Who Are the Shias.../Can't understand

Re: Who Are the Shias…

OH MY GOD !! :bukbuk: :bukbuk: :smiley:
How many versions of history of Shias are coming out of the Nasibi mouths !! lol.
When are these people going to reach to a single conclusion ? And the version which you just posted is against all other version of history advanced by Nawasib as all the sources confirm that Abdullah Ibn Saba appeared during the reign of Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. And yet you have made him born yrs back :confused:

And for your kind information renowned Sunni scholar Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi in his anti-shia book “Tuhfa Asna Ashari” page No. 5 (published by Noor Muhammad Kutub Khana Aram Bagh Karachi) admitted that the first “Shia” were the leaders of Ahle Sunnah. And you are saying Abdullah Ibn Saba was the leader of Shias at early time.
now if a=b and b=c then certainly b=c as well.

I think the Nasibi mullah who fed you this baseless thing didnt tell you that those who entered the house of Usman and murdered him were the Sahaba and their sons (the respect of whom Nawasib are always are found shouting):

We read in one of the most authentic history book of Nawasib by their beloved scholar Ibn Kaseer Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 179 Dhikr Maqathil ‘Uthman:

“After killing ‘Uthman his murderers tried to remove his head and ‘Uthman’s daughter and two wives began to scream and shout and beat their faces. Abdul Rahman Ibn Adlees said ‘leave ‘Uthman in this state and they left him.

Now who was Rehman bin Adlees ? need to tell ??

**“Sahabi of Prophet Muhammad (s), Abdur-Rahman-bin-Adlees was present at the time of “Hudabia” peace treaty, and he was also present at the “allegiance under the tree”, **

  1. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 203 Dhikr Abdul Rahman Ibn Adlees
  2. Asadul Ghaybah Volume 3 page 444 Dhikr Ibn Adlees
  3. Al Isaba fi Marifathul Sahaba Volume 2 page 403
  4. Muruj al Dhahab Volume 2 page 352 Dhikr ‘Uthman

So next time done give your eyes and ears volunterily to the Nasibi mullahs rather do your own research first.

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

The fact that hz Ali(as) did not accept Abu Bakr’s caliphate indicates that hz Ali(as) had some serious disagreements and that hz Ali(as) had the best claims to caliphate as can be pointed out from various speeches of hz Ali(as) preserved for us in Nahjul Balaga. Hz Ali(as) passive attitude can easily illustrated by comparing the active role played by him during the lifetime of the holy Prophet(pbuh) with his almost completely inactive and withdrawn life in the period immediately following the Prophet’s death. Hz Ali(as) firm conviction that he had the best claims to the caliphate one would have expected him to fight for his rights. He however did not resort to such ways. He as well declined to make use of the strong military support offered to him Abu Sufyan to fight for his rights for hz Ali(as) considered that such actions would lead to the destruction of the infant Islam. Check Tabari,1,p.1827 and Baladhuri,1, p.588 for reference.

And yes he also did refused to accept Abu Bakr’s caliphate for 6 months. What perhaps compelled hz Ali(as) to conform to the political situation at that time was the serious eruption of apostasy and rebellion among the Arab tribes in the peninsula. Such an external threat to the very existence of Islam proved to be a great advantage to Abu Bakr in reducing opposing of hz Ali(as), as they had to unite themselves against a common danger. From childhood hz Ali(as) was committed to the service of Islam and after seeing Islam in such danger he had to reconcile himself with the existing order.But he did not take parti in any of the apostacy wars, thus still preserving his withdrawn attitude, nor did Abu Bakr ask him to particate in the wars outside Medina.

Although he remained reserved he did not abstain from offering his valuable help any companion would have done. This is not difficult to understand as hz Ali(as) was the most knowledgeable person after the holy prophet(as), I don’t think I need to explain this.

In short Ali(as) was a valued consellor to the caliphs, who was dominated by his heroic love and sense of sacrifice for the faith. It should be noted that Umar said that “Had there not been Ali, Umar would have perished”

On political and administrative matters, his disagreements with Umar on the question of “diwan” (distribution of stipends) can be cited.

Hz Ali(as) accepted the political realities of his days, but nevertheless remained convicted of the fact he was the only rightful successor to the prophet(pbuh) and was unjustly deprived of the leadership of the community. I will cite a part of the hz Ali(as) speech known as ash-Shaqshiqqa recorded in Nahjul Balaga:

“ Nay, by God, the son of Abu Quhafa(Abu Bakr) had exacted the calipahate for himself while he knew full well that my position in it was like that of the pivot in a mill; the flood waters flow down beneath me and the birds do not soar high up to me; yet I hund up a curtain before it and turned aside from it(the caliphate). I then started thinking whether I should attack with a serering hand or should watch patiently the blind darkness in which the old man becomes decrepit and the young man old, in which the believer tries his utmost till he meets his Lord, and I came to the conclusion that patience in a situation like this was wiser………” The speech continues where hz Ali(as) also referes to Umar but I will cite this later when I will discuss the caliphate to Umar.

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

[quote]
The fact remains that Hazrat Ali ramained almost inactive during the caliphate of the first two caliphs. He had disagreements on many issues as even attested by Umar himself and even raised his voice during the caliphate of Usman for his actions.
[/quote]

How a man can sit idle so long. And as I already said, Sayyedna Umer married Sayyedah Umm-e-Kulsoom daughter of Sayyedna Ali (May Allah be pleased with all). But Shias dont commit it. Never ever. And I also told that he sent his both sons to guard Sayyedna Usman's house.

[quote]
Those trouble maker were "khwarjis" They were off-shots and had nothing to do with islam. Mostly they were behind the killing of Hazrat Usman(ra) and subsiquent troubles in the times of Hazrat Ali(ra). That fitna ended few years later, and now there are no khwarji present ( at least officially)
[/quote]

Well as I read about Shiaism and Khuwarjis in my *Muslim Philosophy book for B.A. * I came to know that Khuwarij is a sect of Shiaism. First they were with Sayyedna Ali, in rule of other caliphs. But when Sayyedna Ali got the Khilafat, they got against him and were called by others Khuwarij. Some of them made another sect called Ismailis.

[quote]
hain!? so "nobel" companions of Prophet (s) did not even wait for RasulAllah's (s) burial and gave preference of selecting the new ruler over His (s) deadbody?? wow!! OMG, why they did that? If a man dies, a loyal friend will immediately abandon his normal duties and tend to his funeral rites. But what we see here is otherwise. Even Umer admits it himself:......................funeral prayers over him when the body was on the bier close to (the site of) his grave. And then Umer declared Abu Bakr the first ruler at Saqifa Bani Saeda (a place where generally notorious people assembled to hatch conspiracies or plan dacoities. [Gaisul Logaat page 408]).
[/quote]

When I said that his body was not buried for three days? Are you stupid to believe such a thing?

And I know some hadiths also regarding Sayyedna Umer bin Khitab.

Holy Prophet said "I am the city of knowledge. Ali (Rz) is the gate of this city, Umer (Rz) is the walls of this city and Abu Bakker (Rz) is the roof of this city.

another one is, " If it is allowed to be another prophet to come, after me, it will be Omer. But there is no prophet to come after me"

Here is a long one," A sahabi came and asked the the meaning of his dream, he told that he saw so many people are going on a unknown path. Some wear cloths in normal size, some weared clothes in half size, some has only collar sized shirts. When he saw Umer (Rz) he was wearing a long shirt which was going under his feet and he was holding the rest of shirt in his hands. The Prophet said, the length of shirt shows the limit of knowledge. It means that Umer has more knowledge than other people.

[quote]
I saw this book "Optional Islamiyat for B.A." a couple monts back which states that yazid (la'een) had nothing to do with the murder of the grand son of Prophet Mohammed (s)? Dont remeber the name of the authors though. Is it the same book OMG?

Ahaan! the great Shibli Naumani who admits in his book Al-Farooque that Umar and Abu Bakr did not attend the Funeral of RasulAllah (s). Amazing!

Read in Urdu Or English

great book for every muslim and truth seeker!
[/quote]

I never read those things, can you tell me who is the author of your mentioned books.

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

OMG I am a soul less Kafir, but everytime I read your posts I want to convert to Islam, which sect is for beginers? You know Xtianity people usually start as catholics but work their way into other sects like methodists, baptists, due to difference of opinions; same in Judaism. So should I start of as a wahabi and work my way to sufi or hanfi etc??
please help me in islam i have found eternal and worldly peace. Ihave heard one goes to heaven if one converts a kafir. Convert me. God Bless you.

Re: Who Are the Shias…

OMG get it out of ur mind that hz Ali(as) married his daughter to Umer, this is already refuted several times. However you can get the answer at answering-ansar.org. I dont need to explain such prepostrous claims.

As for ur second pathetic hadith that Umer is the wall and Abu Bakr is the roof of this city, ask any Ahlul Sunnah scholar he will refute this. Btw where did u come up with something like this? Cite ur reference or dont post such garbage. Do you know the purpose behind the hadis that " I am the city of knowledge and Ali its gate " ? It is that anybody wishing to seek my knowledge must go to Ali(as). Tell me the purpose of walls and roof? Wall for what? so that nobody enters the knowledge city? and whats with the roof? ridiculous. I would slap the face of the author of this hadis.

As for ur statements that hz Ali(as) sent imam Hassan(as) and imam Hussain(as) to guard the house of Usman, yes it is correct and I will cite all that happened before this and the reason why people revolted against Usman.

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

btw OMG have u read my last post? Why do u think that hz Ali(as) remained inactive? What do u think about hz Ali(as) speech? Read that speech and tell me what do u think of it?

Re: Who Are the Shias…

the fact that in the references cited his name is Abdul Rahman ibn Udays (not Adlees) shows that this is nothing more than another typical shi-ite copy-and-paste by jokers who haven’t even seen - never mind read - the books they pretend to quote from…

perhaps when our shi-ite amateurs can actually show themselves to be capable of reading, then hopefully understanding, historical texts it might actually be worthwhile replying to some of the illogical, hate-filled gibberish they come up with

some basic advice to our shi-ite posters: stop plagiarising from your own incompetent researchers and learn to read

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

^ haha, i think its about time you got a taste of your own medicine. gibberish is one word i'd def. use to describe the original post.

Re: Who Are the Shias…

you obviously meant to say, “i think it is about time…”

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

well you dont say...

Re: Who Are the Shias…

O gupguppy ! Deducing things from mere change of spelling shows your childish attitude. If you have anything relevant to say then plz do else no need to pass irrelevant and acerbic comments !!

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

The caliphate of Abu Bakr lasted just over two years, and on his deathbed he explicitly appointed Umar.
The way Abu Bakr arranged he problem of succession after him leaves us in no doubt that Abu Bakr had made up his mind in favour of Umar. Abu Bakr was also fully aware of Ali(as)'s claims to the caliphate and the support he enjoyed from a certain group. Abu Bakr first called Abd ar-Rahman, told him about his decision, and after some persuasion secured his consent. The only person whomthe dying caliph called in to make his decision known was Usman. When some of the prominent companions came to know of Abu Bakr's decision became extremely disturbed and under the leadership of Talha, they sent a delegation to protest against the decision and tried to persuade the Caliph not to nominate Umar. Check Tabari,1, pp.2137

The community at large had no share in the choice and was told by the Caliph to obey Umar. The testament he announced before the people is as follows: "This a testament of Abu Bakr, the successor of the Prophet of God, to the believers and the Muslims.....I have appointed as ruler over you Umar b.al-Khattab, so listen to him and obey him. I have not made him your ruler except for your good." For reference check Tabari,1,p.2138

It is clear from this that in Umars appointment there was no consultation nor was the opinion of the community in general sought. It was simply Abu Bakrs own decision. Interestingly in the entire process of the nomination of Umar, Ali was totally ignored and excluded from the ranks of those the dying caliph called for consulation, if consulation it was. A person who was very much favoured by the holy prophet(pbuh) after his death was not even asked for his opinion let alone his election as the Caliph.

During the most active and eventful ten years of Umars caliphate, in which the most took spectacular conquests of Persian and Byzantine provinces took place and in which all the prominent companions of the holy prophet(pbuh) took active part, hz Ali(as) remained uninvolved. Hz Ali(as) did not hold any office under Umar, the only exception was his being in charge of Medina during Umar's journey to Palestine, when he took with im al the other leading companions of the Prophet and military commanders to approve regulations of the conquest and the diwan. Hz Ali(as) alone was absent from the historic surrender of Jerusalem and Syria. Umars attizude towards hz Ali(as) is best illustrated by a dialogue which took place btw the Umr and Ibn Abbas. On a certain occasion Umar asked Ibn Abbas " Why did Ali not join us and co-operate with us? Why did the Qurash not support your family while your father is the uncle and you are the cousin of the prophet? I don't know replied Ibn Abbas. But i know the reason, said Umar. " Because people did not like to allow the Prophethood and Caliphate in your family so that you would become arrogant and rejoice at it amont the people." For reference check Tabari,1,p.2769

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

After the successful ten years of caliphate the powerful caliph met his end by the dagger of a persian slave and died on 26 Dhul-Hijja 23/3 Nov 644. He nevertheless restricted the choice to six of the early companions among the Muhajirun, who had to choose one of themselves as the new Caliph. The members of this commitee, later referred to bythe Muslim jurists and theorists as the Shura were: Usman, Abd ar-Rahman b.Awf, Sad b.Abi Waqqas, Zubayr, Talha and Ali and Umars own son Abd Allah only in the capacity of an advisor, not as a candidate. Check Tabari, 2, pp.74, Baladhuri , 5, pp.16

Firstly the community at large and no part in this and again the principle of so called democracy cannot be applied here as well. Secondly Ansar were completely excluded from expressing their opinion in this affair. Perhaps this was due to Ansar's pro-Ali sympathies manifested at the Saqifa.

Umar laid down the regulations which had to be followed by the commitee. *These regulations were that: (1) The new caliph must be one of this commitee, elected by the majority vote of its members; * (2) That in the case of two candidates having equal support, the one backed by Abd ar-Rahman b.Awf was to be nominated; (3) that if any participant shrank from participating he was to beheaded instantly; and lastly (4) that when a candidate had been duly elected, in the event of one or two members,or, in the case of equal division of three members on each, the group opposed to Abd-ar-Rahman, were to be slain. Check Ibn Sad,3,pp.341, Tabari,1,pp.2779

Umar was sure that only one of the six companions could become the next Caliph, but, on the the other hand, he was certain that they oppose eachother in order to avail themselves of the opportunity for leadership. He was therefore afraid of the critical dissension among the possible candidates and disastrous consequences this would have for the young community. The measures imposed by Umar completed the task of keeping the caliphate away from Banu Hashim. But Umar knew that hz Ali(as) would not agree to make his claims the subject of debate in a self-instituted council of electors unless he was bound to do so under compulsion. Though aware of the considerable ambitiobs of both Zubayr and Talha, Umar also recognized the Ali and Usman carried mich more weight and realistically were the only ones who had the support necessary to advance themselves as serious candidates, each backed by its own clan, the Banu Hashim and Banu Umayya respectively.

**By bestowing both the chairmanship and the final authority of the commitee on Abd-Rahman b.Awf, Umar effectively blocked the chances of Ali and virtually guaranteed the nomination of Usman. Abd ar-Rahman belonged to the Banu Zuhra and Usman belonged to Banu Umayya, both of which had been serious rivals of Banu Hshim before Islam. Abd ar-Rahman was Usman's brother-in-law and Abd ar-Rahman could be expected to support Usman which also explains the reason why the final authority rested in his hands, check Umar's (2) regulation above.

When hz Ali(as) came to know of this he said : "By God, the caliphate has again been taken away from us because the final authority rests in the hands for Abd ar-Rahman, who is an old friend and brother-in-law of Usman whereas Sad b.Abi Wawwas is Abd ar-Rahman's cousin from the Banu Zuhra; naturally these will support each other, and even if Zubayr and Talha vote for me it would be of no use" Check Baladhuri ,5, p.19; Tabari,1, p.2780 **

Hazrat Ali(as) again was denied to his rightful claim. But why? The regulations imposed by Umar left no chance for Ali(as) as is evident. But why? Why did they not want Ali? Can someone explain me that?

In is said that after three days of lon debates at the time of morning prayers when the Muslims assembled in the mosque to hear the decision of the electoral body, Abr ar-Rahman first offered Caliphate of Ali on two conditions: firstly that he should rule in accordance witht the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet(pbuh) and secondly that he must follow the precedents established by two former caliphs. Accepting the first Ali(as) declined to comply with the second one. This shows that hazrat Ali(as) had disgreements with the two caliphs. Thereby Usman readily accepted them and was declared the Caliph. Baladhuri 5 p.22, Tabari 1 p.2793.

Re: Who Are the Shias…

i think it is highly relevant to show that like your other shi-ite plagiarisers you haven’t even read the books you pretend to quote from… the blind leading the blind

Re: Who Are the Shias…

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=185492
You can fimd your answer on tihs thread. It is a detailed answer so I am not posting it here as I already posted it in new thead. If you want to ask something. Be my guest and ask freely. You are always welcome.

Hmmm so can you slap Prophet Mohammad? (Nauz-u-Billah) The reference is “Sahih Bukhari” Chapter= Knowledge.
How it will be redicilous if you find a house without any wall and roof. As every one knows walls are portection from other people, roof is for weather protection. How pitty I am teaching you such childish things.

And about marring Sayyedna Umer with Sayyedah Umm-e-Kulsoom, I alreay said that Shias will not accept it. Because their main theme is to disturb Islam and to creat disturbence in muslims. They ask so many silly questions only for creating disturbence. If I answer them quite logically, they dont accept it.They are not going to accept it all, because their mission is to creat disturbence not to accept any truth. **
Salaam**

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

OMG the hadith in Sahih Bukhari is as follows : "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate " THE END, no stupid roof, no pathetic wall is mentioned. As for you explanation for wall, hahaha for protection huh? So knowledge can be attacked? stolen? really how idiotic. roof for wheather protection? So knowledge can be becoem rusted eh? This is nothing but an attempt to equal the rank of Abu bakr and Umar with Ali(as), anyway that is not the topic. And yeah u forgot Usman!!!! Where is he in this beautiful city? Let me guess hmmmm oh yeah he is the floor.

You didnt answer my question. Why did not hz Ali(as) accept Abu Bakr? Did u read the speech of hz Ali(as)? Do u accept that the regulation imposed by Umar did not leave any chance for the nomination of Ali(as)? read my last post for reference.

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

[QUOTE]
The caliphate of Abu Bakr lasted just over two years, and on his deathbed he explicitly appointed Umar.
The way Abu Bakr arranged he problem of succession after him leaves us in no doubt that Abu Bakr had made up his mind in favour of Umar. Abu Bakr was also fully aware of Ali(as)'s claims............................... in your family so that you would become arrogant and rejoice at it amont the people." For reference check Tabari,1,p.27
[/QUOTE]

You are right. Want to add more, when he elected Sayyedna Umer. He said,"I am choosing the best person amongst you."

When Sayyedna Umer was about to die, he made three or for persons as a candidate for Khilafat, Sayyedna Ali was one of them. The others were 1) Sayyedna Usman, 2) Sayyedna Abdur Rehman, the third person I forgot. So People choose Sayyedna Usman on that time. They can choose Sayyedna Ali instead of him. But as I already said, The Shias were working mostly in Ajamis areas so the Arabs were not aware of their sick thoughts. And they selected Sayyedna Usman without any hasitation or disrespecting of other candidates.

[QUOTE]
OMG the hadith in Sahih Bukhari is as follows : "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate " THE END, no stupid roof, no pathetic wall is mentioned. As for you explanation for wall, hahaha for protection huh? So knowledge can be attacked? stolen? really how idiotic. roof for wheather protection? So knowledge can be becoem rusted eh? This is nothing but an attempt to equal the rank of Abu bakr and Umar with Ali(as), anyway that is not the topic. And yeah u forgot Usman!!!! Where is he in this beautiful city? Let me guess hmmmm oh yeah he is the floor.

You didnt answer my question. Why did not hz Ali(as) accept Abu Bakr? Did u read the speech of hz Ali(as)? Do u accept that the regulation imposed by Umar did not leave any chance for the nomination of Ali(as)? read my last post for reference.
[/QUOTE]

I think you are Shia, I wont answer you because you are asking these silly questions to creat disturbence only. If I answer you logically, you will not accept it.

Salaam.

**1. Say : O ye that reject Faith!

  1. I worship not that which ye worship,

  2. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

  3. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

  4. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

  5. To you be your Way, and to me mine. **

and.....

And the servants of (Allah) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!(Salaam)";

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

I found these concepts of trouble makers on "The Original Shia" thread. You can see how much love for decendents of prophet they show. And they forgot the companions of prophet, not forgot but targeted them to creat disturbence. But in reallity they dont love the decendents of prophet. Ungh.

Bughal main Chhurri, Moo main Ram Ram.

[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]

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

who cares how they came and where they came from....
the fact is that they r wrong NOW (maybe they were better starters and have diverted a lot now)....
may Allah guide them to the right way....

Re: Who Are the Shias...................

OMG

u have simply turned a blind eye towards my posts. Abu Bakr nominated Umar WITHOUT the consent of the community and withour any opinion of hazrat Ali(as) because he knew very well that hz Ali(as) would claim his rights again. He said " Umar is the best among the community" again his opinion not of the community. I have already told you that Umar shrewdly planned the whole electoral body. I will remind you again to read my post and you will remember the other person you are forgetting. There was no chance for hz Ali(as) in that election as is evident from the evidence and from the words of hz Ali(as) himself. I have proided you with reference u may check that out urself.