Re: The Original Shia
In short Shia of Ali were the people who supported him throughout right from Saqifa and believed him to be the rightful successor of the holy prophet(pbuh)
Re: The Original Shia
Until the battle of Jamal , the Shia of Ali consisted only of a small personal following who from the very beginning regarded him as the successor of the prophet(pbuh). After the battle of Jamal the term Shia of Ali came to include all those who had supported hz Ali(as´) against bibi Ayesha, and from this point onwards the original Shia group was confusingly included with groups and individual who supported hz ALi(as) for other than religious reasons. The ranks of Shias were divided into four categories: Al-Asfiya, the "sincere friends", Al-Awliya, the "devoted friend", Al-Ashab, "the companions", and the Shurat al-Khamis, the "picked division". The first three terms can be applied to hz Miqdad, Salman Farsi, Ammar, Hudhayfa, Abu Hamza, Abu Sasan and Shutayr (God be pleased with them).
Check Tabari,2, p.1 for reference.
Re: The Original Shia
PyariCgudia
It very well might be the case that God did want the Ahle Bayt to be the successor of the Prophet(pbuh). What makes you think otherwise. As for your statement that if God wills X to happen, then it should happen. Not necessarily! God also wills that we muslims pray 5 times a day and be good muslims, but are we? Does this in any imply that God does not want this to happen?
It is quite an irony that right after the death of the Propeht(pbuh) when hz Ali(as) sought his right of caliphate he was wrong. wasnt he? Again right after the death of the holy prophet(pbuh) when bibi fatima(as) asked for Fadak, again she was wrong and Abu Bakr was right wasnt he? Again right afterthe death of the prophet(pbuh) bibi Ayesha fought against Ali(as), right? Again after the death of the prophet(pbuh) Mavia was right and imam Hassan was wrong eh? Again Imam Hussein was a rebel and Yazid a pious muslim.
Really it amazes me that everytime the Ahle-Bayt are the wrong ones or are taken to be mistaken but does it ever crosses the mind of the sunnis that the other could also be wrong and were mistaken. But no.
Re: The Original Shia
It is apparent from hz Ali(as) speeches that hz Ali(as) asserted that caliphate had been unjustly taken away from him. The election of Abu Bakr, there was no democracy applied here, the nomination of Umar by Abu Bakr, again no democracy but the opinion of a man, namely Abu Bakr. Again the election of Usman through the shura, again Umar masterly designed the shura leaving no chance for Ali, as is evident from historical evidence and through hz ALi(As) own words. Tell me pyariCgudia why was he denied this? Check my posts in "Who are shia" you will get the details.
Re: The Original Shia
[QUOTE]
In short Shia of Ali were the people who supported him throughout right from Saqifa and believed him to be the rightful successor of the holy prophet(pbuh)
Until the battle of Jamal , the Shia of Ali consisted only of a small personal following who from the very beginning regarded him as the successor of the prophet(pbuh). After the battle of Jamal the term Shia of Ali came to include all those who had supported hz Ali(as´) against bibi Ayesha, and from this point onwards the original Shia group was confusingly included with groups and individual who supported hz ALi(as) for other than religious reasons. The ranks of Shias were divided into four categories: Al-Asfiya, the "sincere friends", Al-Awliya, the "devoted friend", Al-Ashab, "the companions", and the Shurat al-Khamis, the "picked division". The first three terms can be applied to hz Miqdad, Salman Farsi, Ammar, Hudhayfa, Abu Hamza, Abu Sasan and Shutayr (God be pleased with them).
Check Tabari,2, p.1 for reference.
PyariCgudia
It very well might be the case that God did want the Ahle Bayt to be the successor of the Prophet(pbuh). What makes you think otherwise. As for your statement that if God wills X to happen, then it should happen. Not necessarily! God also wills that we muslims pray 5 times a day and be good muslims, but are we? Does this in any imply that God does not want this to happen?
It is quite an irony that right after the death of the Propeht(pbuh) when hz Ali(as) sought his right of caliphate he was wrong. wasnt he? Again right after the death of the holy prophet(pbuh) when bibi fatima(as) asked for Fadak, again she was wrong and Abu Bakr was right wasnt he? Again right afterthe death of the prophet(pbuh) bibi Ayesha fought against Ali(as), right? Again after the death of the prophet(pbuh) Mavia was right and imam Hassan was wrong eh? Again Imam Hussein was a rebel and Yazid a pious muslim.
Really it amazes me that everytime the Ahle-Bayt are the wrong ones or are taken to be mistaken but does it ever crosses the mind of the sunnis that the other could also be wrong and were mistaken. But no.
MesmeriZeD is online now Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
It is apparent from hz Ali(as) speeches that hz Ali(as) asserted that caliphate had been unjustly taken away from him. The election of Abu Bakr, there was no democracy applied here, the nomination of Umar by Abu Bakr, again no democracy but the opinion of a man, namely Abu Bakr. Again the election of Usman through the shura, again Umar masterly designed the shura leaving no chance for Ali, as is evident from historical evidence and through hz ALi(As) own words. Tell me pyariCgudia why was he denied this? Check my posts in "Who are shia" you will get the details.
[/QUOTE]
Yes yes yes, I succeed. These are the main concepts of trouble makers. WOW
Re: The Original Shia
yes yes and what r u? a hadis fabricator i guess. Now that u have successfully fabricated the hadith of knowledge, check out other hadis as well. I’ll help you find one. Take the hadise Kisa. Add Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman in the AhlebAyt as well. Good luck!!
Re: The Original Shia
You are talking about God or local Imam ??
Allah’s will is not a piece of paper. Whatever Alllah wants to happen, it happens. no ifs buts and conditions apply. In your example, Allah " ordered " muslims to pray 5 times a day. What Allah wills is only known to him.
Don’t know where are you getting all this messed up a-symmetric line of events …
If Hazrat Ali would have been the first callaph, it would be on merit. It would be all good, he was perfectly suitable. but the person who became the callaph was also one of the best and closest companion of Prophet so we dont find anything wrong with it.
When Hazrat Ali (ra) became caliph Both Hazrat Ayesha(ra) and Muavia were wrong in fighting against him. Ali(ra) was right. So neither He nor did we start hating them, because although they were all very noble personaities but the were not Infallible so they may have been wrong in the judgement. We leave the case to Allah.
You have too many far fetched ideas, dont know from where :halo: You most probably know that Ahle-Bayt are deeply respected among mainstream sunnies but It does not suit you. So you take offense to any word or any historical fact which suggests that they were humans too, and may have had some error of judgement or a slight mistake on thetr part.
You are mistaken my friend, Contrary to shia, Sunnies do not take any companion or relative of prophet to be perfect. They take them as human being capable of doing mistake and errror. And history books are filled with them. Be it Abu bakar, Usman, Umar, Ali (ra) or any other sahaba. They were devoted to Islam but were porn to errors and they help eachother. It is evident that Hz Umar had the problem of Anger management, but he was an excellent administrator. So during his rule Hz Ali (ra) advised him on various issues and Hz umar happily complied because he was aware of Aboslute wisdom of Hz Ali.
We accept that there were some issues on which there was a dispute, and we do not deny them, they are part of history. but Hz Ali was aware of the devotion of First three Caliphs and so he did’t have any objection.
There were only 4 rightly Guided Caliphs After the demise of prophet (pbuh).
Re: The Original Shia
Code_Red
I wont discuss the issue on whether hz Ali(as) was right or Abu Bakr, because shia and sunni differ on the this matter alot. Its of no use because we consider our imams to be infallible and they do not commit such grievious mistakes.
Yes they had differences but hz Ali(as) silence does not mean that he was satified with the caliphs or didnt have any objection. It is quite apparent from hz Ali(as) speeches that he expressed his displeasure on the nomination of Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman and also raised his voice during Usmans Caliphate due to his unjust rule.
Re: The Original Shia
Why do Shii’ suffer from general amnesia whenever Abdullah ibn Saba is mentioned. 
He is mentioned by their scholars? Why is there this very convenient loss of memory common to all?
There should be an explanation for this phenomena. I will surely try to dig up some more about his to jolt the memory of a few.
Is Abdullah bin Saba’ a Myth?
Recently, some Shi’ites began to claim that “Abdullah bin Saba’” is a myth and an imaginative personality who never existed in history who is portrayed by legend as being a mysterious person and difficult to prove that he ever existed.
When Islam came, some Jews attempted to abort this new religion. Their endeavors took many forms and shapes, from attempts to assassinate the Apostle of Allah [saw] to waging wars that ended in deporting most of them from al-Madinah or executing those who betrayed the truce. Similarly, they were convinced that the best way to destroy Islam and the Muslims’ unity was to resort to the plot of deception. A Yemenite Jew by the name of Abdullah bin Saba’ pretended to have embraced Islam to plant secretly the seeds of this new cult which he successfully performed. He arrived from Yemen to al-Madinah during the era of Zunnurain Caliph Othman bin 'Affaan [ra] and started to plan and cook the plot, waiting for the proper opportunity which he found in Ali [ra].
As I earlier said that Recently, some Shi’ites began to claim that “Abdullah bin Saba’” is a myth and an imaginative personality who never existed in history, how true?
It is natural for them to be ashamed of this fact, but our question to them is, why they kept silent for 14 centuries and not a single scholar of them disputed this fact throughout this period? Furthermore, what do they say about the giant scholars of theirs who confirmed the existance of this Jew, and what do they say about their “Infallible” Imams who likewise confirmed his existence? Certainly, if Ibn Saba’ was a myth, then this is a blow to their credibility and “Infallibity” and the entire footings of Shi’ism has thereby collapsed.
Nevertheless, we’ll prove our point, not by using Sunni or Orientalists sources, but will call to the witness stand their very own historians and whom they call deputies of Allah on earth, the “Infallible” Imams:
First: Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti:
The well known Shi’ite “Who’s Who” critic, al-Najashi in his al-Fihrist, wrote:
“al-Hasan bin Musa: Abu Muhammad al-Nubakhti, the well versed in dialectism, who surpassed the peers of his time prior and after the 300 (hijra)”
al-Fihrist: al-Najashi, p.47; From Ash-Shi’a was-Sunnah, p.22
Another “Who’s Who” critic, At-Tusi, in his al-Fihrist wrote:
“Abu Muhammad, dialectist and philosopher, was an Imami (shi’ite), an upright in faith, trustworthy (thiqah)…and he is one of the scholars’ landmarks”
al-Fihrist: At-Tusi, p.98; From Ash-Shi’a Was-Sunnah, p.22
Nurallah at-Tasturi, in his “Majaalis al-Mu’mineen” wrote:
“al-Hasan bin Musa, one of the celebrity of this sect and its scholars. He was a dialectist, a philosopher, an Imami in faith”
Majaalis al-Mu’mineen: Nurallah At-Tasturi, p.177; from Ash-Shi’a was-Sunnah, p.22
Having established the authority of this historian from the Shi’ites own sources, let’s read what Mr. al-Nubakhti had to say about Ibn Saba’:
"Abdullah bin Saba’, was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and the Companions and disowned them. He claimed that it was Ali [as] who enjoined this on him. Ali arrested him, and upon interrogation, admitted to the charge, and (Ali) ordered him to be executed. The People cried ‘O Chief of Believers ! Do you execute a man calling to your love, Ahlul-Bayt, to your allegiance, and disowning your enemies?’ He (Ali) then exiled him to al-Mada’in (Capital of Iran back then). Some of the knowledgeable companions of Ali [as] narrated that Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Jew who embraced Islam and sided with Ali [as]. That he was of the opinion, at the time when he was a Jew, claiming that Yousha’ bin Noon is after Moses. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh], he claimed the same for Ali [as]. He was the first to publicly mandate the Imamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opposers… When Abdullah bin Saba’ heard of the demise of Ali while in (his exile at) al-Mada’in, he said to the announcer of the news: ‘You are a liar, if you are to bring his head in seventy bags, and brought seventy witnesses testifying to his death, we’ll insist that he did not die nor murdered, and (he) shall not die till he rules the globe’ ". Firaq al-Shi’a: Nubakhti, pp. 43,44
Second: Abu Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi: Another well known “Who’s Who” critic who also mentioned Ibn Saba’, and one of the earliest Shi’ite biographist. In the “Introduction” to his book, known as “Rijaal al-Kash-shi”, we read:
“He is trustworthy (thiqah), an adept, an expert in traditions and men, very knowledgeable, well founded in faith, on the upright path…The most important books on biographies of men are four, which are heavily depended on and (considered) the four basic pillars in this field, the most important and earliest of all is: Ma’rifat al-Naqileen anil-A’immah As-Sadiqeen (Knowing the Transmittors on The Authority of The Truthful Imams) known as Rijaal al-Kash-shi”.
Rijaal al-Kash-shi: al-Najaashi, Introduction.
Having established the authority of this scholar, let’s examine what he has to say about the Jew Ibn Saba’:
“Some people of knowledge mentioned that Abdullah bin Saba’ was a Jew, who embraced Islam and supported Ali. While he was still a Jew, he used to go to extremism in calling Yousha’ bin Noon as the appointee (successor) of Moses, thus after embracing Islam - after the demise of the Messenger of Allah [pbuh] - he said the like about Ali. It was him who first publicly announced the mandatory Iamamah for Ali, rejected and disowned his enemies, debated his opponents and called them Kafirs.”
Rijaal al-Kash-shi: Abu 'Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi, p.101 al-Mamaqaani, author of “Tanqeeh al-Maqaal”, who is an authoritative Shi’i biogrophist quoted the like in his said book, p.184
Now, if these Shi’ites authorities lied about the identity of Ibn Saba’, then the possibility of them lying about other matters, like the events of Siffien, the murder of al-Hussain [ra] and other Shi’i dogmas, stands greater. Consequently, if this is the case, doubt will overshadow any and all events and narrations recorded by them.
But assuming that the foresaid men are liars, and error infiltrated to their books, and therefore their testimony is not a proof (hujjah) nor binding, then we invite you to examine the testimony of those who are “Infallible” and looked at as “Deputies of Allah” whose sayings are equal to Allah’s as the Shi’ites claim:
- "Narrated to me Muhammad bin Qolawaih: Narrated to me Sa’d bin Abdullah, said: Narrated to us Yaqoub bin Yazeed and Muhammad bin Issa from Ali bin Mahziyar, from Fadalah bin Ayoub al-Azdi, from Abban bin Othman said: I heard Abu Abdullah [as] saying:
‘May Allah curse Abdallah bin Saba’, he claimed a divineship for Amirul-Mu’mineen (Ali) [as]. By Allah, Amierul-Mu’mineen [as] was volunterily the slave of Allah. Woe to him who lie about us, for there are people who say about us what we don’t say about ourselves,we clear ourselves to Allah from them, we clear ourselves to Allah from them’."
-
“Narrated Yaqoub bin Yazeed from Ibn Abi Omair and Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa, from his father and al-Husain bin Sa’eed, from Hisham bin Salim, from Abu Hamza al-Thumali said: Ali bin al-Husain [as] said:
‘May the curse of Allah be upon those who tell lies about us. I mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba and each hair in my body stood up, Allah cursed him. Ali (AS) was, by Allah, a proper servant of Allah, the brother of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He did not earn the graciousness/honor from Allah except with the obedience to Allah and His Messenger. And (similarly) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did not earn the honor from Allah except with his obedience to Allah’.” -
Narrated Muhammad bin Khalid At-Tayalisi, from Ibn Abi Najran, from Abdullah bin Sinaan said: Abu Abdullah [as] said:
“We are a family of truthfulness. But we are not safe from a liar telling lies about us to undermine our truth with his lies in front of people. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was the most truthful among people in what he said (Lahjatan) and the most truthful among all humanity; and Musaylima used to lie on him. The Commander of Believers (AS) was the most truthful one among the creation of Allah after the Messenger of Allah; and the one who used to lie on him, and tried to undermine his truthfulness and claimed lies about Allah, was Abdullah Ibn Saba.” . Ibid, pp. 100,101
Need further Shi’ites sources? We’ll call to testimony al-Hasan bin Ali al-Hilly, another famous Shi’i biographist, and examine what he had to say about the Jew Ibn Saba’:
“Abdullah bin Saba’ returned to disbelief and showed extremism. He claimed prophethood, and that Ali [as] was Allah (in the flesh). Ali [as], for three (consecutive) days asked him to repent but he failed, thereupon, he [as] burned him (alive) with seventy other men who attributed divinship to him”
Kitaab al-Rijaal: al-Hilly, p.469, printed in Tehran, Iran 1383 h. From Ash-Shi’a wat-Tashayyu’, p.56
We’ll further call another witness for the stand, the Shi’i biogrophist, al-Astra Abadi, and examine his tesitmony:
“Abdullah bin Saba’ claimed prophethood and that Ali [as] is himself Allah the Most Exalted. Upon hearing this charge, Amirul-Mu’mineen called and inquired it from him. When he admitted, he said to him: back off from this say and repent, may your mother lose you. However;(Ibn Saba’) refused, and (Ali) held him for three days, and, still refusing to repent, he therefore burned him(alive)”
Manhaj al-Maqaal: al-Astar Abadi, p.203, from: Ash-Ashia wat-Tashayyu’, p.56
For more information follow the following link: BOY-NICE is there as well
http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/archive/index.php?t-1451.html
Re: The Original Shia
Wonders of Internet - some more on Abdallah Ibn Saba
The Rebellion Against Uthman: People Behind the Conspiracy
Adil Salahi
Arab News, 11/17/03
We have seen how the case presented by the rebels against Uthman, the third rightly guided caliph, falls apart when closely examined, despite the long list of indictment his enemies had coined up. But those rebels were determined to achieve their purpose. So it is important to know who led the rebellion against such a great servant of Islam as Uthman, whom the Prophet (peace be upon him) highly valued and praised in clear terms.
In his very concise style, Justice Ibn Al-Arabi has the following to say about them:
“The best that has been reported in this case is that his judgment led some people to turn against him because of some grudges they harbored. They either were denied something they sought, or coveted some gains to which they had no claim, or were hardly religious people - looking for worldly gains rather than what they might have in the hereafter. When you look at them, their reputation will tell you that they were mean and had no case whatsoever. Their leader was Al-Ghafiqi, an Egyptian, and their main figures included Kinanh ibn Bishr Al-Tujaybi, Sudan ibn Hamran, Abdullah ibn Budayl ibn Warqaa Al-Khuaz’ie, Hukaym ibn Jablah of Basrah and Malik ibn Al-Harith who was known as Al-Ashtar. These were the leaders of the rebels, so what can be said about the rest?”
The last sentence we quoted gives a clear impression of what Justice Ibn Al-Arabi thought of these people. But we need to have some more details about them. For this we turn to Al-Khateeb who writes in his annotation of Ibn Al-Arabi’s book that their leader was Al-Ghafiqi ibn Harb Al-Akki, a descendent of some prominent Yemeni families that settled in Egypt after it was taken over by the Muslims. Then Abdullah ibn Saba’, the true instigator of the whole rebellion, professed to be loyal to Ali, but he found no fertile soil for his intrigue in either the Hijaz or Syria. He managed, however, to win some following in Kufah and Basrah in Iraq before moving to Al-Fustat, the then capital of Egypt. There he was able to win some recruits, including Al-Ghafiqi ibn Harb. It was not difficult to win him over because of his leadership ambitions.
The main culprits in preparing for the rebellion in Egypt were Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfah, Uthman’s undutiful stepson, who kept a low profile but was a main plotter, while Al-Ghafiqi was the main public face.
In Shawwal of year 35 H, they prepared to move from Egypt with four battalions made up of around 600 fighters. Each battalion had its commander but Al-Ghafiqi was the overall commander. They pretended that they were traveling to perform the pilgrimage, but when they arrived in Madinah, they began to carry out their conspiracy. Tension was high and the rebels were able to prevent the caliph from leading the congregational prayer in the Prophet’s Mosque in Madinah. It was Al-Ghafiqi who led the prayer instead. When Satan was able to persuade them to commit their most serious of crimes and murder the caliph, Al-Ghafiqi was one of the culprits, hitting Uthman with an iron bar he was carrying, and kicking his copy of the Qur’an. After Uthman’s assassination, Al-Ghafiqi wielded power in Madinah for five days.
Kinanah ibn Bishr, the second man mentioned by Ibn Al-Arabi belonged to the Tujayb tribe. He was another of those recruited by Abdullah ibn Saba’ who was of Jewish origins. The rebels traveled in their four battalions, Kinanah commanding one of them. He was one of the first people to storm Uthman’s house, getting in through the adjacent house belonging to Amr ibn Hazm. When he saw Uthman, he stabbed him with a long and narrow blade. As Uthman was reading the Qur’an, some of his blood spilled over the Qur’an. Kinanah was killed three years later in a battle that took place in Egypt between Ali’s followers and the army commanded by Amr ibn Al-Aas who supported Mu’awiyah.
Sudan ibn Hamran of Al-Sakoon, a Yemeni tribe some of whose people settled in Egypt, was another commander of the four battalions. When they arrived in Madinah, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, a companion of the Prophet, spoke to them emphasizing the importance of loyalty to Uthman and reminding them that they were accountable before God for the pledge of loyalty to him. Yet Sudan was one of those who stormed the caliph’s house and participated in the heinous crime of killing him. Afterward, he came out of the house boasting: “We have killed Uthman ibn Affan.”
Abdullah ibn Budayl ibn Warqaa Al-Khuaz’ie was another recruit who fought with his brother Abd Al-Rahman alongside Ali in the Battle of Siffeen, and were killed. His father was an old man when he embraced Islam after the peaceful conquest of Makkah by the Prophet.
Hukaym ibn Jablah of Basrah, whose ancestors belonged to Oman, was apparently a man of courage who sought adventure. Uthman’s army attacking India in some daring reconnaissance missions previously used him. Moreover, he used to attack non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim state and cause damage in their farms. They complained to the caliph about him, and the caliph wrote to his governor in Basrah to restrict his movement inside Basrah, until he showed a responsible attitude. When Abdullah ibn Saba’ arrived in Basrah, he was his host.
A group of people attended him and he was able to win them over. But then the governor expelled Abdullah ibn Saba’. Therefore, Hukaym continued to recruit people for the rebellion. When the time to march to Madinah arrived a similar number to those marching from Egypt moved out of Basrah, also in four battalions, one of which was under Hukaym’s command. He was also one of those who hit Uthman with stones as he addressed them, putting his case. Most of the rebels then left, but Hukaym stayed behind with Al-Ashtar, and they appear to be the ones that forged the letter addressed to the governor of Egypt. Al-Khateeb also mentions that he was the one to start the fighting in the Battle of the Camel, between Ali and his opponents led by Aishah, Talahah and Al-Zubayr.
All of them had agreed to meet and negotiate a settlement, but people who were keen that the Muslims should not have a chance to settle their differences started fighting before the meeting could take place, apparently. It is reported that a woman from his own tribe heard him abusing Aishah, the Prophet’s wife, and she was angry. She said to him: “You, son of a bad woman, are more deserving of such abuse.” He immediately stabbed and killed her. He was executed later in Basrah.
Malik ibn Al-Harith who was known as Al-Ashtar, belonged to the Yemeni tribe of Nakha’. He was a very courageous fighter, and had religious zeal and aspiration for leadership. He played a very active role in the rebellion against Uthman, and was one of its leaders. He then joined Ali and was appointed governor of Egypt, but he died on his way to take up his position. It appears that Ali realized that he could stir trouble easily, and he wanted to foil any attempt at creating trouble within the Muslim state. Hence, his appointment of Al-Ashtar as governor. These were then the leaders of the rebellion against Uthman. We can imagine what sort of following such people would command.
Need some more? I will oblige :)
Re: The Original Shia
Have you even read the book… the books have knowledge of how earth is made up… the knowledge book has to offer speaks for itself… I have ran into people who claim the reason they are muslim is because they read this book…
HMMM looks like a lame excuse… just to support your state of denial… He not only gave this hadith.. but also gave the following hadith…
“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
Isn’t that good enough.. I don’t get it when Prophet P.B.U.H. made it clear who is the leader… why do you want a different leader… and use family of Prophet as a source of guidance.. why not choose your leader who Prophet P.B.U.H. mentioned and use them a source of guidance… I wonder why do you want to go that way.. isnt that why we have sects in islam… quran testifies islam is perfect don’t you think Prophet P.B.U.H. must have told use who is the right person for guidance when Islam was perfect in his time.. just so that we don’t split up in different sects…oh let me guess just as an excuse to follow the leaders who accoring to your sahih books introduced bidah or made Prophet P.B.U.H. angry… If you want to learn more look at the hadith’s I have quoted in the following thread
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=184890&referrerid=26596
exactly… even though Hazrat Ali A.S. became Khaleefa… alot of people came against himmm… A lady disobeyed quran to rage a war against him… read the following verse…
O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire (to you), but utter customary speech.[33"32]
And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.[32:33]
The first command in this verse “stay in your houses” was violated by A-isha when she went to Iraq to organise a mischievous campaign against Ali about whom the Holy Prophet said: “O Ali, you are to me as Harun was to Musa. You are my brother in this world and the hereafter. Your flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood. You and me are from one and the same light.”
Mawiya… who came against Ameer ul Momineen Hazrat Ali A.S. was supported by some people..who still regards him Ameer ul Momineen Nauzubillah… even though Prophet P.B.U.H. gave the following hadith…
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
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.
My question to you is Why don’t sunni regard Yazeed as Nauzubillah Ameer ul Momineen… what different did he do from his father… his father came to war against Hazrat Ali A.S. the same way his son came to war against Imam Hussain A.S…; the same way some Companions after the death of Prophet P.B.U.H. left the funeral of Prophet to resolve the issue of khilafat .. following their footsteps yazeed army led the funeral of family of Prophet lying on the sand of Kerbala… whats the different… shouldn’t the same ayat apply to both…
**“And Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Hell forever, and the Wrath of Allah is upon him, He cursed him and prepared a great punishment for him.” (Quran 4:93) **
May Allah protect the readers from any errors within.
Re: The Original Shia
In your whole post the only point that makes sense is this "Even in group work, when each individual has the best motives at heart, there is disagreement on how to approach different situations."
I wish more shias will apply this logic and leave the judgement to Allah.
Re: The Original Shia
I cannae believe i even went through this crap.
Zaniest: Whether ibn saba is a myth or not, one could careless. The fact is, most shias have never heard of the guy, which is surprising considering he is 'suppose' to be thier founding father. The funny thing is, sunnis seem to know alot more about him, whereas to us, hes more of a non entity. I heard about him from some smart alec sunnis trying to tell me what my beliefs are, along with a whole load of other nonsense. As per usual, i told him to P off.
anyways, as for your article; read what the Imams are saying in bold, as shias, our stance is what the Imams say. you know, we follow their words religiously.
[quote]
we invite you to examine the testimony of those who are "Infallible" and looked at as "Deputies of Allah" whose sayings are equal to Allah's as the Shi'ites claim:
- "Narrated to me Muhammad bin Qolawaih: Narrated to me Sa'd bin Abdullah, said: Narrated to us Yaqoub bin Yazeed and Muhammad bin Issa from Ali bin Mahziyar, from Fadalah bin Ayoub al-Azdi, from Abban bin Othman said: I heard Abu Abdullah [as] saying:
*'May Allah curse Abdallah bin Saba', he claimed a divineship for Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) *[as]. By Allah, Amierul-Mu'mineen [as] was volunterily the slave of Allah. Woe to him who lie about us, for there are people who say about us what we don't say about ourselves,we clear ourselves to Allah from them, we clear ourselves to Allah from them'."
- "Narrated Yaqoub bin Yazeed from Ibn Abi Omair and Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Issa, from his father and al-Husain bin Sa'eed, from Hisham bin Salim, from Abu Hamza al-Thumali said: Ali bin al-Husain [as] said:
**'May the curse of Allah be upon those who tell lies about us. I mentioned Abdullah Ibn Saba and each hair in my body stood up, Allah cursed him. **Ali (AS) was, by Allah, a proper servant of Allah, the brother of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He did not earn the graciousness/honor from Allah except with the obedience to Allah and His Messenger. And (similarly) the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did not earn the honor from Allah except with his obedience to Allah'."
- Narrated Muhammad bin Khalid At-Tayalisi, from Ibn Abi Najran, from Abdullah bin Sinaan said: Abu Abdullah [as] said:
"We are a family of truthfulness. But we are not safe from a liar telling lies about us to undermine our truth with his lies in front of people. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was the most truthful among people in what he said (Lahjatan) and the most truthful among all humanity; and Musaylima used to lie on him. *The Commander of Believers (AS) was the most truthful one among the creation of Allah after the Messenger of Allah; and the one who used to lie on him, and tried to undermine his truthfulness and claimed lies about Allah, was Abdullah Ibn Saba." *. Ibid, pp. 100,101
[/quote]
In trying to prove his existance, you've actually shot yourself in the foot. Nice one.
you guys are too much.
Re: The Original Shia
Can I make a suggestion Ma Mooli. You may want to consider creating another nick for yourself to at least give the illusion of impartiality. You professing for Shiaisim and moderating the board does not bode well for the GS management or yourself. You are only going to create problems...if you insist on professing your religion and argue with the posters then you should consider resigning form your post as a moderator. It is quite evident that you cannot do this job impartially. :)
Re: The Original Shia
sorry to burst your bubble Kaleem, but my impartiality only comes when moderating, and thats in World Affairs, not in Religion. I have no powers here.
Still, dunn tell me your advocating Taqiya :-0
I dunn hide my views in world, niether will i do so here. modship is not even relevant. :)
Re: The Original Shia
Sunni sect is official sect of this board ??? 
I never knew :halo:
The only requirement of this forum is to respect religious view/sentiment of others while bringing forward one’s own. Sadly, many people miserably fail in doing so
Re: The Original Shia
CR, I did not say that sunni sect is official sect of this board. I am sure MaMooli's statements up there really advocate religious tolerance and hamony...dont they. I dont blame you coming to the resuce of your fellow moderator, but, some one needs to advise Mamooli not to wear his emotions on his sleeves, we wahabis and sunnis also know how to shut an emotional and overambitious shia up too. :)
Re: The Original Shia
^ lol. by a gun i presume? thats what tends to happens when you guys lose an argument, as usual. :)
Re: The Original Shia
lol excuses excuses… can’t defend their own believes.. wanna look for dumb excuses to make other quite… Kaleem.. you make me sick dude… whats next you are gonna ask for atheist moderators for the forum… oh wait..they are atheist.. they can be biased on their side… hmm how about sunni… oh no they can be biased about their faith but works for you…hmmm how about bla bla bla moderators… dude its amazing how far you guyz go coming up with excuses when you don’t have much to say to defend your own belives..not to mention those excuses makes a real fool outta yourself…
Re: The Original Shia
LOL, yeah, by deleting or putting a lock on the thread.
BTW whats the other way SON (N00b)? you firing an iBullet with some G33k Pistol on Shias of this board?? 