh)
at fatah Rasulullah then delivered his **historical Khutbah (sermon) from the doorway of the Ka’ba: **
**'Allah is one and He has no partner. He has fulfilled
His promise to his believers and defeated those who
do not believe. It will not be permissible for anyone
who believes in Allah and His Rasool to kill any
one in Makkah. Nor shall any one destroy the greenery
of Makkah. I have forbidden the practice of all custom
of the age of illiteracy; but the care of the Ka’ba and
the supply of Zam Zam water shall be continued as
before. O people of Quraish, Allah forbids you to display
your pride and arrogance and glorify your ancestory.
All men were created from Adam and Adam (A.S.)
had been created from dust. **
Yes , this is right because banu hashim keep on gathering everyday into ali(ra) house and chances were there that uprest and fitna can break out in ummah … except that whole of ansars and muhajireens baait abu bakr(ra) so such types of gatherings can be very dangerous for this new ummah as far many people refused to give zakat, the fitna of false prophets(pbuh) … in this crucial time , instead that banu hashim create harmony , they keep on gatherins so umar(ra) said to fatima(ra) that O beloved daughter of prophet(pbuh) , we respect you very much but if this keep on going , i will burn the doors of house **… In the same and usual enthusiastic tone with which he actually burned saad bin abi waqas house in iran… with the same enthusiaitic tone with which he dismiss khalid bin waleed(ra) , with same staunch policy that he beat umar bin alass with “kora” …with same attitude that he showed on hudaaibia that why we are doing this agreement although we are true.. the same attitude he showed to kill muhammad(pbuh) before accepting islam , with same he beat his sister and brother in law,…then why no at this moment !!! so it is the best policy to ****nip the evil in the bud **… usman/(ra) lack of this , then bore the brunt… while umar(ra) throughout his life showed such policy and he best policy at political perspective … to meet the fitna with iron hands… this was in his blood and bones , right from his chilhood.. and if he said this ... whats new or strange… and alhumdullilah , this policy kept the ummah straight and conqerous in rome and iran supreme powers and when usman(ra) leave this , there was rebillions and mutiny…
.
[/quote]
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
I cant understand the need to fight between shias and sunni, first let us get our Aqeeda right and then the Methodology all these things neither lead us to paradise or hell.
The above mentioned stuff, both by shia and sunnis are secondary and not an important aspect of Islam.
The problem is there accuse one thing and the other is ready to counter attack, simple coz these topics are beaten to death.
But I would wanna know why a shia would remain a shia and sunni remains a sunni.
Thanks
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
salam alaikum
nohas r modern version of merciya
as u know addab marciya has very old history.
we have to go masjid daily and every thing starts and end on God shia and sunni sect both hve masjid ok.
In shia mousque there is a portion which was seperated for majalis and differernt prog.
this is a heart fealling wat u callad aleh salam or razi allah God know wat is in ur heart thats why allama iqbal said
zaban se par bhe liya la illah to kia hasin
i hope u all understand
ANY HELP WOULD VERY MUCH BE APPRICIATED
[/quote]
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
It is a big fat lie. Its interesting to note that Shia first emerged in 'Arab not Persian. All Shia Imams are 'Arabs. Their companians are 'Arabs. Everything related to Shia revolves around mainstream 'Arab including Karbala and there you say that its a Persian thing. Ridiculous as it is. . .
[quote] This is the real "history" of shiaism as confirmed by not only sunnis but all western historians.......
You want me to laugh at or cry on this remark? Which is the "real history of Shi'sim and who confirmed it? Which western shcolars you are talking about? Bro, you have blindly quoted Wikipedia which is a flawed source. It is junk. Anyone can go and write whatever he/she wants to. If I were to write this artcle, I would have painted a completely different picture. Its THIS unrealiable and absurd wikipedia which you use as a reference. I'm amazed at your standards.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
[quote]
dawa_i_dil:
Yes , there is differencein that ... but there is no difference in that thing that whether after second day or six months....... he ultimately baait to abu bakr(ra) with his free will and accepted him the caliph ...so , you should also follow the footsteps of your "Imam" as it is necesaary to follow "Everything" in the doctrine of "Immamah" ........:)
[/quote]
I asked the person who said that Imam 'Ali paid allegiance at second day, which no Sunni historian says. Further, Imam's paying allegiance to Abu Bakar is not true. Imam 'Ali just assured ABu Bakar that he will not lead any revolt against them since he did not want fitnah among Muslims. Its the same as Imam Hassan did with Muaviyah. You call it paying allegiance?
[quote]
Brother ...keep on going with your history like "Dastan-e- Ameer Hamza "..!!!!!!!
[/quote]
Do not mock and blame. The Islamic way is to reason and argue. Just try counting this phrase "Dastan-e-Ameer Hamza" and see how many times you have used it in this thread. It doen't add anything.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
[quote]
dawa_i_dil
but the logic is the whole arabs cannot accept the rule of ansars of medina except the quraish , as they were for centuries , the custodians of Makkah and khana Kaaba and the whole arab respect them and accept thier authorirty.
[/quote]
Here you say that 'Arabs couldn't accept an Ansari leader as their Caliph because they were not from Quraish and Quraish had a superior status among 'Arabs. On the other hand, in one of your other posts you argued that "there is not tribe superiority in Islam". If this is true [which is true] then why Sahaba couldn't accept anyone from Ansar? Faith and taqwaa was important or affiliation to a particular tribe was more considerable?
[quote]
So , point is to be noted that , saad bi ubada (ra) , no doubt one of the greatest sahabi of prophet(pbuh) and his deeds for islam are great but he was a bit little touchy *about his *"Tribal Nationalism" and "Ansar Superiority" ...so he did not agree with **all **the companions at bani saqeefa ... But it never ever means that we start cursing this great sahabi of prophet(pbuh) ... Yes . he had his own view and we respect that ....... May allah send his billions of praises on him (Ameen)
[/quote]
[quote]
Sahabas from ansars amd muhajireen tried to convince him but he had his own point of views and thinkinkgs ,.. so he did not **bait to abu nakr(ra) .......** But he never did "Anything" against abu bakr(ra) or muslim ummah *afterwards *, just remained quite , .
[/quote]
[quote]
when majority declared *abu bakr(ra) the caliph ,... despite that *saad bin ubada(ra)** never agreed with this** but he remained quiet and never produced uprest in ummah
[/quote]
But Bro Khanbabax says that "each and every Sahabi accepted Abu Bakar caliphate".
Who is right? You or Khanbabax?
When ALL of those who were present at Saqifah did not accept Abu Bakar as a caliph, how do you expect ALL other, who were not at Saqifah, to accept him?
[quote]
But he (Saad bin Abaada) never did "Anything" against abu bakr(ra) or muslim ummah *afterwards *, just remained quite
[/quote]
[quote]
when majority declared *abu bakr(ra) the caliph ,... despite that *saad bin ubada(ra)** never agreed with this** but he remained quiet and never produced uprest in ummah
[/quote]
^ Just in the same way as Imam 'Ali did?
