Questions for Sunnis to Answer on the Name of their Sect

1.
It is an established fact that all things are recognised by their name, even Allah (swt) first taught names to the father of Mankind Adam (as). Your sect also has names such as Sunni, Ahl' ul Sunnah or Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. Direct us towards any such verse of the Qur'an wherein any of these names have been indicated.


2.
If these titles cannot be located in the Qur'an could you produce this title from any hadith of the holy prophet (s)? Produce any such 'mutawatir' 'marfuu' or 'saheeh' narration from your books with a complete source (meaning the name of the book, version number, page number, edition etc) wherein the names Sunni, Ahl'ul Sunnah and Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah have been mentioned by the holy prophet (saww) as a sect of Islam.


3.
If these are not to be found in the hadeeth, then at least come up with an exact date, month and year of hijrah from the history of Islam when these names were adopted as your identity.


4.
What were you famously known as before adopting these names?


5.
Why have you forsaken your previous title?


6.
According to your sect, an introduction of any new thing to Islam constitutes bid'a, therefore to effectuate such an introduction is also a bid'a, so who was the person responsible for introducing this bid'a?


7.
Could you provide decisive evidence with regards to the meanings of Sunni, Ahl Sunnah and Ahl'ul Sunnah wal Jamaah?


8.
Which one is the most ancient of the three titles?


9.
Which one of the three titles do you consider the best?


10.
Why are the remaining two of lesser merit? Which one of those two is the least and what is the reason behind it?

SOURCE

Sayiddina Ali bin AbiTalib {radiAllahu anh, Karamahu waja}.

No muslim hates him, shiya or not.

Muawiya and the killing of the pious companion of the Prophet (s),Hujr Ibn Adi (ra),who was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) for refusing to curse Imam Ali (as):


Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi in his book "Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat" cites several classical sources providing the reason behind the murder of Hujr bin Adi by Muawiya. Under the chapter 4 "the elimination of freedom of speech", he states:

"The implementation of this new policy was started during the reign of Muawiyah (ra) with the murder of Hujr bin Adi (in 51 H), who was a pious Sahabi and was the man of a superior level in Ummah. During Muawiya's reign when the custom of open cursing and abusing Ali from the pulpits of Mosques began, hearts of the common Muslims were being wounded because of that but people bit their tongues fearing death. In Kufa, Hujr bin Adi could not remain silent and he began to praise Ali (ra) and condemn Mu'awiya. Until Mughira (ra) remained the Governor of Kufa, he adopted a lenient attitude towards him, but when Ziyad's Governorship of Basra was extended to include Kufa, serious altercations arose. He would curse Ali (ra) during the sermon (khutba) and Hujr would stand and refute him. On one occasion he (Hujr) warned Ziyad for being late for Jumma prayers. Ziyad then arrested him along with twelve of his companions and gathered witnesses to testify that "these people had formed a group, they openly slander the caliph, they invite people to fight the Ameer al-Momineen, they claim that caliphate is not the task of anyone other than the progeny of Abi Talib, they created hue and cry in the city and exiled the Aamil of Ameer al-Momineen, they support Abu Turab (Ali), invoke mercy on him while disassociated themselves from his enemies."
From amongst those witnesses, Qadi Shudhri's testimony was used. But he later wrote to Mu'awiya: 'I have heard that among the testimonies that have been sent to you against Hujr bin Adi, there is my testimony as well. My actual testimony regarding Hujr is that he is among those people who offer Salat, pay zakat, and perform Hajj and Umrah, call for good and forbid the evil, his blood and property is Haram, however if you want to kill him so do it, otherwise forgive him.'
The accused were sent to Mu'awiya and he sentenced them to death. Prior to their murder, the executors put some conditions before them which were: 'We have been instructed to pardon you on a condition if you disassociate yourselves from Ali (ra) and curse him otherwise you are to be murdered'. They refused to accept that offer and Hujr said: 'I cannot not say that thing from my tongue that displease Allah'. Finally he and his seven companions were murdered. From amongst them, Abdur Rahman bin Hasaan was sent back to Ziyad with a written instruction that he be murdered in the worst possible manner, hence Ziyad buried him alive.

Tarikh al Tabari, Volume 4 page 190 - 208
al Istiab by Ibn `Abdul Barr Vol I page 135
Tarikh by Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234 - 242
al Bidayah al Nihaya by Ibn Kathir Volume 8 page 50 -55j
Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 13
Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat, pages 164-165 (published by Idara Tarjuman ul Quran)

Sweetnecta: Sayiddina Ali bin AbiTalib {radiAllahu anh, Karamahu waja}.

No muslim hates him, shiya or not.

but the man who gave name to the Sunni sect hated Imam Ali (a) and even waged war against him.have you not heard about the Battle of Siffeen?

Muawiya and the killing of the pious companion of Prophet Muhammad (S),Malik al-Ashtar (ra),who was also a Shia of Imam Ali(a)

"When 'Ali returned from Siffin he had sent al Asthar back to his command over the Jazirah and had said to Qays bin Sa'd 'Stay with me in charge of my personal guards (shurat) until we have finished this business of the arbitration (hukumah) and then do to Adharbayjan". So Qays remained with 'Ali over his personal guard and when the business of the arbitration was over, 'Ali wrote to Malik b, al-Harith al-Asthar, who was at the time in Nasibin. "Now you are one of those whose help I need in making the religion (din) effective, by whom I restrain the arrogance of the sinner, and by whom I fortify the dangerous fromtier district (thagir). I have Muhammad b. Abu Bakr over Egypt, but the rebels (Khawarij) there came out aganst him and he is a raw youth with no experience of war and untested. Come to me so that we can consider what is necessary regarding that, and leave behind over your province, those of your men who are trustworthy and sincere advisors. Salutations".

Malik came 'Ali and went in to him.'Ali told him the news about the men of Egypt and gave him the reports about them, and he said, "You are the only man for it. Set out there, may God have mercy on you. If I do not tell you what to do about it, it is because I am content with your own judgement. Ask for God's help if anything worries you, and micx firmness with gentleness. Be mild so long as mildness is effective, but insist on firmness when you have to". So al-Ashthar left 'Ali, went to the place where he had left his things, and got ready to set out for Egypt.

Mu'awiyah's spies came and informed him of 'Ali's appointment of Al-Asthar, and that weighed haveily on him for he coveted Egypt and knew that if Al-Asthar arrived there he would be a more difficult prospect than Muhammad b. Abu Bakr. He therefore sent to al Jayastar, one of those subject to the Kharaj tax, and told him that al Asthar had been appointed over Egypt. And he said to him, "If you take care of him, I will not take any Kharaj from you as long as I live; so do what you can to outwit him". al Jayastar then went to al Qulzum and waited there. Al Asthar left Iraq for Egypt, and when he reached al Qulzum al Jayastar met him and said, "Here is somewhere to stay and here is food and fodder. I am one of those subject to the Kharaj". Al Asthar stayed there with him and the diqhan came with fodder and food. Then, when he had fed him, he bought him a honeyed drink into which he had mixed poison. He gave it to him to drink and when he had done so he died.

Mu'awiyah proceeded to tell the Syrians, "Ali has sent Al-Asthar to Egypt – Call on God that he will suffice you against him". So everyday they implored God against Al-Asthar, and then he who had goven him the drink came to Mu'awiyah and told him of Al-Asthar's death. Mu'awiyah stood among the people and delivered a khutbah. He praised God and extolled Him and then said "Ali b. Abi Talib had two right hands; one of them was cut off on the day of Siffin (meaning Ammar b. Yasir) and the other today (meaning Al-Asthar)".

History of Tabari, Volume 18 pages 144-146

Muawiya and Reviving the Customs of the Jahiliyyah

Amputations of the head and moving the heads from one place to another,
the mistreatment of the dead bodies out of sheer passion of revenge, that
was prevalent during the days of ignorance (al-Jahiliyyah), started again
among the Muslims during this era.

Case 1:

The very first head that was amputated from the body during the
Islamic period was of Ammar Ibn Yasir (RA), the famous companion of
the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad
narrates a tradition as follows, that has also been mentioned in the
Tabaqat of Ibn Sa'd that:

In the Battle of Siffin, when the head of Ammar Yasir (RA) was
cut off and was taken to Muawiyah, two people were arguing over
it, each one claiming that he had killed Ammar.

Sunni references:
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Traditions #6538, #6929 Printed in Dar al-
Maarif, Egypt 1952
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3, p253

Case 2:

The second head that was amputated from the body was for Umro Ibn al-
Hamaq, who was among the companions of the prophet (Allah's blessings
on him and his cleansed progeny). Muawiyah alleged that he has
participated in the assassination of Uthman. When efforts were carried
out for his arrest, he hid in a cave, where a snake bit him. The
people who were in his pursuit cut off the head from the dead body and
took it to Ziyad. He then sent it to Muawiyah in Damascus, where the
head was roamed around the city and was finally presented to his wife
in her lap.

Sunni references:
- al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v6, p25
- al-Isti'ab, v2, p440
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, p48
- Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, v8, p24

Case 3:

The same atrocity was committed against Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr (RA) who
was the Governor for Imam Ali (AS) in Egypt. When Muawiyah captured
Egypt, he was arrested and was killed. His dead body was placed in a
belly of a dead donkey and then was brutally burnt.

Sunni references:
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v1, p235
- History of al-Tabari, v4, p79
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, p180
- History of Ibn Khaldoon, v2, p182

Case 4:

After this, it became a tradition for people who sought vengeance
after their enemies were killed. Imam Husain's (AS) head was
amputated, and was taken from Karbala to Kufah and from Kufah to
Damascus. The body of Imam Husain (AS) was brutally ruined by the
running of horses.

Sunni references
- History of al-Tabari, v4, pp 349-351,356
- History of Ibn Kathir, v3, pp 296-298
- al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, v8, pp 189-192

^ I am a muslim, neither a sunni nor shiya or any other.
I am satisfied in following Muhammad [sa], by following those who are following him, in anything and reject any step that somebody does not follow him, even I will follow the same person in things he is following Muhammad [sa] in.

Muhammad [sa] is the sole single human authority for me. From the Quran can accept or reject a 'hadith' and or part of sirah, when there is opposition to the Quran. Allah also gave me ability to reason. It is the reasoning that I was able to accept stoning guilty person who commits adultery. It is not my place to be judging past muslims, especially when I dont see Allah Judging them and there is no evidence that Muhammad [sa] is sadden about Allah loving these past muslims.

It is Muhammad's love for them that made me love them, including Ali AbiTalib [ra to all of them]. It is love of Muhammad [as] that made me love even Jesus [as] and past messengers and prophets [as], all of the love I can see from the Quran, which it agrees with.

When the supporters of Jesus [as] are described as helpers of Allah in supporting Jesus [as], messenger of Allah, therefore being muslims, it does become irrelevant when the christians call these helpers christians. To them, they were christians, to me they were muslims.

I apply the same to the companions of Muhammad [sa]. Abu Bakr [ra], did not fight Ali [ra]. Yet some people who can't be able to handle their sandals in their love for Allah and His Messenger [sa] abuse them, without any conscience!

Islam got to me from these same people and I am grateful for it and I love them for loving Muhammad [sa]. Allah says follow Muhammad and Allah will love you.

Allah says of these people who participated in the battle of Badr that "they love Allah, and Allah loves them back". I will stand on that, neither being shiya nor sunni. Yet, I will not abuse anyone that Allah does not curse, or any Muhammad [sa] did not get saddened by.

Everyone falls short of perfection. I pray that Allah overlooks the short comings of each and every sincere muslim. The case of hypocrites are different and even Muhammad [sa] did not know who the hypocrites were, but Allah knew each of them.

Concentrate on your life and ability to improve yourself in Ibadah and getting closer to Allah, looking for His Favor and Pleasure, Mercy.

the Sunnis are formerly known as 'Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jama'ah'-i.e. "people of the sunnah and the gathering/consensus".where did this term originate from and how was it coined?

Muawiyah and the Origin of the word "al-Jama'ah"
================================================
al-Tabari recorded that:

Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Muawiya transferred them in
his days on the "year of the union (al-Jama'ah)". When the people of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Iraq agreed [to recognize] Muawiyah [as caliph] after Ali, Muawiyah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the
cause of Ali (i.e. the Shia), and to settle in their homes those people of Syrai and
al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it
was they who were called the "transfers" in the garrison towns.

[ The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the
union as follows: ]

Aam al-Jama'ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu
Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)


Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97

Jalaluddin al-Suyuti mentions this very fact, with the utmost clarity in
his work, History of the Caliphs (Tarikhul Khulafa) with the following
words:

al-Dhahabi says that Ka'ab died before Muawiyah was made caliph, and
that Ka'ab was right in what he said, for Muawiyah continued for
twenty years, and none of the princess of the earth contended with
him, unlike others who came after him, for they had opponents and
portions of their dominions passed out of their sway. Muawiyah went
forth against Ali as has preceded, and assumed the title of Caliph.
Then he marched against al-Hasan, who abdicted in his favor. He
therefore became firmly eshtablished in his Caliphate from Rabi'iul
Akhir or Jumadal Awwal 41 AH. The year was therefore called the Year
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the Union (al-Jama'ah), on account of the gathering of the people
under one Caliph. During this year Muawiyah appointed Marwan Ibn al-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hakam over Medina.

Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English
version, p204 (Chapter of Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan)

Sweetnecta: Sayiddina Ali bin AbiTalib {radiAllahu anh, Karamahu waja}.

No muslim hates him, shiya or not.

brother,please this thread was not made to target you.you always insist you are neither a Sunni nor a Shia,even though as a Muslim you must be a Shia if truly it is Prophet Muhammad (sa) you follow,since he left us to abide by the "two weighty things"-the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as).see:Hadith of the Two Wighty Things.

so brother,this thread was not aimed at you at all firstly because you are not Sunni and you do not recognize yourself as one of the bid'ah sect.this thread was started for the followers of the bid'ah sect who uphold a practice which angered the Prophet (sa) called taraweeh.i want them to know and see the truth and wake up from their ignorance and arrogance and centuries of brainwashing,lies and deception.that is not what Islam stands for.this thread was started against those who make sodomy halal in the name of Islam and jihad.this thread was started against those who insult the 12th Imam (as) [/b]of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) of Prophet Muhammad (sa).he has referred to us in a provocative thread as "followers of the dajjal".

it is better you go there to preach to him.we know who and what we are.they are the ones [b]killing fanatically others or anyone who dont believe as they do and like pretending and claiming "holier than thou".with such fakeness,lies,fanaticism and hatred they are selling to deceive people it is Islam they are following,many more boko haram and alqaeda will emerge from in their midst.do us good,save us and preach to them brother.

Sweetnecta: ^ I am a muslim, neither a sunni nor shiya or any other.
I am satisfied in following Muhammad [sa], by following those who are following him, in anything and reject any step that somebody does not follow him, even I will follow the same person in things he is following Muhammad [sa] in.

Muhammad [sa] is the sole single human authority for me. From the Quran can accept or reject a 'hadith' and or part of sirah, when there is opposition to the Quran. Allah also gave me ability to reason. It is the reasoning that I was able to accept stoning guilty person who commits adultery. It is not my place to be judging past muslims, especially when I dont see Allah Judging them and there is no evidence that Muhammad [sa] is sadden about Allah loving these past muslims.

It is Muhammad's love for them that made me love them, including Ali AbiTalib [ra to all of them]. It is love of Muhammad [as] that made me love even Jesus [as] and past messengers and prophets [as], all of the love I can see from the Quran, which it agrees with.

When the supporters of Jesus [as] are described as helpers of Allah in supporting Jesus [as], messenger of Allah, therefore being muslims, it does become irrelevant when the christians call these helpers christians. To them, they were christians, to me they were muslims.

I apply the same to the companions of Muhammad [sa]. Abu Bakr [ra], did not fight Ali [ra]. Yet some people who can't be able to handle their sandals in their love for Allah and His Messenger [sa] abuse them, without any conscience!

Islam got to me from these same people and I am grateful for it and I love them for loving Muhammad [sa]. Allah says follow Muhammad and Allah will love you.

Allah says of these people who participated in the battle of Badr that "they love Allah, and Allah loves them back". I will stand on that, neither being shiya nor sunni. Yet, I will not abuse anyone that Allah does not curse, or any Muhammad [sa] did not get saddened by.

Everyone falls short of perfection. I pray that Allah overlooks the short comings of each and every sincere muslim. The case of hypocrites are different and even Muhammad [sa] did not know who the hypocrites were, but Allah knew each of them.

Concentrate on your life and ability to improve yourself in Ibadah and getting closer to Allah, looking for His Favor and Pleasure, Mercy.

i would not have responded to this your post.but you polluted it when you mentioned the name of Abu Bakr in praise.he is the cause of all the division and deviation that have befell Sunnis.you are closer to the truth.you just need to know the truth about Abu Bakr and his action on Fadak and the attrocity he initially committed in Saqifa Banu Saeda.

check this:

http://abubakr.org/

LOL, you and your perceived opponents are really becoming too. childish for comfort. Sweetnecta, I see your efforts, this guys won't stop!

maclatunji: LOL, you and your perceived opponents are really becoming too. childish for comfort. Sweetnecta, I see your efforts, this guys won't stop!

oga moderator,

what is too childish when all my claims are presented from Sunni hadiths?

when Vedaxcool is really childish spreading lies and judging others from his own perspective,you do not issue such strong worded statement.an example is earlier today and your fatherly,very calm and kind appeal to him:
https://www.nairaland.com/979146/re-appearance-imam-mahdi-aj-descent#11573478

and still he went ahead to use that post to create a provocative and insulting thread to disturb the peace in the forum!:
https://www.nairaland.com/1000955/12th-imam-shia-dajjal

but i really do not mind because truth is there for all to see and i gave him a reply in his thread and will always be ready to reply and expose lies.

this is the month of ramadan.even when dealing with those you do not inwardly agree with but outwardly pretend to be neutral,please try to be just.Allah (swt) loves those who are just.

maclatunji: LOL, you and your perceived opponents are really becoming too. childish for comfort. Sweetnecta, I see your efforts, this guys won't stop!

i think in this thread there are no opponents.these are facts we have known to be present in Sunni books of narration over the ages.you just need to warn Vedaxcool to stop making claims of disbelief and insult against others like the thread he started today.today is bygone but next time he should'nt repeat that for the sake of peace.

LagosShia:

oga moderator,

what is too childish when all my claims are presented from Sunni hadiths?

when Vedaxcool is really childish spreading lies and judging others from his own perspective,you do not issue such strong worded statement.an example is earlier today and your fatherly,very calm and kind appeal to him:
https://www.nairaland.com/979146/re-appearance-imam-mahdi-aj-descent#11573478

and still he went ahead to use that post to create a provocative and insulting thread to disturb the peace in the forum!:
https://www.nairaland.com/1000955/12th-imam-shia-dajjal

but i really do not mind because truth is there for all to see and i gave him a reply in his thread and will always be ready to reply and expose lies.

this is the month of ramadan.even when dealing with those you do not inwardly agree with but outwardly pretend to be neutral,please try to be just.Allah (swt) loves those who are just.

LOL, you and Vedaxcool are quite alike. However, you get all time lows when you brazenly insult the companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW), even those buried at his side as I type this. I know you don't realize the import of what you do!

maclatunji:

LOL, you and Vedaxcool are quite alike. However, you get all time lows when you brazenly insult the companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW), even those buried at his side as I type this. I know you don't realize the import of what you do!

that is a false accusation.

the Sunnis insult Mukhtar al-Thaqafi (ra) and consider him an hypocrite because he was a Shia of Imam Ali (as) and also a companion of the Prophet (sa) who did not contain himself with propagating the truth and abiding by the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),but he rose up with the sword to avenge the tragedy of Karbala and the blood of Imam Hussain (as) and killed those who stood against Imam Hussain (as),the grandson of the Prophet (sa).

Muawiya the founder of the Sunni sect killed companions of the Prophet (sa).and there are Sunnis up to this day who have gone as far as finding justification why Muawiya (who the Prophet described in unappealing terms) killed Hujr Ibn Adi (ra),a pious companion.there are even Sunnis (the wahhabis particularly) who honor Yazeed,the killer of Imam Hussain (as).what do you say about someone who would honor an enemy of the Prophet's (sa) blood and who ordered for Hussain's (as) blood to be shed?

the Shia honor and greatly love companions like Ammar Ibn Yassir,Bilal al-Habashi,Abu Dhar al-Ghifari,Salman al-Farisi e.t.c. who are all companions of Prophet Muhammad (sa),who were active Shia of Imam Ali (as) and stood by the truth.

it is only people who have limited the definition of being a companion of the Prophet (sa) to refer to those who disobeyed the Prophet (sa),harmed his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and went ahead to ride the tide of Islam for their personal glory and name and use it as title to promote their ill-gotten "virtues",that think "companions of the Prophet" only refer to a few individuals.there were thousands of companions.the companions of the Prophet (sa) are not limited to abu bakr and umar.it is that fair to accept.so do not accuse the Shia of insulting the "companions of the Prophet".that is a baseless allegation.just the way there were companions Sunnis dislike,there are also companions Shia dislike.it makes more noise when it is abu bakr and Umar because of the power they usurped from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and particularly Imam Ali (as).in this respect,as far as i do not insult them,there is no need for any Sunni to feel offended.and Almighty Allah be my witness that if i have ever used insults to address those men i regret that.we Shia are not trained to insult anyone.that is not part of being Muslims.we only send La'nat on the wrongdoers,hypocrites,tyrants,and oppressors because sending la'nat (which is translated to mean "curse" ) is a sunnah of Allah even in the Quran.in that case do not feel offended because the entire history of division in islam and the disagreement boil down to the actions by abu bakr and umar the Shia object to.this is a sincere objection that should be addressed in an academic way.we should be able to prove to you how they disobeyed the Prophet (sa) and what the Prophet (sa) foretold about how those among his closest companions would deviate and prophesied they would be taken away from him into hell fire.

i do not have the strength right now to research and bring you instances evil and righteous men were buried close to one another.but abu bakr and umar being buried close to the Prophet (sa) is not a merit.it was because worldly power was in their hand to determine where they are laid to rest.in fact when Aisha,daughter of abu bakr was about to die,she was asked whether she should be buried close to her father and the Prophet (sa).she refused out of guilt.it was also Aisha who refused for Imam Hassan (as),the grandson of Prophet Muhammad (sa) to be buried close to his grandfather.so being buried anywhere is not a merit especially when there is dispute about the names in question and their deeds.

and let me thank you for the time you are using to contribute.i know it is fasting period and i greatly appreciate your time and effort.inshaAllah,you will be rewarded with guidance and blessings for that during this holy month.

^You do not know the import of insulting the companions buried beside the Prophet SAW. If you did, you wouldn't do what you are doing and Yes! None of the companions from the first to the last should be insulted!

maclatunji: ^You do not know the import of insulting the companions buried beside the Prophet SAW. If you did, you wouldn't do what you are doing and Yes! None of the companions from the first to the last should be insulted!

please kindly read again what i posted in my last post because i did some editing and corrections.and if you have already read what i earlier posted,i am emphasizing we do not insult anyone.

maclatunji: ^You do not know the import of insulting the companions buried beside the Prophet SAW. If you did, you wouldn't do what you are doing and Yes! None of the companions from the first to the last should be insulted!

Mac,you sound like a very gentle man.actually it would really have been useful had you being alive in the time of the people you are defending and shadedly refering to under the big title of "companions of the Prophet".when these people you are defending did what they did,did you think they were taking into consideration your kind words? i am sure if you'd have lived in their days you would have opposed them as many other companions did and stood with Imam Ali and the Ahlul-Bayt (as).when abu bakr angered Fatima (as),the Prophet's daughter and Umar attacked her house,did they know the import of what they were doing? you probably dont know all these things,or you have not come across them or you dont take them seriously.so please you need also to consider the import of what they did and who they wronged,harmed and oppressed,and how their actions led to further division and deviation of Muslims from the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),Prophet Muhammad (sa) have to Muslims to follow and obey.you should pelase take a look at this:

http://abubakr.org/

Zhul-Fiqar.:


Mac,you sound like a very gentle man.actually it would really have been useful had you being alive in the time of the people you are defending and shadedly refering to under the big title of "companions of the Prophet".when these people you are defending did what they did,did you think they were taking into consideration your kind words? i am sure if you'd have lived in their days you would have opposed them as many other companions did and stood with Imam Ali and the Ahlul-Bayt (as).when abu bakr angered Fatima (as),the Prophet's daughter and Umar attacked her house,did they know the import of what they were doing? you probably dont know all these things,or you have not come across them or you dont take them seriously.so please you need also to consider the import of what they did and who they wronged,harmed and oppressed,and how their actions led to further division and deviation of Muslims from the Quran and Ahlul-Bayt (as),Prophet Muhammad (sa) have to Muslims to follow and obey.you should pelase take a look at this:

http://abubakr.org/

You can answer my question as well. Allah took away all of the Prophet's (SAW) children except one before he died. One even died on the day of Eid. Does that mean we will stop worshipping him? There's no amount of circulating of negative things about some companions that you circulate that will remove them From being highly respected.

maclatunji:

You can answer my question as well. Allah took away all of the Prophet's (SAW) children except one before he died. One even died on the day of Eid. Does that mean we will stop worshipping him? There's no amount of circulating of negative things about some companions that you circulate that will remove them From being highly respected.

seriously i am now forced to question your intelligence.how does Allah (swt) causing us to die have to do with man opressing/killing man? are those few infamous companions your "gods"? or are you calling death which Allah ordained for man a "crime"? are you implying Allah (jj) is oppressing mankind? how do you explain such an analogy?

there is also no amount of blackmail,propaganda and pretense that you circulate that will stop us from following the command of the Prophet (sa) in the Hadith of the Two Weighty Things and upholding the wilayah (leadership) of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) also found in Allah's Quran,and opposing all those who opposed and hurt them.to us the pleasure,satisfaction and honor of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are the yardstick to determine who is who and not the other way round.the Prophet (s) clearly said we should abide by the Ahlul-Bayt (as) which is like the ark of Noah (as) and the stars to guide us.anyone who goes ahead of them or lack behind (abandon them) will perish.

if we Shia can love companions of Prophet Muhammad (sa) like Salman al-Farisi (a persian),Bilal al-Habashi (an african),Ammar Ibn Yassir (arabian),and others,and these accepted the wilayah of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and their right over the Muslims,i do not see why a gang of oppressors is turning into problem.then the problem is from those who refuse to ponder,think and understand.

maclatunji:

You can answer my question as well. Allah took away all of the Prophet's (SAW) children except one before he died. One even died on the day of Eid. Does that mean we will stop worshipping him? There's no amount of circulating of negative things about some companions that you circulate that will remove them From being highly respected.

Allah (swt) is our Creator and only to Him do we bow and serve and He tests us and we obey.Allah (swt) has prescribed death as He created us.it is stated in the Quran that every soul shall test death.it is also stated that any man who kills an innocent soul,it is as if he has killed all of humanity.therefore man should not kill man.if you are making such comparison between God and man,then based on that because Allah (swt) is taking the lives of thousands or may be millions everyday,it is therefore acceptable for man to kill his fellow man and the criminals should not be condemned because Allah too is committing a "crime" by taking the lives of people.astaghfirullah al-azeem!!!

one thing i observed in your post,is an improvement in your language.you no longer accuse us of "insulting" the companions of the Prophet (sa).you have now learnt and thank God for that,that we honor and love many pious and great companions of the Prophet (sa) who followed and defended the Ahlul-Bayt (as).you now use the term "some companions".that is a great improvement.i must commend you and also thank Allah (swt) for that.

^ I have told you the truth, go and introspect. What do you think it means for Islam, if the Prophet (SAW) died and has buried beside him people you want us to believe are his "enemies". Do you put your brain on pause when you insult Abu Bakr and Umar? May Allah be pleased with them.

maclatunji: ^ I have told you the truth, go and introspect. What do you think it means for Islam, if the Prophet (SAW) died and has buried beside him people you want us to believe are his "enemies". Do you put your brain on pause when you insult Abu Bakr and Umar? May Allah be pleased with them.

you need to wake up my dear brother.stop idolizing these two men.they were fallible men capable of committing sins and mistakes and going astray.if the sahaba were all angels roaming the earth and were not capable of becoming disbelievers and hypocrites,Allah (swt) would not have revealed this verse in the Holy Quran warning them:

Holy Qur'an 3:144
"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle: many were the Apostles that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will you then turn back on your heels? If any did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; but Allah (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude".

you should get a reliable tafsir,even a Sunni one,and find out regarding who was the above verse revealed and what does the phrase "turn back on your heels" mean.and you will the people you are defending were vulnerable even to outright kufr and disbelief.

you are here expressing and rejoicing that two oppressors are buried beside the Prophet (sa).have you taken the time you ask why was Fatima (as),the beloved daughter of the Prophet (sa),who the Prophet (sa) addressed as "the mother of her father" and said "Fatima is a part of me.what hurts her hurts me",not buried beside her father? was abu bakr and umar closer and more beloved to the Prophet (sa) than Fatima (as)? no! so why was she not buried beside her father (sa)? the answer is in Bukhari and Muslim.find out.it was because of what abu bakr and umar did to her that she asked her husband to bury her at night and without the knowledge of anyone including your abu bakr who was the "caliph of the Muslims" at that time.and the Prophet (sa) said :"he who does not know the imam (leader) of his time has died the death of jahiliyyah".obviously,Fatima (as) with her protests and anger and opposition to abu bakr,did not believe he was her imam.she,the daughter of Muhammad (sa),was buried without abu bakr's knowledge.she died swearing at him and cursing him.obviously,she did not recognize him as her imam of the time.so who was her imam? she could not have died without knowing her imam.she is the daughter of Muhammad (sa).

^LOL, did I say they were angels? You still do not have the liver to answer my question and that should tell you that you should focus on the clear message that the Prophet (SAW) brought and not which companion did or said.
What do you think is the import of your assertion if the Prophet (SAW) completed his mission to perfect Islam and Allah then allows Abu Bakr (RA) to takeover?

It's not by accident that those two are buried beside the Prophet (SAW). You need to use your head at this point. You think Allah would allow those that the Prophet (SAW) is not pleased with be buried at his side? You are highly misguided dude.

Abu Sa‘îd al-Khudri (may Allâh be pleased with
him) said: "The Messenger of Allâh sallallaahu
'alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Do not slander my
Companions, for if one of you were to spend an
amount of gold equivalent to the size of Mount
Uhud, you would not even come halfway up to
their level.' " (Reported by al-Bukhârî, al-Fath,
no. 3379).

Stop being Juvenile and be more circumspect LagosShia!

maclatunji: ^LOL, did I say they were angels? You still do not have the liver to answer my question and that should tell you that you should focus on the clear message that the Prophet (SAW) brought and not which companion did or said.

what is your question?

the entire message of Islam rests on two acts "enjoin virtue and forbid evil".if you take away any one of these two,then you are the one in fact ignoring the message of the Prophet (sa).

What do you think is the import of your assertion if the Prophet (SAW) completed his mission to perfect Islam and Allah then allows Abu Bakr (RA) to takeover?

please can you show me evidence that the Prophet (sa) "allowed" abu bakr to "takeover"? i want evidence where the Prophet (sa) stated or said "i have allowed or nominated abu bakr to take over after me".i can i bring evidence where the Prophet (sa) did exactly that for Imam Ali (as).

i can also bring you evidence of instances right from before the Prophet's (sa) demise where abu bakr and Umar went against his instructions.

all these examples would be sourced from Sunni hadiths.

It's not by accident that those two are buried beside the Prophet (SAW). You need to use your head at this point. You think Allah would allow those that the Prophet (SAW) is not pleased with be buried at his side? You are highly misguided dude.

i have earlier explained to you that the reason why certain people are buried in certain place is the political power and who was in control.it was not Allah (swt) that ordered or came down or sent angels to bury abu bakr and umar next to the Prophet (sa).in fact not everyone close to the Prophet (sa) is saved by the mere presence of the Prophet (sa). and let me cite two examples of how close one can be to a prophet and still end up in hell fire:

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment". [9:101]

"Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of Our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.
Quran" [66:10]

so how close you are to a prophet,even if it is on his bed,does not save nor conceal your evil and wrong deeds.

the only reason abu bakr was buried next to Prophet Muhammad (s) is because Umar (an ally of abu bakr who ensured abu bakr become caliph) was the one who was later appointed by abu bakr when abu bakr was dying.had it being someone else to succeed abu bakr,who was not in good terms with him,abu bakr would not have being allowed to be buried beside the Prophet (sa).likewise when Umar died,Usthman he appointed as successor ensured Umar is buried next to the Prophet (sa).now when Usthman was killed and his body laid in a garbage dump for days,where was he buried? Usthman was buried in where the jews of medina were buried.usthman did not have an ally to succeed him and the companions many of whom opposed him and abandoned him and some even played role in killing him.you remember the hadith (i think in bukhari) where the Prophet (sa) is said to be passing by the graves of some jews and there was noise heard from their graves.you know what the Prophet (sa) said.so based on that and Usthman found his way buried beside the very jews who opposed the Muslims,would the fate of usthman be the fate of the jews? abu bakr,umar and usthman are regarded by Sunnis as "rightly guided caliphs".the incident of usthman's body and his burial place goes to show that the burial place of his predecessor was one based on political power and not religious views or merits.

i am just trying to show you that being close to anyone or anywhere does not avail you if you are evil and wicked.

"And guard yourselves against a day in which you shall be returned to Allah; then every soul shall be paid back in full what it has earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly".Quran [2:281]

now let us see what the Prophet (sa) had said about his companions.please when going through these hadiths,let us keep in mind this Quranic verse and pay attention to the highlighted part:

"And among those around you of the bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment".
Quran [9:101]

now let us quote 3 hadiths by differnt narrators all saying the same thing.and there are more narrators who reported this hadith:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.584
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake
Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from
me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You
do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after
you." (also Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54)


Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.585
Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:

The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-
Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and
whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come
to me some people whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me,
but a barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added:
Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from
Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said
al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say:
They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, 'You do not know
what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'.
I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of
Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord
(those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as
renegades (reverted from the true Islam)."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.586
Narrated Ibn al-Musaiyab:

"Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will
be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It
will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you
left: they turned APOSTATE as renegades (reverted from true Islam)."
(also Sahih Muslim, part 10, p64, also P59)

maclatunji: Abu Sa‘îd al-Khudri (may Allâh be pleased with
him) said: "The Messenger of Allâh sallallaahu
'alayhi wa sallam said: ‘Do not slander my
Companions, for if one of you were to spend an
amount of gold equivalent to the size of Mount
Uhud, you would not even come halfway up to
their level.' " (Reported by al-Bukhârî, al-Fath,
no. 3379).

Stop being Juvenile and be more circumspect LagosShia!

brother,we have made a great improvement earlier when you stopped accusing the Shia of the usual Sunni propaganda that we "insult the companions".you then used the term "some of the companions" after i showed you we do love and respect many of them and there are also a few Sunnis themselves dislike.

now i want us to make another improvement and move a step forward.

we are going to start by quoting a verse of the Quran warning against concealing the truth and another about lying.

Holy Quran 2:42
"And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]".

Holy Quran 40:28
"...Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar".


now brother,let us get a dictionary and look for the meaning of "slander".what does it mean when you "slander"?

here is how dictionary.com defines "slander":

slan·der
   [slan-der] Show IPA
noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.
Law . defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
verb (used with object)
4.
to utter slander against; defame.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander?s=t


Please go through those definitions and show me anywhere that i have slandered abu bakr and umar.

i am clearly telling you that it is forbidden to slander anyone even your enemy and not just a companion of the Prophet (sa).Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding to slander Aisha.you can find his fatwa on youtube and elsewhere.to slander anyone is haram

you may wonder why i initially presented two verses from the Quran on lying and concealing the truth.the fact is all we Shia are saying is let us examine the facts and present the truth.there is no need to conceal certain things that abu bakr did.and there is no need to invent virtues for him and fabricate hadiths to him undue credit.abu bakr angered and hurt Sayyida Fatima (as).that is fact.i do not need to insult him,but nonetheless when someone angers Fatima (as)-if you know who Fatima is- i will not pray to Allah (swt) to be pleased with that person.i do not want to anger Sayyida Fatima (as) by showing pleasure towards someone who has angered her and thus angered the Prophet (sa) and Allah (swt).until Qiyama when the fate of that person would be decided by Allah (swt),i do not show satisfaction with what he did.now that is not slander.it does not mean that by examining the truth and history,that is slander.that is an unfair accusation.

when we send la'nat on disbelievers,oppressors,tyrants,unjust men,and evil persons,we do that in accordance with the Quran.Allah (swt) send la'nat,believers send la'nat and angels send la'nat.when you send la'nat on someone you show dissatisfaction with that person and withdraw your sympathy from the person.that too is not slander and it is not insult.i can bring you many verses from the Holy Quran on how many times Allah (swt) sends and talks about sending la'nat.

i hope after you read this,we can move a step further and you'd be convinced that we do not slander or insult anyone because that is in fact islamically haram.examining the truth and saying it as it is,not to conceal the truth and lie,is also not slander or insult.in fact Allah (swt) in the Quran orders us not to conceal the truth and not to lie.

^Silly, the hadith mentions no names. The Prophet's directive is crystal clear. It says don't slander any of his companions. It doesn't say, his companions are perfect or without fault. There will be no need to say "may Allah be pleased with them" if we believed otherwise. You are disobedient pure and simple!

maclatunji: ^Silly, the hadith mentions no names. The Prophet's directive is crystal clear. It says don't slander any of his companions. It doesn't say, his companions are perfect or without fault. There will be no need to say "may Allah be pleased with them" if we believed otherwise. You are disobedient pure and simple!

i have answered the question of slander.you probably posted the same time i posted my second reply.please read it.

^You call the Prophet's companions tyrants and suggest they are hypocrites and say that is not slander - silly!

You even suggest that the decision on where Abu Bakr and Umar were buried is outside the decision of Allah. How low can you sink?

You are beyond pathetic!