Re: Who Are the Shias…
Gupguppy like I always say.. u’ve been fooling around in the wrong forum buddy.. seems like whenever you are left speechless… you start picking on people spelling… or accuse them for plagarising but can’t prove from where…lol.. you cry baby..always looking for excuses…got two words for you buddy… Grow Up.. may be you can start a whole to forum for English and start preaching them grammar than religon.. you are better at that..lolol
Re: Who Are the Shias…
you don’t know… okay… another time waster
Re: Who Are the Shias…
gupguppy can you post how it is written in Arabic?
عبد الرحمن بن عديس or عبد الرحمن بن عدي
Adees or Uday, It does not change the fact that he was present at the Treaty of Hudaybiya, gave allegiance under the tree and was the leader of the army who killed Uthman:
Allah swt says:
48:18: Certainly Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity on them and rewarded them with a near victory,
But then:
[right]**قال ابن سعد في الطبقات:3/71: **[/right]
[right]كان المصريون الذين حصروا عثمان ستمائة رأسهم عبد الرحمن بن عديس البلوي وكنانة بن بشر بن عتاب الكندي وعمروبن الحمق الخزاعي والذين قدموا من الكوفة مائتين رأسهم مالك الأشتر النخعي والذين قدموا من البصرة مائة رجل ، رأسهم حكيم بن جبلة العبدي[/right]
Ibn Sa3ad ‘Tabaqat’ 3/71:
The Egyptians who attacked Uthman were 600 and were lead by Abd AlRahman ibn 3uday AlBalawi and Umr ibn Humq AlKhuza3i and those who came from Kufa were lead by Malik Ashtar.
[right]وقال ابن عبد البر في الإستيعاب 2:411[/right]
[right]**عبد الرحمن بن عديس البلوي مصري شهد الحديبية ممن بايع تحت الشجرة رسول الله قال أبوعمر: هوكان الأمير على الجيش الذين حصروا عثمان وقتلوه **[/right]
Ibn Abd AlBir ‘Isti’ab’ 2/411:
Abd AlRahman ibn 3uday AlBalawi witnessed Hudaybia, and was of those that gave allegiance under the tree. Abu Umr said: He was the head of the army that attacked Uthman and killed him.
[right]قال ابن حجر في الاصابة ج 4 ص 281[/right]
[right]وقال بن البرقي والبغوي وغيرهما كان ممن بايع تحت الشجرة وقال بن يونس بايع تحت الشجرة وشهد فتح مصر واختط بها وكان من الفرسان ثم كان رئيس الخيل التي سارت من مصر إلى عثمان في الفتنة[/right]
Ibn Hajar 3asqalani ‘Isabah’ 4/281: Abd AlRahman ibn 3uday AlBalawi
AlBaghawi and others said he was of those who gave Bay3a (allegiance) under the tree. Ibn Yunus said he was of those who gave bay3a under the tree…and was the general of the army that attacked Uthman.
[right]البداية والنهاية ج8 ص48 :[/right]
[right]" وفيها كانت وفاة عمرو بن الحمق بن الكاهن الخزاعى أسلم قبل الفتح وهاجر وقيل إنه إنما أسلم عام حجة الوداع وورد فى حديث أن رسول الله دعا له أن يمتعه الله بشبابه فبقى ثمانين سنة لا يرى فى لحيته شعرة بيضاء ومع هذا كان أحد الأربعة الذين دخلوا على عثمان [/right]
**Ibn Kathir **8/48: ‘…**Umr ibn Humq AlKhuza3i **was of those that engaged (in war) against Uthman..’
[right]قال السمعاني في الأنساب ج1 ص396 :[/right]
[right]**" ومن الصحابة أبو عمر وعبد الرحمن بن عديس بن عبيد بن كلاب بن دهمان بن غنم بن هميم بن ذهل بن هني بن بلي بن **عمرو البلوي ، بايع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم تحت الشجرة وشهد فتح مصر واختط بها ، وكان أحد فرسان بلي المعدودين بمصر ورئيس الخيل التي سارت من مصر إلى عثمان بن عفان [/right]
AlSam3ani in ‘Insab’ 1/396: ‘And of the Sahaba Abd AlRahman ibn 3uday AlBalawi , gave allegiace to Rasulullah under the tree…and was the general of the army from Egypt that went against Uthman’
So amongst the killers of Uthman were Sahaba, and amongst these sahaba were those that gave Bay3a under the tree. Is Allah pleased with the killers of Uthman?
Thanx brother .InshAllah.](http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=57215) for the references.
Re: Who Are the Shias…
he even copied-and-pasted the incorrect name spelling… showing that he did so blindly without understanding, being incapable of verifying the sources
Re: Who Are the Shias…
Yeah yeah watever… spelling is that all you look for.. you accused me for copy paste..when all i said were my own words.. can’t help it buddy.. thats the best your ignorant mind can do… look for excuses… .. who gives a damm about spelling.. how about looking at the knowledge one has to offer.. oh my bad.. thats too much for an ignorant mind to digest.. hmmn needs excuses..whats the excuse this time spelling.. dude you make me laugh.. you luv making a fool outta yourself.. don’t you.. incase you don’t know the forum is religon not english grammar go watch out for spelling in another forum…
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
ah but its not a waste of time posting 6 replies merely focusing on spellings and names?
boy, you have me stumped.
Re: Who Are the Shias…
this is the earliest source out of all the references you’ve copied-and-pasted (Ibn Sa’ad died 230H) and therefore the basis on which later writers either drew their conclusions or merely repeated what Ibn Sa’ad wrote…
his chain of transmission for this is
Muhammad ibn Umar [al Waqidi] related to us, saying: Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Zinad related to us on the authority of Abu Ja’far al Fari, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas al Makhzumi, who said: “The Egyptians who…”
there’s a reason why i’ve highlighted the first narrator in the chain (Muhammad ibn Umar al Waqidi) because:
al Bukhari said: “Rejected in hadith”
Muslim said: “Rejected in hadith”
al Nasai said: “Rejected in hadith”
Abu Zura al Razi said: “The people have abandoned his hadith”
Cf. al Jami fi Jarh wa Ta’dil (3/pp.57-58/#4083: Alim al Kutub, 1996)
Ahmed ibn Hanbal said: “He is a liar who inverts hadith”
Yahya ibn Ma’in said: “Do not write his hadith”
Abu Hatim said: “A hadith fabricator”
Ibn Rahawiyya said: “In my view, he is a hadith fabricator”
Cf. Mizan al Itidal (3/pp.662-665/#7993: Dar al Ma’rifa, n.d.)
any remarks in favour of al Waqidi - and there are some - pale into insignificance in light of the above despite the fact that he is known for speaking and writing at length on history… but narrating historical accounts that have no legislative bearing is one thing, yet it is an entirely different matter to rely on a reporter of his standing to cast aspersions, especially if implicating the companions of the Prophet (saw) since we can thereby reject al Waqidi’s testimony outright
this is the second earliest source you’ve cited (the author died 463H)… he in fact wrote right after the point where the above quote stops: “No one has said that he killed Uthman”
Ibn Sa’ad, your earliest source, has three narrations that i can see implicating Abdul Rahman ibn Udays and all of them are from al Waqidi
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
[quote]
[quote]
Originally Posted by OMG
I will not reject this because The Shias got strong in Sayyedna Usman rule. And as I read, they made a lot of people against him.
[/quote]
Again incorrect conjecture. Shia of Ali [as] was not at all powerful during the rule of ur 3rd caliph. Do u meant to say Ali [as] made alot of people against him and subsiquently murdered him ? Or if you want to say that they were not the followers of Ali [as] then no need to call him Shia as it doesnt make any sense.
You are acceping here that Sahaba went against Usman and murdered him , then why do Naasbis always keep shouting to follow Sahaba (each & every) as all were Aadl (just)??? What about the fate of those murderers Sahjaba then ? why there is so many contradictions in ur school ?
btw the names of those who took part in anti-Usman campaign were respected ones among your school .
[/quote]
**So Boy-Nice you are not accepting the truth??? When I said that Sayyedna Ali was involved in murder of Sayyedna Usman. Nor the most of Sahaba were involved in it. The murderers were mostly outsiders (Iranis, Shias). Should I post the details of murder of Sayyedna Usman and War Jammal???
About Jammal War I already told you that Sayyedna ALi and Sayyedah Umm-ul-Mo'mineen Aisha were agreed on not to take revenge after some time. They were about to go back next morning. But disturbers(Fasaadi) got upset and from both sides, yes from both side they shooted arows on both parties. So the other members of both parties thought that the oppsit party is attacking. So thats why this war was started and it harmed muslims a lot. So many Sahabis and other muslims died in that war. Who got the fruit of it??? Ofcourse Shias. They succed to harm Muslims in any way. Why people dont know this truth much, it is because of that Shias never work in front. They worked mostly in back and used other people for their cause. Like the Murder of Sayyedna Usman, they only abused him on his every deed. Blame blame blame, this is their main trick. They blamed Sayyedna Umer, Sayyedah Aisha, Sayyedna Usman, Sayyedna Abu-Bakr, Sayyedna Ali and the rest of Sahaba.**
[quote]
once you've learnt to read peoples names correctly then hopefully soon in a few months or years depending on how quick a learner you are you can move on to more complex historical texts like the many-paged discussions on Uthman's (r) death... context, motive, authenticity, roles etc. etc... don't try to run before you can walk, you'll only end up flat on your face
[/quote]
Bro Guppy, may be you are right. I read Sahih Bukhari Vol 1 last nigth and could not find the Hadith which I quoted and other members quoted. Well I think as I read so many books, the ref should be another one. I will search again.
And a suggestion for you. When you want to reply any thread, dont be emotional. Answer in a logical way. Example is........
I was chating with a christian missionary about Jesus. As you know they claimed Jesus as God or Son of God. I aksed him Why God needs children? Humans need children to continue because their life is limited and they die. So if God needs children, it means He gonna Die too. It means Death is greater than God and we should worship death instead of God??
The other question I asked was,"If Jesus is God, as you say, and you know God can do every thing because He is God. So if Father God want you to die at this moment and Jesus God want you to stay alive. What will happen? Will you stay alive or die?
Bro I think you need a Da'wa trianing, as I am getting training from IRF. You need a membership. So here is the link. I appreciat what you said but you need some improvement. As Holy Qur'an said, WHen you talk to christian Missionaries, talk with them logically, dont go emotional. Ask questions, dont let them to attack on you with questions
See you there.
Salaam.
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
**
QUOTE Yes Hazrat Ali(as) was the only rightful successor of the Prophet(as). Otherwise hz Ali(as) wasnt dumb that he kept on asking for his right.
(2) Yes Khalifat can only be the right of Masoomen.
(3) Yes Hz Ali(as) was appointed by God through our holy prophet(pbuh)
(4) The other caliphs were wrong and unjustly took the right of Ali(as). As for Mavia and Yazid the drunkard yes they were wicked.
[/QUOTE]
See their propaganda.
Blame blame and blame people is their habbit. I am not clarifing Yazzid as a good one, because I know what he did with Sayyedna Hussain, may Allah punish Yazzeed the most. Amen.
As I said earlier, these are the main tricks of Shias to get attention and Sympathies of other people. And also to creat disturbence.
So I am not calling them a Sect now, I will call them a different Religion. Just as Qadiyanies (Ahmadies).
**
Re: Who Are the Shias…
**
**
Thats what i m saying ! If Ali [as] were not involved in Usman’s murder then those who were involved in it cannot be called Shia of Ali [as] since Shia of Ali [as] is one who deem him Imam and obeys him !
The truth is that Sahaba were fed up by the curruptions going on in that Governemt hence Sahaba did efforts to throw the reign while Ayesha played an important role in it.
.
First of all it was a grave sin on Ayesha’s part to go outside her house afetr the death of Holy Prophet [s] and for what reason ? For fighting the caliph of Muslimeen (according to ur school) while other wife of Holy Prophet [s] even tried to stop her for committing this horrible act. NO justifications or excuses can be advanced for this sin of her.
Secondly there is no need to provide excuses for the fitna caused by the opponents of Ali [as] by coming out of their homes to fight him for no logical reason. The excuses of so called fasadis can be rejected by the fact that Ayesha was having full intention to fight and killing of Shia of Ali [as] at Basrah is a clear proof of her intentions.
"The Governor of Basra Uthman bin Haneef was arrested and imprisoned and 50 men in the treasury were killed.
al Maarif page 90
**
**
Its really sad to knoe about your ignorance of history. Shia of Ali [as] were with their Imam i.e Ali [as] so how can they get fruit of it ?
**
**
What ever excuses you provide of Aysha’s sin of having hand in Usman’s murder, truth will not hide.
We read In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 :
“Musruq said to Ayesha, 'Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him”.
Re: Who Are the Shias…
" FIRST OF ALL THE QURANIC AYAH WHICH UR MENTUIONING IN THE ABOVE POST IS " LAQAD RADIALLAHU ANIL MOMINA IZA YUBAYUNAKA TAHTASH SHAJARATY FA ALIMA MA FI QULUBIHIM fa ANAZALAS SAKINATA ALAYHIM WA ASABAHUM FATHAN QAREEBA" in surah al fatha,
and the tafseer which ur mentioning about the above ayah is completly wrong and completly fake,
the actual tafseer of this ayah, that y it was revealed isthat:
**during 5ah the holy prophet made up his **
when the pbuh and his companions decided to do umrah , he was stopped by the infidels near to makkah and was not allowed to enter the holy city,
since pbuh dint came to fight,
hence pbuh sent hazrat USMAN (RA) TO THE kuaffar-e-makka as his ambassador for negotiation , but the kuffars arrested usman (ra) and dint allowed him to go back, hence some of the people started rumours that HAZRAT USMAN(ra) has been killed by the kuffars,
**on hearing this news, PBUH gathered 1400 sahabas who were there with him under one tree and took an oath from them to fight against the kuffars, among them there was OMAR IBN KHATTAB who came armed and was ready to fight , **
on hearing this news that the pbuh and his companions are heading towards makkah for jihad the quraish left usman (ra) and demnded for an agreement,
and it was decided that
if any man of quraish wil come to pbuh and his sahabs they will return hiom back to quraish but if any one from sahabas pbuh will go quraish they wont return him back.
hance the treaty was signed and when the sahabas were going back to madina on the way he got the reveleation and good news of surah al fatah,
hence this isthe story behind the above mentioned ayah,
and NOT THE FAKE AND LIES WHICH UR BURYING THER.
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
[QUOTE]
What ever excuses you provide of Aysha's sin of having hand in Usman's murder, truth will not hide.
We read In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 page 82 :
"Musruq said to Ayesha, 'Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him".
[/QUOTE]
**Another Blame.
**Quran says........
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]**O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it...But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
It means, dont Blame or dont make your habbit to Blame others, because some Blames could be SIN.
**
Re: Who Are the Shias…
thats Ridiculous ! I didnt assert here from my self rather i presented the historical fact. How can it be a blame ? Do you also take the historical facts about Firown, Abu Jehel, Marhab, Antar, Abu Leheb, Yazeed etc as “blame” as well ?[/size]
Re: Who Are the Shias…
and the part you forgot to quote that comes right after this excerpt from Tabaqat al Kubra is where Aisha (r) emphatically denies having written anything and the comment of one of the narrators, al 'Amash, that it is clear any such letter was therefore forged in her name
Re: Who Are the Shias…
It was mere changer of her policy when she realized that her plans didnt go as she wished and people gave bayah to Ali [as] than her cousin talha. Her igitation against Usman was known before. EG
**When the situation became extremely grave, Uthman ordered Marwan Ibn al-Hakam and Abdurrahman Ibn Attab Ibn Usayd to try to persuade Ayesha to stop campaigning against him. They went to her while she was preparing to leave for pilgrimage, and they told her: “We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man (Uthman) through you.” Ayesha said: “I have prepared my means of transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall not honour your request… I wish he (Uthman) was in one of my sacks so that I could carry him. I would then throw him into the sea.” **
Ansab al-Ashraf Part 1, Volume 4 page 74
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
^ more blind and unconfirmed copy-and-pastes from the master plagiariser... he's put his foot in his mouth so often you'd think he'd have learnt his lesson by now
Re: Who Are the Shias…
So you are resembling her with those Kufaars. So sad to know that. Well you are making my position more strong by posting these childish information, as they are only words of mouth, with no proper reference.
We respect her because She was not only the wife of Prophet, our mother too. As She is mother of all muslims, not of non-muslims. But we respect her because She was a believer of Islam. She helped Sayyedna Mohammed through out his life. She was a genius also and Arab women asked so many faminine problems from her which they hasitated to ask directly from Prophet because He, ofcouse, was a man. She refered so many Hadiths, She was a Muhadisa, as you know whom is called Muhadis. Muhadis is the person who quote and write Hadiths.
Now I have something to ask you.
* If She took part in murder of Sayyedna Usman, why she aksed to take evenge from killers?
* If She was a Kafira, why Allah said that She is mother of Muslims?
* If She brought up Sayyedna Ali, why She hated him?
* Why She wanted to kill him, to make her grandchildren orphens?
* Why She killed her other Son in Law?
* She lived with Prophet for many years, embrased Islam. Why She couldnot understand the meanings of Islam?
* She was also the member of Prophet's family, why She didnot claim the right of Sayyedna Ali as a Khalifa? If you say Sayyedna Abu-Bakr was her own Father, but She was married to Prophet and She lived in the house of Prophet, She could get more benefits if Sayyedna Ali were made Caliph at that time.
Ayayhs from Quran.
Prophet has more right of your life than your selves. His Wives are Mothers of Muslims.
Wives of Prophet are not like any other woman. Dont marry them after the death of Prophet.
O Prophet, to marry such a number of women is Halal for you. But dont marry more women, if they attract you.
Or even dont change them by divorcing them and marry other women.
Adopted sons are not your own sons, these are words of mouth.
They dont have share in property.
The women they divorce are Halal for Guardians.
Can't Understand !!
I can't understand one thing ...
That as we all know that Deen has been completed till the time of Hazrat Muhammad (PBUH) death and any addition to it is not valid, then why suniz and shiaz fight over who should be caliph or not or who should be 1st or who should be 2nd. Means it has nothing to do with islam it self. Yea it is a part of history but nothing more then that.
Another thing that r we worth enough to comment on those great personalities. Means how can we ever judge them.
Re: Who Are the Shias...................
*So no one is answer able now. *
Re: Can't Understand !!
^ yep Indeed.
No evidence in the Quran about who was to take over and how events were to be played out after the Prophet's death. That would just ruin the story.