Re: The Original Shia
^Indeed war is something that should be avoided but that's what happended between them. It really makes you ponder why it all happened?
Re: The Original Shia
The first thing that I caught in those hadith's was this:
'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership)."
Um, okay, so then why did Umar accept the Caliphate before Ali, if he was upholding Ali's rights?
Why did Ali himself just wait after 3 caliphs btw?
I mean, this is really weird. We know lots of what the Prophet said to so-and-so, and so-and-so, yet we don't really have one set story as to what happened right after the Prophet's death?
Shias' story is totally different from the Sunni story. I'm interested in knowing what Ali (R) himself was saying during these days? Was he walking around talking about how the right to rule is his by inheritance?
Or was someone putting those words in his mouth?
WHO was the first person who said "Ali (R) and his progeny must rule by divine right because of inheritance"?
And this is what no one seems to agree on. Its a weird thing, you'd think that of all the hadith's that everyone so "accurately" remembered, you'd think they'd remember something like this. You'd think that if the Prophet walked around saying "Hey guys, lemme tell you, the heirs to my leadership are my own blood and thereby I'm gonna set up a monarchy", people would remember it. But the fact of the matter is, he probably didn't say such a thing. Otherwise people WOULD have remembered it.
Its funny though. After all the wars, there was one last male child in the line of Ali (R). And somehow he was snatched up and noone ever saw him again. So much for 12 imams. Well, at least that is how one story goes. I'm sure there are 10 others out there as well.
Re: The Original Shia
AQ, altho i didnae mean him by shia ne 'whatever' cuz i mentioned that muawiyah's shia came later on. But yeah, point duly noted. :-)
Re: The Original Shia
little human - It is sad that out of concern for the Prophet (saw)'s pain and well-being the Sahabah (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them all) argued in presence of the Prophet (saw) and he (the Prophet (saw)) did not say what had intended to say on that day.
Do you by chance think that by not saying what he had to say anything out of Islam has been left out?
The day was Thursday and the Noble Prophet (saw) died on the following Monday. There were at least three whole days between Thursday and Monday.
Don’t you think that the Prophet (saw) availed one of these days to say what was important?
To even think of that the Prophet (saw) kept back what was most crucial for the betterment of his Ummah is accusing him of being miserly.
The following ayah testifies his attitude towards his Companions (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them all) “To the believers is he most kind and merciful” 9:128
I think the Prophet did give some important advice later and I don’t know it exactly off-hand and will post it later when I get hold of the info otherwise any other person can oblige.
Re: The Original Shia
There was no group as Shiaan-e-Mauwiah to say the least anyway 
Re: The Original Shia
Ibn - the Prophet probably had a lot of faith in his sahabah to do an efficient job. He probably didn't think that there would be so much war and so much fighting immediately after his death.
But I think he did know in the long run there would be issues. Didn't he make say that there would be a lot of hard times for his ummah?
Re: The Original Shia
PCG: Read the Chapter of “Malaahim” in Saheeh Bukhari.
also, by reading this hadeeth, do you think that prophet:saw: was told about many things about the time to come
Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman:razi: reported that the Messenger of Allah :saw: said:
**“Prophethood (meaning Muhammad :saw: himself) will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive [The reign of Muslim kings who are partially unjust] rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.” **
Then Hudhaifah said, “The Prophet :saw: stopped speaking.”
[As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5]
The same hadith without any change of a word is also narrated by Hadrat Nauman Ibn-e-Basheer 
in Musnad-e-Ahmad Ibn-e-Hanbal.
Re: The Original Shia
lol Ibn Sadique.. you are asking the question which I have already answered on your unreferenced copy / paste job on your thread Funeral of Prophet P.B.U.H. and Sahabah… but still let me just give you brief glimpses on some comments by the author on your own hadith of Sahih books which claims on Umar doubting the hadith of Prophet P.B.U.H.
Another brother mentioned that if the Prophet inteneded to appoint Ali as
the Imam, why did he not do so in the presence of the whole people and not
in his house few days before his demise?
The Prophet had already declared the appointment Imam Ali as Imam in many
occasions from his first open preach in Mecca (see al-Tabari English, v6,
pp 88-92; Ibn al-Athir, v2, p62; Ibn Asakir, v1, p85; al-Durr al-Manthoor,
by al-Suyuti, v5, p97) to his last open sermon in Ghadir Khum (see Sahih
Tirmidhi, v2, p298; Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43; Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal;
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim; Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i). Note that it was not
Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed
him.
What the messenger of Allah wanted to do in his last will was to write (or
order to write) what he has already said. But, as quoted earlier, some
people around him shamelessly reduced him to the level of insanity. What
happened on that thursday is a proof by itself that the Prophet ALREADY
assigned a successor, otherwise, there was no point of disobedience!
Another person mentioned the verse “Today I have perfected your religion
and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your
religion (Quran 5:3)” which was revealed 2 months before the death of the
Prophet shows that there was no new religious command is going to come
thereafter. Otherwise, if that important statement the prophet was going to
dictate to his followers would have been somthing which was forgotten,
would make the verse untrue.
Perhaps the above brother would be surprized to know that many Sunni
commentators of Quran have confirmed that the above verse (5:3) was
revealed in Ghadir Khum AFTER the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever I am
his leader, Ali is his leader. O’ God, love those who love him, and be
hostile to those who are hostile to him.” (See the ariticled titled “Ghadir
Khum” for extensive references). This means the perfection of the religion
was due announcing the successor of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
In fact what prophet wanted to do on that Thursday (three days before his
death) was just to repeat, to remind, and to emphasize the things that has
been revealed before. He didn’t want to add any thing new.
No Muslim ever claimed that the position of prophethood has been taken from
Muhammad sometime before his death. We do not have such case about other
prophets either. Even let’s suppose he was not prophet any more, or he
wanted to say something new. Do you think you can find any man better or
more enthusiastic than him about the destiny of his community?! Do you
think his last wish was against the prosperity of his people?! How much
should they have been rude that even they didn’t let him talk!!!
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter4/4.html
Also in regards to the ayat you quoted… its true the ayat above is for believers…
The following ayah testifies his attitude towards his Companions (May Allah (swt) be pleased with them all) “To the believers is he most kind and merciful” 9:128
but you failed to quote the other ayat which I have mentioned earlier in the light of Quran that not all companions of Prophet P.B.U.H. were not believers .. but just to refresh your memory there you go
“They swear by Allah that they are truly of you while they are not of you, but they are a people (hypocrites) who intend to divide (the Muslim nation).”
hmm and lets see what you Sahih books have to say who are believers and who are hypocrites…
“Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of
hypocrasy.”
Sunni references:
- Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;
- Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;
- Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128
- Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202
- Hilyatul Awliya’, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p185
- Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462
Also Muslim in his Sahih narrated on the authority of Zirr that:
Ali (RA) said: By him who split up the seed and created something
living, the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) gave me a
promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a
hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.
- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter XXXIV, p46, Tradition #141
This tradition of Prophet was popular to the extent that some of the
companions used to say:
“We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali.”
Sunni references:
- Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition #1086
- al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47
- al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v3, p242
- Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p91
Re: The Original Shia
^
loving Ali (ra) means that u shud hate others????
Re: The Original Shia
Those who really love Imam Ali [as] will always remain aloof from his opponents and enemies while those who “claim” to love him will not have same stance for His enemies.
For example if some1 openly on street curses your father or attack him, what will be your view about that person? Will you love and respect him ?
I hope point is clear !
Re: The Original Shia
Ali is not the father of all shias......Most shias are of the subcontinental stock or Iranian/persian stock....hence hardly related to or decendant from Ali (RA)....I am afraid that analogy hardly applies here.....
Plus, its rather humorous that all the supposed omnipotence that shia attribute to Ali, despite that he was oblivious to who his enemies were....But degenerates century later, claiming to be his decendants, even those distinctlively biharis and indian, know more then Ali (RA) did during his lifetime....
BTW, the original shia was a man by the name of Abdullah Bin Sabah....
Re: The Original Shia
that twice the guys been mentioned. who the hell is he? an where does he fit into all of this?
Re: The Original Shia
Two points that Texan Dude raised that I'd like to rebuttle:
- Texan Dude: "Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrasy."
I don't know what your logic is really. I don't see any sunnis "hating" Ali (R). In fact, sunnis have a great deal of respect for him, and he became a caliph because he had the SUPPORT of the same people that supported Abu Bakr, and Umar, and Uthman (R). The death of Uthman, it seems, has made people come up with different stories. The present-day Shia line has put words in Ali (R)'s mouth, and same with the present-day Sunni line. The fact of the matter is, there is no personal parchment or record from Ali (R) that would tell us of his stance on the whole issue. Funny thing is that for some reason everyone ELSE seems to know what Ali thought and felt this whole time.
I think if he knew that he was to be the successor, he probably would not have cooperated with the other Sahabah.
:)
- Texan Dude: Note that it was not Prophet who appointed him on his own, but it was rather Allah who appointed him.
So, something that God Willed...did not happen. Interesting. I thought the Quran even says that if God wills something, it happens.
Re: The Original Shia
pcg: nahjul balagha are the collected sermons of Imam Ali. If you wanna know what he (as)said or felt at the time, i suggest you read it. His stance is pretty clear. msg boards isnt really a place to get indepth info. skewed opinions is more like it.
Re: The Original Shia
Yeah sure read my thread on A question for fellow guppies on Quran and Sunnah and you’lll be suprised.. One of the guppies went so far that he accused Hazrat Ali A.S. for using the sword that was awarded to him by Allah SWT … he accused him for using the sword to kill believers… astagfirullah.. and he wants to use it as an excuse to justify people like Mawiya who came against Hazrat Ali A.S was Ameer ul Momineen… now based on the hadith.. if they came against Hazrat Ali A.S. aren’t they hypocrite.. but oh well… thats not it.. there are two hadith in Sahih Bukhari… one of them claims that who ever made Bibi Fatima Zehra S.A. angry made Prophet P.B.U.H. angry and another hadith by no other than Ayesha herself where she said Abu Bakr made Fatima angry… Nauzubillah this one guppy went as far as saying that Bibi Fatima Zehra S.A was mistaken and got angry on Abu Bakr for wrong reason… Astagfirullah.. in other words he is accusing Allah SWT for giving such a hadith.. with helps one to judge who was right and who was wrong.. I mean come on had Nauzubillah Bibi could get people for wrong reasons… would Allah SWT have made his Prophet P.B.U.H. give such an hadith.. or awarded the Lion of Allah with his sword… those are just mere glimpse how far some sunni can go accusing and spread hatredness for Ahleybait just so that they can come up with excuses to defend their false Ameer ul Momineen.
Certainly Allah SWT can do wheaver he wishes for.. but he do test his people… Prophet of Allah gave an hadith that after him there would be 72/73 sects in islam… i don’t remember the exact number and only one will go to heaven.. so it was the will of Allah to test people by having 72/73 sects… and certainly most of pray to same Allah SWT, pray, perform Hajj, pay Zakat and do other duties but there are some things that makes us different and thats why Allah showed us light what would be the right path to follow… 12 Imams teachings of none from the other… Quran testifies islam to be perfect and to me Prophet would not ask people to follow his sunnah and don’t mention the exact source of sunnah… which would have caused major differences among us and thats why to us after he performed his last Hajj he made Hazrat Ali Mawla… by saying the following hadith
Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: “O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance… The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times).”
Sunni Reference:
- Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1873, Tradition #36.
“For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla).”
Not to mention Prophet P.B.U.H. made people pay alligance after this hadith… the whole incident can be found in the following website with references.
www.al-islam.org/ghadir
and after the death of Prophet P.B.U.H. some so called of companions of Prophet P.B.U.H. gave preference to the issue of khilafat and attending the burial of Prophet P.B.U.H. .. while hazrat Ali A.S. was performing the services… and these people gathered and elected Abu Bakr as Khaleefa… shias on the other hands followed the hadith of Prophet and followed Hazrat Ali A.S. as Imam… not to mention he was followed by 12 Imams and teaching of none contradicted the other… even Ibn Sadique himself said.. that shia Imams were so knowledgeable that some of the great sunni Imams like Imam Hanafi and Imam Shafai had to go to them to seek knowledge.. and yet they preferred the students over the teacher itself… they defended islam .. Imam Hussain sacrificed his whole family to defend islam from Yazeed L.A. not to mention sunni own books shows that their own made Khaleefa offended Prophet… infact in Sahih Bukhari also quoted a hadith by Umar where he praised taraweeh as a bidah… not to mention there is another hadith in Sahih Bukhari itself which quoted some of companions of Prophet P.B.U.H. would be taken to hell and when Prophet would ask they are his companions.. Allah SWT would say you don’t know what bidah have they introduced… I can get you all the references to the above if you want me too…
Not to mention your own sahih books also have a hadith … which talks about state of muslim will be good as long as they are governed by 12.
Well thats how it all started.. some people chose there own leaders.. leader who offended Prophet and introduced bidah based on their own books.. while some followed the teaching of Prophet … and followed Hazrat Ali A.S as mawla…and thats how we are called shias.. hope that helps..
May Allah protect readers from any errors within.
Re: The Original Shia
How do you know the nahjul balagha aren't made up?
Secondly, this reference you make:
Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance... The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."
Alright, I'm sure he gave this sermon and maybe he did indeed say these words. I dont understand why anyone would think from this sermon that Ali (R) HAD to have been the successor of the Prophet. You can have a different leader and still use the family of the Prophet as a source of guidance, since they were very much close to the Prophet.
And in the end, Ali (R) was a leader. Its not like he was never allowed to be made a leader. So I don't understand why the supporters of Ali (R) CONTINUED their rivalry with the followers of the other Sahabah? Shouldn't the problem have ended once Ali (R) got into leadership?
No, it didn't. Because there were other forces at work that were trying to divide the muslim community. Someone killed Uthman (R), and Ali (R) got dragged into the mess. Ali (R) was heavily criticized by Aisha (R) and her followers. But this doesn't mean that Sunnis hate Ali (R). In fact, if anything, discrpepncies between political leadership is only expected.
What could make anyone possibly think that ANY of the Companions were immune to that? Even in group work, when each individual has the best motives at heart, there is disagreement on how to approach different situations.
So, please, rest easy. I really don't think there was as much animosity between Ali (R) and the other companions as what there is now between Shia and Sunni.
I think a lot of the differences in the practices, beliefs etc - are actually just made up.
Stick to the Quran, and everyone will be fine. If only people could just attempt to live up to that much alone. If people actually tried, no one would even have time to bother with the Sunnah. And even if people do bother with Hadith's - as long as they're not making anything farz which is not made farz by the Quran, I dont see the big deal.
Whatever, I think you people get heated up for no reason. I'm just trying to figure out where all this mess comes from. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some outside forces at work.
Re: The Original Shia
that shia Imams were so knowledgeable that some of the great sunni Imams like Imam Hanafi and Imam Shafai had to go to them to seek knowledge..
Now don't go all soft here. I have no problem with this statement. Those Imams probably were very much knowledgeable.
But saying that the ONLY political leaders can be from the lineage of Ali (R) - that's utter bull. Its not supported anywhere, and like I said before, its contradictory to the anti-monarch spirit of Islam.
And then saying that these Imams are infallible - that's also nonsense!
The lineage of Ali (R) ended well before the prophecy of the 12 Imams could be fulfilled, if I'm not mistaken. So if God had ordained that Ali (R) be the only leader, and that the only other leaders come from his line, then I'm sure that would have indeed been the circumstances to take place no matter what anyone else did.
By the way, the last heir vanished (male heir) - no one knows where he is. Imam Mehdi is supposed to come from this line. It would be interesting indeed if that heir survived. I wonder if there were any female heiress's left - but of course muslim scholars don't give a hoot about females anyway. Sorry, I digress.
Not to say that the Sunni side didn't do bad. Muawiyah seems like not such a wise leader either, especially since he gave his Khalifat to his son, who totally screwed up.
Re: The Original Shia
Sorry, back to your direct replies:
Your reply to concern #1: So you're basing your comments that Sunnis hate Ali (R) based on what a few hothead guppies say?
Personally, I haven't met one Sunni who hates Ali (R) and his leadership. I think pretty much everyone agrees though that things didn't work out quite as well as they had planned.
And just as these guppies are quick to judge the actions of Ali (R), you're quite quick to judge the actions of the Sahabah. So, you say that the Sahabah treated the Prophet like he was dumb by not letting him speak before he died. Did you ever think that maybe they were just concerned for his health, and they could tell by his actions that he didn't want to say anything really serious? The last sermon had already been revealed 2 months before his death. You think they decided to shut him up last minute when he wanted to say something or do something that he probably would have done in his lifetime?? Are you saying that the Prophet, who is infallible according to Shia belief, was actually fallible?? :o
My point here is don't be quick to judge. You don't know what happened. You have your sermons of Ali (R), we sunnis have our collection of our hadith. What actually happened, IMHO, only God knows, especially if the hadith contradict so much with the sermons of Ali (R). And that doesn't make you or me right or wrong - it just means if you're backing your claims up with Hadith's then you really don't have much of a point, since you yourself don't know whats real and what's fabricated, other than what different scholars decided upon some centuries ago.
So how ignorant does that make you?
IMHO, I don't know much. I'm just using some logic and tying in the facts of the events that both sides agree on to make a more complete and sensible picture. Some sunni information doesn't fit in, and some shia info doesn't fit in.
Point #2: I don't buy this. So, you're saying God Wills X. But X may not happen, because humans interfere and prevent X from happening? And that this is actually a test by God?
From what I've learnt there are two separate issues:
God wills X.
God tests us by giving us a choice of X.
They're not the same thing. If you say God wills Ali (R) and his progeny to be our leaders, then that will happen. Because if God wills X, then it follows that X will happen. This is what the Quran says.
If God tests us with a choice of X, then X might or might not happen. For example, God tells us not to eat pork. He does not WILL us to not eat Pork. If he Willed it, we wouldn't eat it. But there are peple who do eat pork, and that is a choice they make.
See, in some issues, humans don't have a choice. In some things we do.
God will the weather.
God does not give us a choice of weather. It comes because that's his Will.
Therefore, God did not will Ali (R) to immediately succeed the Prophet, because he didn't. Eventually he did. Therefore, I say that you Shias might actually be right in that the preferable leader might have been Ali after the Prophet's death.
BUT.
You Shias also say that his entire progeny should have succeeded. And this is where I feel things go wrong. Because its THIS factor that makes things into a monarchy. Nowhere has God said in the Quran that he WILLED such a thing.
Nowhere in the Quran does God say he will test us by offering the choice of taking Ali's progeny as leaders and making the system into a monarchy. That choice itself isn't even mentioned anywhere in the Quran.
Therefore, God has nothing to do with that. And God didn't will it, because it didn't happen.
You see? Some of what you Shias say might be true indeed. But a lot of it I still don't agree with, because it just doesn't fit in. It seems that someone really brainwashed people. I really would not be suprised if this Abdullah whats his name story has SOME truth to it.
Re: The Original Shia
i am a sunni barailvi and i don't have much respect for Muawiya as a Sahabi. He was of a controversial character and a power-hungry political man
Re: The Original Shia
Here you can find detailed study on your question. “The Original Shia”
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=185775
Regards