Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
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 ....
So to you, it is accepted to burn the House of Ali and Fatimah, the very house of the Prophet [pbuh] because Umar feared that 'Ali will rise and revolt?
Is it democracy or authoritarianism when you can't stand your opponents? The event also means that Abu Bakar and Umar went to confront and possibly kill Ahl-e-Bait of the Prophet [pbuh] What would have happened if Imam 'Ali or one of his supporters had stood to fight? I tell you. Karbala would have heppend right after the death of Prophet [pbuh] and All new Muslims would have gone back to their primordial religion. There would have been no one on earth saying "La ilaha illah Muhammad ar Rasullah". . .
Say thanks to 'Ali for saving this religion. . .be grateful
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
I mentioned the argument put forward by the Muhajir at Saqifa. Go read abot it and tell all this to the muhajirs that were there.
wow…i must admit i didnt see that coming…i had given ur humanity some credit. I think apart from brother marble’s response to this it would suffice for me to remind you of another hadith:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 61:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Sahih Muslim Book 031, Number 6000:
Miswar b. Makhramah reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Fatima is a part of me. He in fact tortures me who tortures her.
Now I’ll leave it up to you to connect the dots.
Also dawa_i_dil I’m waiting for either those sermon numbers or an apology for posting false references.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Do not exegerrate the matter for no valid reason that “Killiing ahle -bait” infact **almost all **ahle-biat were killed by thier own “LOvers” and "MOhibs" right from ali, hassan hussain by kufis and latter on 12 pious imams by Abbasid caliphs which are also from Abbas(ra) family… a pure bani hasim LOL… it is just a statemant of warning.. it did not happen that umar(ra) the great came with a **bottle of oil and match stick **.. another .LOL , Just close to a **metaphoric sttatement **that was also made by prophet(pbuh) that whoever no come to offer prayer in mosque… I wish to go to thier homes and set them on the fire… Now what will you say about that… Was prophet(pbuh) was so cruel (Naooubillah) !!!
Brother , you just hate umar(ra) , for the reason i already discused in the post about the "tomb of abu lulu feroze" in keshan , iran as a shrine of some saint and persian conquest jealousy ... so you always think in a negative sense.. not positive.....
If you talk about demecrosy , then Opposition after the election of majority accept this defeat and sit in **opposition benches **… not keep on gathering in houses for dividing the ummah at this crucial stage… tell me one thing… if a throne was most important or to spread the deen of muhammad(pbuh) to the whole world…!!! and this point was atlast accepted by ali(ra) and banu hashim that the majority are with abu bakr(ra) , not with banu hasim for caliphate .. thet is why we see never uprest in response fron any tribe of quraish.. Addi , ummayyad, ansars , bakar , asad , khizzah , and all other tribes on abu bakr(ra) caliphate…Why not people rose for ali(ra) … was banu tamyimum was so powerful…!!!
Just you do not accept the truth , so you keep on passing illogical comments…
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
It is wriiten in Quran that Fitna is worse than the murder......
It is the shaheeh hadees of prophet(pbuh) that if some person try to create fina and divide the muslims while they were united ... cut his throat irrespective of who is he !!!!!
And there is written in quran that when moosa (as) **went to mountain Toor , **bani israel made a cow of gold to worship...and haroon was there .. when moosa came back w, he hold the beard of haroon that why u did not stop them... haroon said , brother , i said everything but they did not listen to me and *i feared that they may be divided *.. so i could not stop them !!!!
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Yes , you are right .. but for your kind information… it happens when someone made fatima(ra) angry for false reason… abu bakr(ra) angry him for a false reason !!! for your kind information, he presented before her the shaeeh **hadees of prophet(pbuh) considered as shaheeh both by sunnis and shiascholars as i give below…
**It is quite ridiculous that when **Muftis **and **Mughtahids **like you **, having no knowledge of Quran , Ilm-e-Kalam ,asool-e- hadees , Asool-e- fiqah and start ****“Deducing Pseudo Results” **from the **particular **hadees that fits into your mould … LOL
Now tell me if a prophet(pbuh) saying is more important or Fatima(ra) saying… and if you say that both ahadees contradicts … No sir … its your thinking and looking at a way of a matter that contradicting !!!
If someone make fatima(ra) angry **without any reason **, that person comes into the line of hadees , not that person who presented her the shaheeh hadees of prophet(pbuh) himself…!!!
There is written in many history books that incident that one time ali(ra) and faima(ra**) fighted **, ali(went from home to masgid-e-nabwi and slept ther, prophet(pbuh) came to house , fatima(ra) told the story , prophet(pbuh) came to masjis-e-nabwi ,he awoke him by dusting the mud from his hairs and said wake **O abu Turrab **… and from this day he kept this name… Now tell me, this fighting between and ali(ra) and fatima(ra) , did ali(ra) not angry the fatima(ra) and left the house… This means that we should also consider the lion of God ,in the same line of hadees…LOL
Infact , it is written in all authentic history that once ali(ra) and fatima(ra)fighted , ali(ra) went away , prophet(pbuh) came and asked , fatima(ra) replied that there was a disputewith ali(ra) but latter , i appoligized from ali(ra) … prophet(pbuh) said… **you did right… fatima(ra) if you had not apoligized and died meanwhile , your father (pbuh) would not have to come to your funeral prayer…**So ,
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Fadak Area between Abu Bakr & Fatimah
FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews. They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam.
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.
To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute—Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah—**with two Shi‘i jurisprudents, or two of the Maraji‘ of the Shi‘ah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no vehement criticism would be directed **at either side. The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi‘ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the **enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged. Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. **What remains then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the formulation of religious precepts from it?
To the unbiased observer—who does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the Truth, wherever it is might be—this is an issue that must be approached tentatively.
The status of Fadak
The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:
*It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, *
**
or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam on the day of Khaybar. **
FADAK AS INHERITANCE
Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhaaree, Muslim **and others, wherein it is stated that after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, from Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: “I heard Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam saying, ‘We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.’ ” (Saheeh Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)**
The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:
We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue in the general scope of the verse, “Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of) your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female.” (Surah an-Nisa:11)
At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The words of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for applying it in practice?
The fact of the matter is that the hadith “We, the Prophets do not leave heirs” is authentic by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah **sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused **of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the sources of the Shi‘ah and by their standards.
Authenticity of the ahaadeeth
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) says **that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not **leave dinars and dirhams **as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)**
Regarding the authenticity of this ahaadeeth, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi **states in his commentary on al-, entitled **Mir’at al-‘Uqul: **This] hadith **has two chains of narration. The first is majhul **[contains an unknown narrator], and the second **is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being Saheeh. (Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah
refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks also ?
The strange thing here is that the ahaadeeth is authentic enough for Khomeini **to utilise it as evidence of the validity of his **monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). **He writes under the **heading “Sahihat al-Qaddah” (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn ‘Isa, on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion*.” (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-‘Ilm, Bab Sifat al-‘Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)*
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark: The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A‘zam, Beirut)
Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-KAAFI with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. **That narration is as follows: [It is narrated] from **Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: “Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words.” . (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the ahaadeeth which states that “*the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” is authentic in one of its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? *
Again, why does this ahaadeeth qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?
The prayer of Zakariyya
The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritanc that appropriates as proof the words of Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam in Surah Maryam “Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Ya‘qub” is a pathetic argument that lacks logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:
*It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya‘qub would continue.
*
It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? *In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
*
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote *knowledge, Prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
*
The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
Sulayman as the heir of Dawud
The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud” (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge. This is proven by the following two facts:
It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. *If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir? *
If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter*. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or ‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments) *
A Woman’s Inheritance
A more astounding revelation—of which many people happen to be uninformed—is the **
**
*In al- al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a ahaadeeth from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1) *
**Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)
Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” *(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) *
He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir **or **Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “*Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. **351) *
In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the **wives of Rasulullah **sallallahi ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam like Aa’ishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. **However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the ahaadeeth, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, not even to his own daughter Aa’ishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah **sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?
FADAK AS A GIFT
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam—as claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)
—the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu‘anha **
**
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sa‘d came to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam to be witness thereto. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, “Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak **as a gift to **Fatimah alone amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and **that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can **it then be thought that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam would give something to Fatimah but **not **to his other daughters?
In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. **This **was exactly the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khalifah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule “to the male twice the share of the female”. This is an established fact of history. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by ‘Ali? In fact, Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration **which throws light upon the condition of those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by **whichsoever means they can, legitimate or illegitimate.
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abul Hasan [Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida] came to [the ‘Abbasid khalifah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated. He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak...” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-‘Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?
[EXPLANATORY NOTE]: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madeenah. This is given as the south-eastern point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian border. Al-‘Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point. The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
It is the shaheeh hadees of prophet(pbuh) that if some person try to create fina and divide the muslims while they were united ... cut his throat irrespective of who is he !!!!!
!!!
so is this your verdict on those who created fitna in the caliphate of Ali b abutalib?
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Yaar, every time as i spin about the first 3 caliphs… you bring me back to muaviara… Mairai bahi… do not compare muaviar(ra) with 3 rather i say 4 caliphs… HE was surely **far less **in virtues and merits than the 4 caliphs…but i will again say only “virtues” and “piousness” are not “ONLY” merit for leadership… leadership requires any many more other tings like political vision, taddabur, political mid and background and fortunately , muavia(ra) was richley gifted with all these qualities… ** Even during ali(ra) caliphate , if thier was fiqah problem, muavia(ra) had to consult to ali(ra) and ali(ra) always gave the answer , this was ali’s generosity(ZArf-e-Haider) … Once a Roman king marched his armies near syria , muavia(ra) replied him that **
**
**
Similarly , muaviara once asked a sahabi to say something about alira after his death , he said his virtues and sacrifices for islam… Muaviara wept on hearing these words and said to sahabi that you are right , alira aws certainly as you said about him…
So point is , despite of his wars of ali(ra) , **he accepted his greatness **and virtues ...... **there was no match for ali(ra) **..... at that time...... the real reason was actually **the murder of usman(ra) **, ummayyad leader , which blew the situation into fire.... And secondly ali(ra) **dismissed **all the governors of usman(ra) including muavia(ra) while **abdullah ibne abbas**(ra) keep on shouting plz. do not do this **..... they will get a plea to stand against you .**..but unfortunately he did not listen to him and ibne abbas lleft him and went to makkah in anger.......
**Muavia(ra) only wanted murders **.. he never used a word **caliph **for him in ali(ra) life … **but it was also unbearable thing for him that the murders of usman , the most powerful tribe leader keep on walkink free on the face of **earth… **a tribal background can not allow this to him **…but ali(ra) was useless as murders wanted **only the fight **as this was the only case in which they can be live in peace so first they worsen the condition at jamal when everything was about to fine… and latter on put muavia and ali **against each othe so that both of them keep on fighting and they will be save… ** And most of the sunnis fuqah and ulemas are with ali(ra) in this matter that muavia(ra) done a “Ightihadi” mistake while ali(ra) was “Rajia” means more on Haq whlie muavia(ra) was on Marjooh" means less haq… but it never ever means that we start on using vulgur and bazzari language agaist him… after all he was a sahabi of rasool… a wahi writer and great millitry mughahid of syrian front … one of the best political leader of syria of about 20 years and whole islamic world for another 19 years… but he was a human … not angel or rasool … some mistakes were made by him… but his virtues and merits are also not to be forgotten... For that is the reason why Allah has created the System of **Meezan **(tarazoo) on qiyamat that not every one is 100 % correct… so virtes and bad deeds are counted and whichever more … will decide the fate of a person…
Actually muavia(ra) quite often said a hadees of prophet(pbuh) that once he abulated(wazu) to prophet(pbuh) and he said **, muavia(ra) one day you will be a ruler , so do patience..**. so muavia(ra) used to said that i firmly believe in thesewordins and after ali (ra) , allah made me the ruler and yes , **his is accepted by all the historians that he was one of the most patient and kind hearted towards prisioners and sinners and used at the most patience in whole of is political life of 40grand years except for those who were involved in usman murder , he killed them all .... for a tribal cause... as i have said **earlier .......
And yes , one more thing, muavia(ra) never used to call himself a khalifa rashideen … he himself call him a **" king" **as umar(ra) also used to call him **but he also used to say that , after me you will see another “kings” also !!! and we see what happened in other ummayad (except umar bin abdul aziz) and abbasid “Caliphs” periods … i think no need to mention **it …
So this was whole , in my humble opinion, but brother , you again and again come to muavia(ra) … it means that you accept the 3 caliphs and their virtues … am i right or not ?
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
And there is shaeeh hadees of prophet(pbuh) that he once took hassan(ra) in his lap and said "This my son is a *leader *, By him allah will make the two groups of **""Muslims "" **and exactly same thing happened......
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
And one more thing , Yaar all sunnis brothers and sisters are SUMMUM BUKMUM !!!!!!!!!!!!(deaf and dumb)....... Aray yaar kuch to bolo... koi views , comments , hum do he , mai or khanbabax likh likh kar pagal ho gai hain ... aur koi bol hee nahi rah.... sunnis while 85 % and are quiet while shias only 15 % but they are keep on passing the posts and comments ......
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Shias dont see that Amir Al Mu'mineen Hadhrat 'Ali(ra) gave his daughter Hadhrat Umm Kulsum(ra) for marriage to The Gracious Person of Amir Ul Mu'mineen Hadhrat 'Umar IbnKhattab(ra) to solidify bonds and to mend any conflict they have with one another Surely what Hadhrat 'Ali(ra) did was a meritorious act. If you were a Patron of Hadhrat 'Ali(ra) why do you mock and ridicule his ways? Surely only a ignoble person would do so!
I was informed by Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir]—**
that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab asked ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm Kulthum in marriage. ‘Ali said, "I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja‘far." ‘Umar said, "Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah, there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve." ‘Ali said, "I have done so."
Then ‘Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ] and the pulpit. They—‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and ‘Abd ar-Rahman—used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, ‘Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, "Congratulate me." They congratulated him, and asked, "With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?" He replied, "With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib."
Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association." ‘Umar said,] "I have had the companionship of Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship]."**at-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sai'd vol. 8 p. 338
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
FADAK is a hamlet in Hijaz that used to be inhabited by a group of Jews. After Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam had accomplished the conquest of Khaybar, Allah cast fear into the hearts of those Jews. They therefore conclude a treaty with Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam in terms of which Fadak was ceded to him. Thus, not having been conquered by force of arms, it became the personal property of Rasoolullaah sallallahu‘alayhiwa-alihiwasallam.
The difference between the Khalifah Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah was an acceptable difference in which either side had an opinion founded on proof. However, sensitivity towards the person of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr has led some people to view the issue out of its proper perspective, with the result that an anthill was transformed into a mountain.
To illustrate this with an example: if we had to substitute the two sides in this dispute—Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyidah Fatimah—**with two Shi‘i jurisprudents, or two of the Maraji‘ of the Shi‘ah, each side would be seen to retain the dignity of his position, and no vehement criticism would be directed **at either side. The position of both disputants would then be viewed with equal respect and appreciation, in consideration of the fact that both persons base their claims upon textual evidence and proof, albeit that one of the two opinions would ultimately take precedence over the other.
However, when it comes to Abu Bakr and Fatimah there is a complete change of attitude. To the Shi‘ah Abu Bakr is the enemy, and for as long as he be the **enemy he will be considered evil incarnate, and error is inseparable from any of his judgements. Thus it is that sentiments have become the standard by which matters such as this are judged. Sentiments do not qualify as a standard to judge by even in trivial disputes. **What remains then to be said for the use of sentiments as a criterion in the study of history and the formulation of religious precepts from it?
To the unbiased observer—who does not submit to sentiment, but yields only to the Truth, wherever it is might be—this is an issue that must be approached tentatively.
The status of Fadak
The land of Fadak can be only one of two things:
*It was either INHERITED by Fatimah from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, *
*or it was a GIFT given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam on the day of Khaybar. *
FADAK AS INHERITANCE
Its status as inheritance is contained in the report documented by al-Bukhaaree, Muslim **and others, wherein it is stated that after the demise of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, Fatimah came to Abu Bakr requesting her inheritance from the Nabi sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, from Fadak, his share in Khaybar, and other places. Abu Bakr said: “I heard Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam saying, ‘We do not leave inheritance. What we leave behind is charity.’ ” (Saheeh Muslim, Kitab al-Jihad was-Siyar, no. 49)**
The same reported in Musnad Ahmad reads:
We, the Prophets, do not leave heirs. (Musnad Ahmad, vol. 2 p. 462)
Fatimah radiyallahu ‘anha became displeased with Abu Bakr, since she viewed the issue in the general scope of the verse, “Allah directs you in (the matter of the inheritance of) your children: to the male a portion twice the portion of the female.” (Surah an-Nisa:11)
At this point, let us be neutral, and let us forget that the person requesting her inheritance is a personality whom we love and respect because she is the daughter of our Prophet, and that she has that revered position both within our hearts and with Allah. Let us say: The words of Muhammad sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam takes precedence over the words of anyone else. Therefore, if a hadith like this is authentic, what reason have we to lay blame at the door of Abu Bakr for following the dictates of the hadith and for applying it in practice?
The fact of the matter is that the hadith “We, the Prophets do not leave heirs” is authentic by both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah. Why is it then that Abu Bakr is condemned for appropriating an authentic statement of Rasulullah **sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, and that he be accused **of fabricating the hadith in order to dispossess Fatimah of Fadak?
With the Ahl as-Sunnah the authenticity of the hadith by the Ahl as-Sunnah is in no need of clarification. The following section clarifies the authenticity of the hadith in the sources of the Shi‘ah and by their standards.
Authenticity of the ahaadeeth
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abu ‘Abdillah (Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq) says **that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not **leave dinars and dirhams **as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)**
Regarding the authenticity of this ahaadeeth, ‘Allamah Muhammad Baqir Majlisi **states in his commentary on al-, entitled **Mir’at al-‘Uqul: **This] hadith **has two chains of narration. The first is majhul **[contains an unknown narrator], and the second **is hasan or muwaththaq. [Together] they do not fall short of being Saheeh. (Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 1 p. 111)
It is then a fact that this hadith is reliable. Why do the ‘ulama of the Shi‘ah **
**refrain from using it, despite the fact that it so well-known in their ranks also ?
The strange thing here is that the ahaadeeth is authentic enough for Khomeini **to utilise it as evidence of the validity of his **monumental political theory of Wilayat al-Faqih (the Rule of the Jurisprudent). **He writes under the **heading “Sahihat al-Qaddah” (the authentic narration of al-Qaddah):
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim narrates from his father, from Hammad ibn ‘Isa, on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Maymun] al-Qaddah that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam said: “Whoever walks a path seeking therein knowledge, Allah will lead him on a road to Jannah... And the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya; and the Ambiya did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance; but they left knowledge. Therefore whosoever takes knowledge has taken a great portion*.” (al-Kafi, Kitab Fadl al-‘Ilm, Bab Sifat al-‘Ilm wa-Fadlihi, hadith no. 2)*
To this narration Khomeini appends the following remark: The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable; he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators. (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A‘zam, Beirut)
Thereafter Khomeini points to another narration to the same effect that is recorded in al-KAAFI with a weak chain of narration, and comments as follows:
This narration has been narrated with a slight difference to the same effect through another chain of narration that is weak, meaning that the chain is authentic up to Abul Bakhtari, but Abul Bakhtari himself is weak. **That narration is as follows: [It is narrated] from **Muhammad ibn Yahya, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa, from Muhammad ibn Khalid, from Abul Bakhtari, that Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq] ‘alayhis salam said: “Verily the ‘Ulama are the heirs of the Ambiya. That is because the Ambiya do not leave dirhams or dinars as inheritance, but they leave their words.” . (al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133)
It might be concluded from the above that the ahaadeeth which states that “*the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” is authentic in one of its two chains of narration, as attested to by Khomeini, and before him by Majlisi. Why should an authentically narrated statement of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam be spurned when it is a matter of consensus that there can be no Ijtihad when a Nass (text) exists? *
Again, why does this ahaadeeth qualify to be used in support of Wilayat al-Faqih, but not for the issue of Fadak? Is this issue being judged subjectively?
The prayer of Zakariyya
The argument in favour of the Ambiya leaving inheritanc that appropriates as proof the words of Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam in Surah Maryam “Grant me from Your side an heir who will inherit me and inherit the posterity of Ya‘qub” is a pathetic argument that lacks logic in every respect. That is for the following reasons:
It is not fit or proper for a pious man to ask Allah for an heir to inherit his possessions. How can it then be found acceptable that a noble prophet like Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam asked Allah for a son to inherit his wealth? What Zakariyyah ‘alayhis salam really asked for was a son who would bear aloft the standard of Prophethood after him, and in whom the legacy of the progeny of Ya‘qub would continue.
It is well know that Zakariyya ‘alayhis salam was a poor man who earned his living as a carpenter. What wealth could he have had that would prompt him to request an heir from Allah? In fact, it was a general rule with the Ambiya that they did not hoard anything beyond their need, and that they spent any surplus in charity.
The word al-irth (inheritance) does not refer to material possessions exclusively. It is also used to denote knowledge, Prophethood or sovereignty. Examples of such usage are found in Surah Fatir:32, where Allah says: “Thereafter We gave the Book as inheritance (awrathna) to such of Our servants as We have chosen”; and in Surah al-Mu’minun:10-11, where Allah says: “Those are the Inheritors (al-warithun) who will inherit Paradise.”
The aforementioned hadith which states that “the Ambiya do not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they leave knowledge” explicitly negates the possibility of the Ambiya leaving a material legacy as inheritance. This alone is sufficient proof.
Sulayman as the heir of Dawud
The same is applicable to the argument in which the verse “And Sulayman inherited Dawud” (an-Naml:16) is used as proof that the Ambiya do leave a material inheritance. The inheritance in this case was not of material possessions. Rather, it was of prophethood, wisdom and knowledge. This is proven by the following two facts:
It is well known that Dawud ‘alayhis salam had 100 wives and 300 concubines. He had numerous children from these wives and concubines. *If this verse is assumed to speak of the inheritance of material possessions, why is Sulayman mentioned as the sole heir? *
If this verse is assumed to speak of material inheritance there does not remain much sense for it being mentioned in the Qur’an, since it is then reduced to an ordinary and trivial matter*. “Material inheritance is not something laudable, neither to Dawud nor to Sulayman ‘alayhimas salam. Even a Jew or Christian inherits the material possessions of his father. The purpose of this verse is to extol the excellence of Sulayman and to make mention of that which was granted specifically to him. Inheriting material possessions is an ordinary and trivial matter that is common to everyone, like eating, drinking and burying the dead. This is not the kind of thing that would be mentioned about the Ambiya, since it is simply inconsequential. Only such things would be related about the Ambiya which carry lessons or benefit. Things like ‘He died, and his son inherited his property,’ or ‘They buried him,’ or ‘They ate and drank slept’ is not the kind of information that would be conveyed in the stories of the Qur’an.” (Mukhtasar Minhaj as-Sunnah, vol. 1 p. 240, with minor adjustments) *
A Woman’s Inheritance
A more astounding revelation—of which many people happen to be uninformed—is the
*In al- al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land”. In this chapter he narrates a ahaadeeth from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1) *
*Al-Tusi in Tahdhib al-Ahkam, and al-Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar have narrated from Maysarah that he asked Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied: “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351) *
*Al-Tusi records in Tahdhib al-Ahkam and al-Istibsar from Muhammad ibn Muslim that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir said: “A woman will not inherit anything of land and fixed property.” *(Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 298; al-Istibsar, vol. 4 p. 152) **
He also records from ‘Abd al-Malik ibn A‘yan that either Imam Muhammad al-Baqir **or **Imam Ja‘far as-Sadiq said: “*Women will have nothing of houses or land.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. **351) *
In addition, if Fadak had to be inheritance, the **wives of Rasulullah **sallallahi ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam like Aa’ishah, and his daughters like Zaynab and Umm Kulthum would have had a share in it. **However, Abu Bakr, for the sake of the ahaadeeth, did not give anything of it to the wives or daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, not even to his own daughter Aa’ishah. Why are the wives and the other daughters of Rasulullah **sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam not mentioned as parties in the dispute over Fadak, and why is all attention focused only on Sayyidah Fatimah?
FADAK AS A GIFT
All of the above concerns the status of Fadak as inheritance from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam. On the other hand, if it is maintained that Fadak was a gift from Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam—as claimed by al-Kashani in his tafsir, as-Safi (vol. 3 p. 186)
—the matter needs to be looked into.
This claim is first and foremost contradicted by authentic reports of both the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shi‘ah which state that Sayyidah Fatimah radiyallahu‘anha
The Sahabi Bashir ibn Sa‘d came to Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam, telling him that he had given one of his sons a garden as a gift, and requesting Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam to be witness thereto. Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam asked whether he had given a similar gift to all of his children. When he replied in that he had not in fact done so, Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alih wasallam told him, “Go away, for I will not be a witness to injustice.” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Hibat, no. 14)
Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam denounced the act of giving one child more than the other as injustice. Is it then at all plausible that one such as he, as an infallible Nabi who refuses to be witness to injustice, would himself perpetrate that injustice? Is it imaginable that he, who is entrusted with the Trust of the Heavens, could breach a mundane trust of this world by giving Fadak **as a gift to **Fatimah alone amongst all his daughters? We all know that Khaybar was taken in the 7th year after the Hijrah, and **that Zaynab died in the 8th year, and Umm Kulthum in the 9th year after the Hijrah. How can **it then be thought that Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam would give something to Fatimah but **not **to his other daughters?
In any event, what is reliably contained in the documented reports is that when Sayyidah Fatimah requested Fadak, she requested it as her inheritance, and not as a gift that was given to her by Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-alihi wasallam.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore concluded that Fadak was neither inheritance nor a gift. **This **was exactly the position of Imam ‘Ali. When he became the Khalifah he did not treat Fadak as the estate of his deceased wife Sayyidah Fatimah, by taking a quarter for himself and distributing the remaining three quarters between , Husayn and Umm Kulthum according to the rule “to the male twice the share of the female”. This is an established fact of history. Why is Abu Bakr execrated for something which was also done by ‘Ali? In fact, Sayyid Murtada (known as ‘Alam al-Huda) narrates in his book on Imamah entitled ash-Shafi, that when ‘Ali became the khalifah he was approached about returning Fadak. His reply was: “I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by ‘Umar.” (al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231; and Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
I was on the verge of closing the file on the Fadak issue and a discussion of the various arguments issue when my eye fell on a narration **which throws light upon the condition of those who are bent upon finding fault with Abu Bakr, by **whichsoever means they can, legitimate or illegitimate.
Al-Kulayni narrates in al-Kafi: Abul Hasan [Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida] came to [the ‘Abbasid khalifah] al-Mahdi and saw him redressing grievances and returning property to its owners that was unrightfully appropriated. He [Imam Rida] asked, “What about our grievance? Why is it not returned?” Al-Mahdi asked. “And what might that be, Abul Hasan?” He replied, “When Allah granted his Prophet the conquest of Fadak...” Al-Mahdi asked, “Abul Hasan, describe to me the extent of this property.” He [Imam Rida] replied, “One side of it is Mount Uhud. Another side is al-‘Arish in Egypt. Another side is the coastline. Another side is Dawmat al-Jandal.” (al-Kafi, Bab al-Fay’ wal-Anfal, vol. 1 p. 543; also Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 48 p. 156)
How can a piece of land in Khaybar possibly fit this description? Is this the extent to which people will allow themselves to be duped and deceived?
[EXPLANATORY NOTE]: Mount Uhud, of course, is in Madeenah. This is given as the south-eastern point. The north-eastern point is stated to be Dawmat al-Jandal, a location close to the Saudi-Jordanian border. Al-‘Arish lies in Egypt, on the edge of the Sinai desert. It is given as the north-western point. The western boundary is stated as the western coastline of the Arabian peninsula. The area described here corresponds roughly to the area lying between latitudes 25 and 30, and longitudes 35 and 40. It is the entire north western quarter of the Arabian peninsula, and is twice as large as modern Jordan.
Eik Fadak ka tanaaza' tha jo reh gayaa tha. Bhai sahab ne ussay bhi be-wajah beech main ghaseet daala.
iss thread kee behes kahaan se shroo' huyee kahaan khatm, kisi ko kuch khabar hai?
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
dawai dil...tum log pagal to zaroor ho gaye ho..but likh likh ker nahi..copy paste ker ker ke...marbles and picard are giving you sane responses and in replies you just copy paste BS from ****ty websites
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Brother, you see the evident bias here?
While talking about 'Ali's opposition to Abu Bakar's caliphate, these advocates are ready to "cut the throat irrespective of who the person is" while regarding 'Ali's caliphate, they want to pardon every tom dick and harry. [They are ready to defend each and every person who was responsible for waging wars against a legitimate caliph and killing thousands of Muslims.]
I won't use "double standards" cliche. Rather, it is the innate and hidden hatred they had in their hearts for one reason or the other.
There's a hadith of the Prophet [pbuh] that only two types of people hate 'Ali. One who are hypocrites and the other whose birth is unpure.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
I was informed by Anas ibn ‘Iyad al-Laythi, who reports on the authority of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [as-Sadiq], and he from his father [Muhammad al-Baqir]—**
that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab asked ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib for the hand of Umm Kulthum in marriage. ‘Ali said, "I had kept my daughters for the sons of Ja‘far." ‘Umar said, "Marry her to me, O Abul Hasan, for by Allah, there is no man on the face of the earth who seeks to achieve through her good companionship that which I seek to achieve." ‘Ali said, "I have done so."
Then ‘Umar came to the Muhajirun between the grave [of Rasulullah r ] and the pulpit. They—‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Zubayr, Talhah and ‘Abd ar-Rahman—used to sit there, and whenever a matter used to arrive from the frontiers, ‘Umar used to come to them there and consult with them. He came to them and said, "Congratulate me." They congratulated him, and asked, "With whom are we congratulating you, O Amir al-Mu’minin?" He replied, "With the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib."
Then he related to them that the Nabi r said, "Every tie of kinship, and every association will be cut off on the Day of Qiyamah, except my kinship and my association." ‘Umar said,] "I have had the companionship of Rasulullah r ; I would like also to have this [kinship]."**at-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sai'd vol. 8 p. 338
The story of the alleged marriage of Umm-e-Kulthum bint Imam 'Ali with 'Umar bin Khattab was fabricated by serial hadith fabricators of Ummayad era. And it has been vehemently refuted by scholars in the light of historical evidence. I can follow the example of dawa_i_dil and CopyPaste a huge rebuttal to increase my post count. . .but i'm not doing that.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
amazing :)
It almost seems as if this was done delibertely.......since no resonse based on logic was available it was thought better to degrade the thread to chaotic rambles. I mean pasting an entire article with nothing relevant. Now I or others can go through that article and repond to the umpteen innaccuracies there but to what end? If the people your are discussing with are resorting to things like this........:)
Khair......dawa_i_dil....lets put everything aside. Lets forget all these religous disagreements for a second. What we both DO believe is that posting incorect rferences and misguiding others is wrong. So finally, FINALLY....will you give me the references to those Nahjul Balagha sermons? Will you finally stop avoiding the answer and address this? Because frankly..in the absence of those refernces...ur credibility is shot...not only in fron of shias but in front of sunnis too.
Re: Muharram Starts!!! Some Important Questions to Ask (Exclusive)
Khair......dawa_i_dil....lets put everything aside. Lets forget all these religous disagreements for a second. What we both DO believe is that posting incorect rferences and misguiding others is wrong. So finally, FINALLY....will you give me the references to those Nahjul Balagha sermons? Will you finally stop avoiding the answer and address this? Because frankly..in the absence of those refernces...ur credibility is shot...not only in fron of shias but in front of sunnis too.
don't expect ur answer...instead he will post some long copy paste BS that is not related.