Look at the history. Siddiq e Akbar had 4 wives, 3 sons and 3 daughters. Then Faruq e Azam had 6 wives, 8 boys and 7 girls. Then Usman e Ghani 8 wives, 7 boys, 7 girls. Then Ali al Murtada had 9 wives, 15 boys and 18 girls. And Ameer Muawiya had 4 wives, 3 boys, 3 girls. Look how much love they had and how close they were related to one another. Today the Rejector says that they had enmity with Ali. When I read the history, Ali had sons called Hassan, Hussayn, Muhsin, Abu Bakr, Umar Awwal, Umar Thani, Uthman, Hamzah, Abbas, Yahya, Zayd, Abdullah, Jafar. If Ali was Abu Bakr’s enemy he would never have named his son Abu Bakr, If Ali was Umar’s enemy he would not have named two sons Umar, if Ali was Uthman’s enemy he would not have named a son Uthman. Look at the daughters of Ali - Maymunah, Aisha, Hafsah, Zaynab, Ruqayya, Umm Kulthum, Layla, Lubna, Nafisa, Ramlah, Ateeqa, Aatikah, Umm Hadi, Umm al Hakam. If Ali had enmity with Aisha he would not have named a daughter Aisha, if he had enmity with Hafsah he would not have named a daughter Hafsah.
Lets proceed. Abu Bakr had from his 4 wives three sons and 3 daughters. The sons: AbdurRahman, Muhammad, and Abdullah; the daughters: Asma, Aisha, Umm Kulthum. Now in the house of Abu Bakr’s oldest son AbdurRahman a daughter was born called Asma, and in the house of Siddiq e Akbar’s youngest son Muhammad a son was born called Qasim. This Asma and Qasim were married, and they had a daughter called Umm e Farwa. This Umme Farwa who is the great granddaughter of Siddiq e Akbar on both sides was married to Imam Baqir. And who is Imam Baqir? Oh Rejectors open year ears and listen well. Imam Baqir is the son of Imam Zaynul Abideen, and he is the son of Hussayn ibn Ali and Hussayn ibn Ali is the son of Ali Al Murtada. And when the nikah of Imam Baqir was done with Umm e Farwa from them a son was born and he is called Imam Jafar Sadiq. Oh Rejectors if you recognize Imam Jafir Sadiq then know that he said Abu Bakr is mine twice on both sides of my mother.
Then proceed. Faruq e Azam was the 2nd Khalifah of the Messenger salallahu alayhi wa sallam and his wife was Umm Kulthum and she was the daughter of Ali. Is this sign of enmity or signs of love?
Usman e Ghani had 8 wives, 8 sons and 7 daughters. Among those sons is one called Abdullah. Regarding him there are different narrations. Some say he died at age 7, others that he died in Yarmuk but there is another narration where it is written that this Abdullah married one of the 3 daughters of Ameer Muawiyah named Ramlah. And they had a son called Amr bin Abdullah. And this Amr bin Abdullah was married to Sakinah bint Hussayn . I ask oh Rejectors you say the Quran mentioned mutual affection before (the later enmity, the statements of Prophet salallahu alayhi wa sallam were before (the later enmity) but explain then to us that how did these relationships come about AFTER if they were enemies?
If they were enemies then Sakinah Bint Hussayn would never have been wed to the grandson of Muawiyah and the grandson of Uthman. Don’t look for lame excuses to make tabarrah on those Companions who spread the kailmah over the earth.
You’ll find more interest reading down through the lines bro.
To Khanbabax: you’re extremely good at copy/pasting man!
This is preposterous. . .
Anyone who knows a little bit about 'Arab and its cultural norms at that time knows that these were common Arab names widely used at that time. That is why, Imam 'Ali had sons with names Abi Bakr, Uthman etc. Its no proof of friendship and understanding between Imam and the three caliphs.
Nasim, Akhtar, Imran are normal Sub-continental names. If one of my bitter enemy happens to be Imran, does it mean that i start hating the name Imran and does it mean that I can’t name my son as Imran? Even if I did, it would be absurd on my part. Similarly, this argument is also absurd.
It was later among Shia that due to realisation of history and after Karbala, they start hating the names and did not name their childern as either Umar, Abikhar, Uthman, Ziyad, Ayesha, Sa’ad etc.
I should also highlight a bit of absurdity on Shia’s part as well.
As it is known that the killer of Imam 'Ali was 'Abdul-Rehman ibn-e-Muljim, many Shia have refrained fron naming their kids as Abdul Rehman and don’t like this name. This is wrong. Abdul-Rehman is a beautiful name and any Shia can have this name. It means the Slave the Rehman, [Allah]. If the killer of Imam 'Ali happened to be 'Abdul Rehman, it doesn’t make the name wrong.
To complete my argument, I should also point out towards the fact that Many of the martyrs of Karbala [among companians of Imam Hussain] had named like Muaviyah, Yazid, Ziyad, Umar, Sa’ad, Abi Bakar, Uthman, Zubair etc etc. NOW can someone argue that because they had such names, so they had no differences and hatred towards Ummayad, their leader and his kith and kin? If the answers is yes, then what they were doing in Karbala, knowing that they would be killed?
Lets Proceed. The wife of Imam Baqir [as] and the mum of Imam Sadiq [as] was the great grand daughter of Abi Bakr. Very true. but you know who she was and who was her grand father?
Bibi Umm-e-farwa’s grand father is Muhammad bin Abi Bukar, who was on of the staunch followers of Imam 'Ali before and during his caliphate. The same Muhammad [ra] bin Abi Bakr was martyred by Muaviyah’s orders when he was serving as a governer of Egypt appointed by Imam 'Ali. Check the series of letters written by Muhammad bin Abu Bakr to Muaviyah bin Saghar [Abu Sufuyan] and see how Muhammad bin Abu Bakr highlights the wrong doings of Muaviyah and disassociate himself from the actions of his very own father. [the traditions are prolly found in Sharah-e-Nahjul Balagha by Ibn-e-Abil Hadeed, the Sunni scholar]
So we found that it is not nasb, [lineage] that makes much difference. It is person’s beliefs and his actions that make him different from others. Shia respect and applaud Muhammad bin Abi Bakar from core of their hearts and regard him as one of the staunch Shia of Imam 'Ali, who fought for him and was eventually martyred by Muaviyah and his stooges.
For Itmaam-e-hujjat, let me give you another example. Some Shia scholars also regard the son of Yazid, Muaviyah Jr. , in high esteem. He was the one who after the death of his accursed father Yazid, refused to sit on the throne where the head of the grandson of Prophet [pbuh] was placed. He spent his remaining days in seclusion disassociating himself from the actions of his forefathers and crying for the crimes committed by his elders. He was later on murdered by another member of his family for being DIFFERENT from the rest of the Ummayads.
This is a blatant lie. Show me references for this alleged marriage. and remember. . .Sunni tales are not binding for Shia. Though I can disprove from your own resources that this marriage never took place. It was fabricated to produce some fake reconciliation between the two houses*.*
Then proceed. The marriage fo Sakina bint Hussain with Amr bin Abdullah is also another confusion of history. It is intriguing to note that there is a difference of opinions whethe the son of 'Uthman, Abdullah ever lived more than 10 years. and some narrations not only give him life, but marry him to the daughter of Muaviyah and then they had an offspring named 'Amr and that Amr marries the daughter of Imam Hussain, named Sakina. . .the Sakina which didn’t live more than 6 years and was present in Karbala and died in Damascus. There is only one Sakina bint Hussain [as], not two.
err, i always read in history that Hussain (ra) and his companions did not go to karbala for battle, nor when leaving their houses, heading for kufa, did they intend a battle of any sort…
The point is: why they didn’t leave Imam Hussain [as] when they knew that death is on the door?
Btw, why they were with the Imam in the first place? If they were named Yazids, Muaviyahs, Ziyads, they should have been fighting for Yazidi army or sitting besides Yazid in his court in the same fashion as the “great narrator” of Hadiths, Mr. Abdullah bin Umar had given his hands in Yazid’s hands.
So it was only AFTER Karbala that they realised that they hate Khulfae rashideen(first three) , where as they had no role in the martyrdom of Hadrat Hussain
It is to be noted that nearly all other shia imams also named thier children after these sahbah- It is very subjective to state that shias all of a sudden changed course and did not named thier children after them whereas on the contrary i can more safely assume that these noble personalities ( shia imams) actually loved khulfa e rashideen so much that they named thier children after them.
BHai meray abb wo nam to change kernay say rahay we are discussing why some people were named **after **sahabhand not why some of them had common names.
Hadrat Hussain had differences with tyrant and not with some particular group (Ummayad) , how can you assume that shudah e karbala had differences with Khulfa e rashideen.?
Please shed more light on what he actually said. and the authenticity of these narrations also please tell me how these chain of ravis reach Hadrat Ali ?
No it wasn’t right after Karbala when Shia changed their attitudes towards the names of few personalities they disassociated themselves from. It was quite later on in history, probably after the occultation of Imam Mahdi [as].
It should not be forgotten that Muaviyah started a tradition of cursing and abusing Imam 'Ali and Ahl-e-bait from the pulpits of mosques and this despicable and obnoxious tradition thrived for nearly 70 years or so untill it was stopped by Umar ibn-e-Abdul Azeez [may Allah reward him for this]
[To push the argument further, just check how the writer of one of the Sahih Sunni books, Nisai’i died]
It was this period when Ahl-e-bait had nowhere to hide. Their scores were tortured and murdered including the events of Karbala. There was a time when Shia or other Muslims couldn’t name their childern as either 'Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Fatima, Zainab etc. On the orders of Imams, most Shia migrated to distant lands including Persia and India where they found some relief. Just check the period of Ummayad history and you’ll know what was heppening to Ahl-e-bait and their followers at that time.
Now, putting your question in context, in such a political environment, many Shia refrained from naming their childern on Ahl-e-bait names. Instead, the named them as Umars, Uthmans, Muaviyah, Ziyad, Sa’ad, Zubair etc. and it was also done on the orders of Imam to save the people from Ummayad wrath. It was that period of time when Taqqiyah was most practised among Shia due to the threats to their lives.
One event would suffice. Although I exactly don’t remember in whose time it happend and with whom it happened, but it was surely Ummayad time. Ummayad governer of some province came to know that there’s a person in town whose name is 'Ali. He summoned the person to find out if he was 'Ali’s Shia !!!] [That person was Shi’i]. But when he was brought to the governor and questioned. He said no my name is not 'Ali but 'Ulay. They are spelled in the same way but pronounced differently.
Did you see the animosity of Ummayads towards the house of Ali and Ahl-e-bait [as]. This was the atmosphere of early Muslims and this was their faith and conduct.
I hope you can now understand why years and centuries even after karbala, Shia continued to name their sons on the names of the enemies of Ahl-e-bait [as]
This is not the point bro. I’m saying that IF the martyrs of Karbala, who had names like Muaviyah, Yazid, Ziyad etc had no differences with Muaviyah and Yazid [and surely they had otherwise they would have been with Yazid] then why they were named on their enemies’ names?
The answer is quite simple. The name Muaviyah and Yazid were not hated at that time. It was the character of the person which was despised. The hate for these names is a matter which emerged centuries later.
The exchange of letters with Muaviyah and Muhammad [ra] bin Abu Bakar is recorded in history books. Since I do not have the references at hand,[since I read the books years ago] I’m unable to provide them. Though I will try hunting them down and get back to you as soon as possible. Send me a reminder via PM so that I remember.
These references are from Sunni historians who have recoreded the letters.
*Taqqiya *(fundamental part of the shia religion which means deception, lying, etc to hide the truth)is becoming more and more common practice among the shias…
So, Family of the prophet were “shia?”
Who were the enemies of the family of the prophet? Name them… and their crime.
Sunni historians? Who? Which letters? Recording in which book? Volumn? Page number? Published when? By whom? You better hunt the books down and give us the references otherwise it only looks like you are practicing taqqiya (lying, deception, etc.) and nothing more.
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
^As mentioned i will get another proof that ibn Umar was with Hussain and considering this we have to get the third source from outside.
But anyways its new to me.
not to go to Kaufa)
