vedaxcool:

In fact, in “Tareekh al-Islam”, the event of Ghadir Khumm falls under the heading “The Consolation of Ali”. We read:

The Consolation of Ali

During the Hajj, some of the followers of Ali who had been with him to Yemen complained to the Prophet about Ali. Some of the misunderstandings of the people of Yemen had given rise to misgivings. Addressing the Companions at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet of Allah said admiring Ali: “The one who is my friend is the friend of Ali…” Following the address, Umar congratulated Ali saying: “From this day on you are a very special friend of mine.” The Prophet then came back to Al-Medinah and his son Ibrahim passed away.

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.241)

whoever wrote 'Tareekh al-Islam',a book on islamic history is giving his sunni misinterpretation to conceal the truth.many details are ignored and taken for granted regarding what happened at Ghadir Khumm.

this is the gist of the whole story of Gadhir Khum, no amount of shia obscurism can help explain the fraudulent lies thay heap on Islam.

the Prophet (sa) as you cited a hadith from Buraida had already addressed those returning.The Prophet (sa) made the same declaration before the yemen expedition,when the men returned from yemen and also after that at Ghadir Khumm.according to sunnis,it was all to tell those not happy from Ali (as) during the yemen expedition that Ali (as) is their 'friend' thanks to misinterpreting the word 'mawla'
your ridicule make it sound as if the Prophet (sa) was running facebook,astaghfirullah.and this was at a time the Quran had declared believers as 'brothers'.yet the Prophet (sa) is (mis)interpeted by sunnis to be persistently telling muslims from the first day of his prophetic mission that Ali (as) is their 'friend'.

vedaxcool:

this is the gist of the whole story of Gadhir Khum, no amount of shia obscurism can help explain the fraudulent lies thay heap on Islam.

but you are the ones hiding details,playing with word and even to the extent of trying to conceal everything about the event in order that you may deny it or lessen its significance.

The same liars are responsible for the death of Ali because of their over sabi,

from your words its like we are so evil that we killed everyone even our beloved ones.well,even if those who committed any crime at some point called themselves 'shia' and 'muslims',they were hypocrites.also in Islam,no man bears the sin of another man.so why hold me responsible for what you accuse other individuals of doing?the Quran says :'no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another'.

they killed Hussein because of their Hypocrisy and they stab Hassan because of their cruelty,

who is 'they'? Did i tell you i'm from kufa? The kufans claimed to be 'shia' but they proved to be hypocrites and traitors.they were bribed into submission or threatened by yazid's governor to betray Imam Hussain (as).

the lies of Shiasm commenced the very day they took to insulting the Prophet's pbuh wife in the person of Aisha r.a as a religious duty, a woman Allah proclaimed her purity in the Qur'an , a woman Allah refereed to as being one of the Mother of the Believers, that is how accursed one can get when shia lies sips thru, their lies has no bearing

you forgot to mention that she is the 'mother of the believers' that waged war and killed the believers in the battle of jamal.in other words she was a mother who killed her children.

because if the Prophet had appointed Ali r.a with the Mawla hadith, he would have been very clear to all hearing, instead of being indirect, He would have used the expression after me, Ali is your Mawla, yet no authentic Sunni hadith points to such lie,

as earlier mentioned,the Prophet had said :'Ali is the master of all believers after me.

This is recorded in reliable sunni sources like 'sahih al-tirmidhi','sahih ibn habban' and 'al-nasai'.

vedaxcool:

Addressing the Companions at Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet of Allah said admiring Ali: “The one who is my friend is the friend of Ali…” Following the address, Umar congratulated Ali saying: “From this day on you are a very special friend of mine.”

please people note the dishonesty above in how they changed the statement of Umar which goes as 'today you have BECOME the mawla of all believers'.as 'shiite' pointed out the word 'mawla' cannot mean 'friend' because how can Ali (as) 'become' in umar's expression when he was always?was Ali (as) their 'enemy' so as to 'become' their 'friend'?

the repugnancy of shia goes low that they even have the audacity to insult the prophet's pbuh companions, men and women of Honor who put in all they had for Islam, how accursed can some one get, this men that where promised AL jannah when they were still living all this is in the Qur'an, when you weigh the the shia gist on a scale of responsibility, you discover that madness is what alone can describe such a theology.

but you dont see it as madness and repugnant when the bad companions fought and killed themselves with swords and committed crimes?you want to make them all look angelic.we love the good ones and speak against the bad ones.

Infact why are you bringing in so many redherrings? You're changing the topic and raining insults.is it that frustrating?

The incident of Ghadir Khum is clear to those who want to reason.

lots of love and Laughter from Veda

'you do not utter a word but there is a guardian who records'.that is what the Quran says.so dont rush into misleading others and then end up laughing.you would be brought to account.

Zhul-fiqar:

First let me advice 'vedaxcool' to ask Allah (swt) to guide and forgive him.you should read and ponder on the story of al-Hur,the general in Yazid's army who laid siege on Imam Hussain (as).ironically,Hur was the first person to be killed fighting for Imam Hussain (as) against the army he led to fight Imam Hussain (as).Hur changed sides and repented by asking for Imam Hussain's forgiveness which he got from the Imam (as).Hur who was an enemy became a shia of Hussain (as) and a sincere believer destined for paradise[b].while those who labelled themselves 'shia' in kufa turned out to be hypocrites who did not leave up to their promise to defend Imam Hussain (as) and fight for him against Yazeed (la).some of the kufans were bribed while others got intimidated from the threats of Ibn Ziyad,yazid's governor in kufa.‎[/b]

The moral ‏of the story is it is never too late to repent.you can call yourselve whatever label but if you cannot be sincere and honest and you resist sincerity and honesty,then you are a vain person.

story story, in essence shias betrayed and killed Hussain. period!

Zhul-fiqar:

first you denied Ghadir Khumm.then you questioned its authenticity and then you play with words and meanings and now you give it your interpretation.

Ibn Kathir like yourself is free to understand the event as he likes and he is entitled to his opinion.what is of use to me is not the mockery of an interpretation Ibn Kathir gives from his head.what is important is that Ibn Kathir whose work is a source to you confirms that the event took place.people would use their brains to examine the evidence presented thus far and the event itself and what happened to make their conclusion.no amount of tricks to conceal the truth would work for you on the event of Ghadir Khumm.

yes the evidence using the least common sense in your head should tell you that:

Majority of the Muslims had departed for home after the farewell sermon#

Your fraudulent case would have made more sense, if announcement was made where everyone was present Mecca

The use of the term Mawla without no time frame clearly gives the fact that it meant befriend.

That certain individuals had grudges against Ali again shows the context of what happened.

Zhul-fiqar:

whoever wrote 'Tareekh al-Islam',a book on islamic history is giving his sunni misinterpretation to conceal the truth.many details are ignored and taken for granted regarding what happened at Ghadir Khumm.

like I said earlier as twisting hadiths to suit your fancy will get you nowhere indeed! as you have just proven only what suits your fancy is credible, anything else must be aforgery or ignoring details!.

Zhul-fiqar:

the Prophet (sa) as you cited a hadith from Buraida had already addressed those returning.The Prophet (sa) made the same declaration before the yemen expedition,when the men returned from yemen and also after that at Ghadir Khumm.according to sunnis,it was all to tell those not happy from Ali (as) during the yemen expedition that Ali (as) is their 'friend' thanks to misinterpreting the word 'mawla'

oh boy! this guy is misrepresenting the issue to win bumble bee points, yet again you engaging in treacherous falsehood! as in the sunni context, the Mawla issue started right after the Yemen battle, it is funny how you keep obscuring the issues at hand, the matter leading up to Ghadir khumm is clear, in the sharing of the spoils of war, men under Ali's command when not happy with a command they were given hence they began grumbling to the extent that Buraira spoke to Muhammad pbuh on the matter, apparently it appears the troops where still not happy despite the fact that the prophet pbuh had already spoken to them, hence he reiterated what he said earlier. that is the gist of the mawla business. as it is very clear that the Prophet pbuh would expressed the issue of leadership very clearly by saying after me Ali will be your leader.

Zhul-fiqar:

your ridicule make it sound as if the Prophet (sa) was running facebook,astaghfirullah.and this was at a time the Quran had declared believers as 'brothers'.yet the Prophet (sa) is (mis)interpeted by sunnis to be persistently telling muslims from the first day of his prophetic mission that Ali (as) is their 'friend'.

Now you invent another lie, where did the hadith points that the Prophet's first day of mission, he spoke of Ali as being their friend? is lying inherently shia in nature or are you trying hard to confuse your own self? lies upon lies would not guide you to the truth, Reading within the context of what happened, the ridicule would actually be coming from you , the Qur'an has already declared that believers are brothers, really what is this statement suppose to proof, that the prophet telling the believers that Ali is their friend was needless, this statement has again indicted your poor thinking, as the Qur'an declared that muslims should do good, yet the prophet also in both his actions and statement encouranged muslims to be good, in essence you are saying it was needless. please lets reason well, the Prophet reiterated what the Qur'an says.

Zhul-fiqar:

but you are the ones hiding details,playing with word and even to the extent of trying to conceal everything about the event in order that you may deny it or lessen its significance.

We all who has been lying and remixing Hadiths to prove an invalid point!

Zhul-fiqar:

from your words its like we are so evil that we killed everyone even our beloved ones.well,even if those who committed any crime at some point called themselves 'shia' and 'muslims',they were hypocrites.also in Islam,no man bears the sin of another man.so why hold me responsible for what you accuse other individuals of doing?the Quran says :'no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another'.

playing the victim here? read the curse that your lagoshit sorry lagoshia placed upon himself, one would conclude that shiasm can make people not only evol but mentally deranged! and quit playing the victim here, you are the ones claiming that sunnis changed the words of Allah's prophet's and then accuse me of concealing the words of prophet to prove a point. as for not bearing the burden of another, well your shia ancestors hold themselves responsible for the death of Hussain something that is continued till mordern date, in which people flog, injure themselves over a crime they "commit". Saying I am calling you evil is actually teaching you your religion which apparently you do not know, but in actual sense i did mean your shia ancestors, but since you want to be a victim at all cost, i chipped this in for you to know more! and it is surprising those who did the religion before appeared to be hypocrites and liars, as this thread says https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720037.0.html

Zhul-fiqar:

who is 'they'? Did i tell you i'm from kufa? The kufans claimed to be 'shia' but they proved to be hypocrites and traitors.they were bribed into submission or threatened by yazid's governor to betray Imam Hussain (as).

who said you the they, good you keep asserting that the first generation of shias where hypocrite and traitors casue that is what Ali, Hassan and Hussain thought of them https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720037.0.html

Zhul-fiqar:

you forgot to mention that she is the 'mother of the believers' that waged war and killed the believers in the battle of jamal.in other words she was a mother who killed her children.

So also was the Prophet whom Allah referred to as a mercy to mankind fought wars, does that change anything? since we agree that it does not change the fact the Muhammad pbuh was a mercy to manking, so also Aisha still remains mother of the believers, even if you lied that she killed millions of believers, it can not diminish the title because Allha himself refereed to as such, this war you referred to I hope you know Ali was involved in it? lying on the Mother of Believers that she waged war cast amongst the mould of the evils we know is associated with shias, as we know from history the battle was instigated by an accursed shia. So in esssence you are saying it is your right to insult Aisha, how accursed could one get, lets see what the prophet pbuh says about her:


Narrated Abu Salama:

'Aisha said, "Once Allah's Apostle said (to me), 'O Aish ('Aisha)! This is Gabriel greeting you.' I said, 'Peace and Allah's Mercy and Blessings be on him, you see what I don't see' " She was addressing Allah 's Apostle.

Sahih bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 112:




Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari:

Allah's Apostle said, "Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh. And the superiority of 'Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. an Arabic dish) to other meals."

Zhul-fiqar:

as earlier mentioned,the Prophet had said :'Ali is the master of all believers after me.

This is recorded in reliable sunni sources like 'sahih al-tirmidhi','sahih ibn habban' and 'al-nasai'.

as earlier mention Sahih is never used to qualify any other hadith except Bukhari and Muslim. and the above hadith is known to be weak!

Zhul-fiqar:

please people note the dishonesty above in how they changed the statement of Umar which goes as 'today you have BECOME the mawla of all believers'.as 'shiite' pointed out the word 'mawla' cannot mean 'friend' because how can Ali (as) 'become' in umar's expression when he was always?was Ali (as) their 'enemy' so as to 'become' their 'friend'?

People read the dishonesty here, the word special friend qualifies what he meant, if anything, well as for changing statement that is what occur in Tareekh al-Islam, sorry if it does not suit your fancy!

Zhul-fiqar:

but you dont see it as madness and repugnant when the bad companions fought and killed themselves with swords and committed crimes?you want to make them all look angelic.we love the good ones and speak against the bad ones.

Zhul-fiqar:

Infact why are you bringing in so many redherrings? You're changing the topic and raining insults.is it that frustrating?

the onyly bad ones worth cursing are the Hypocrical and traitorous followers of Ali, Hussian and Hassan whom we both confrimed are dishonest in character and whom Ali r.a , Hussain and Hassan actually condemed their characters https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720037.0.html

Zhul-fiqar:

'you do not utter a word but there is a guardian who records'.that is what the Quran says.so dont rush into misleading others and then end up laughing.you would be brought to account.

likewise, and in addition all those who curse the companions of Muhammad pbuh will be brought to account for their accursedness and those maniacs that go as far as insulting the wife Prophet pbuh will be made to face a shameful verdict on Yawm Al Qiyammah.


He only said "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the prophet ( peace be upon him ) had meant "whoever among you is under my leadership, he is also under the leadership of Ali", which is the meaning that the Shi`a understands, if the prophet had meant it as such, then there would be a big problem. Two leadership for the Muslim ummah at the time of the prophet ( peace be upon him ) does not make a lot of sense. Of course, the prophet did not mean it that way and also the companions at that time did not understand it that way, otherwise there would be a great fitnah. However, it is possible to have more than one mawla at the same time - to love, help and aid the prophet and to love help and aid Ali (rah).

As-Salaam ‘alaykum everyone,

It seems I have to correct something first. Brother LagosShia is NOT the same person as KwaraShia. I am KwaraShia. Just check the writing style of KwaraShia and compare it with mine here.

That said, let me now draw my attention to the claim of some people here. I presented a SaHeeH Sunnee Hadeeth which shows ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab congratulating Imaam ‘Alee (as) after the Ghadeer declaration, and suggesting that the noble Imaam was NOT the mawlaa of the believers before that day. Since Imaam ‘Alee (as) was a friend and helper of the believers before Ghadeer Khumm, it follows logically that the word could not have meant “friend” or “helper”. We are left with only one more meaning: master! I saw someone here twisting ‘Umar’s words! Laa Hawla wa laa kuwwata illaa billaah! That shows the extent to which people can descend simply to obscure the truth.

Worse still, that fellow attributed his distortion to al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer. But, this is really what al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer records in his al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol. 7, p. 350:

[size=14pt]وقال عبد الرزاق: أنا معمر عن علي بن زيد بن جدعان، عن عدي بن ثابت، عن البراء بن عازب قال: خرجنا مع رسول الله حتى نزلنا غدير خم بعث مناديا ينادي، فلما اجتمعا قال: " ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله ! قال: ألست أولى بكم من أمهاتكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله قال: ألست أولى بكم من آبائكم؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله ! قال: ألست ألست ألست؟ قلنا: بلى يا رسول الله قال: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه وعاد من عاداه " فقال عمر بن الخطاب: هنيئا لك يا ابن أبي طالب أصبحت اليوم ولي كل مؤمن
.
وكذا رواه ابن ماجة من حديث حماد بن سلمة عن علي بن زيد وأبي هارون العبدي عن عدي بن ثابت عن البراء به. وهكذا رواه موسى بن عثمان الحضرمي عن أبي إسحاق عن البراء به. وقد روي هذا الحديث عن سعد وطلحة بن عبيد الله وجابر بن عبد الله وله طرق عنه وأبي سعيد الخدري وحبشي بن جنادة وجرير بن عبد الله وعمر بن الخطاب وأبي هريرة.[/size]

Although Ibn Katheer too doctored the wording of Ibn Majah (from whom he allegedly copied this Hadeeth) and replaced mawlaa with walee, the meaning remains the same. The red part above means:

‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab said: “Congratulations to you O son of Aboo Taalib! TODAY, you have become the Walee of all believers.”

Ibn Katheer goes ahead to show that the following SaHaabah have narrated this particular incident:

1. Al-Baraa
2. Sa’d
3. TalHa bin ‘Ubayd Allaah
4. Jaabir bin ‘Abd Allaah
5. Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree
6. Habashee bin Junaadah
7. Jareer bin ‘Abd Allaah
8. ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab
9. Aboo Hurayrah

This confirms the tawaatur of that narration, and leaves any doubters with no option.

Imaam al-Suyutee exposes Ibn Katheer’s distortion in his al-Haawee, vol. 1, p. 78:

[size=14pt]وأخرج أحمد، وابن ماجه عن البراء بن عازب قال: (كنا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم في سفر فنزلنا بغدير خم فنودي فينا الصلاة جامعة فصلى الظهر وأخذ بيد علي فقال, فلقيه عمر بعد ذلك فقال له: (هنيئاً لك يا ابن أبي طالب أصبحت وأمسيت مولى كل مؤمن ومؤمنة([/size]

AHmad and Ibn Majah narrated that al-Baraa bin ‘Aazib said: “…. ’Umar met ‘Alee after it (the declaration) and said to him: ‘Congratulations to you O son of Aboo Taalib! You have become the mawlaa of all male and female believers.”

In other words, once again, Imaam ‘Alee (as) was NOT the mawlaa of the believers BEFORE Ghadeer Khumm. He only became their mawlaa on that day! If the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was only talking about friendship, then ‘Umar’s words have no meaning! Imaam ‘Alee (as) did not become the friend of the believers on that day! Every single believer is a friend and helper of the others.

Moreover, why did ‘Umar need to congratulate Imaam ‘Alee (as) on something that he already was?! Why did the Prophet raise the hands of the Imaam (as) only to say “he is your buddy”??! Raising the hand, in all cultures, is a nomination. If you are a leader, and you raise the hand of someone in front of the people, it is a nomination. Why would the Prophet seek to confuse people by doing that, when he only intended to say “he is your buddy”?

The final point here is in the words of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family:
[size=14pt]
ألست أولى بكم من أنفسكم[/size]

Am I not more entitled (awlaa) to you than yourselves?

In Arabic, the word mawlaa has a number of meanings: master, friend, helper, freed slave, slave-owner, etc. However, whenever the word mawlaa means master, it is always derived from the root awlaa. Whosoever is awlaa is also the mawlaa, and this means master.

By saying the words above, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was reminding the believers that he was their mawlaa, in the sense of absolute master. Imaam al-Shawkaanee in his FatH al-Qadeer, vol. 4, p. 261, explains what mawlaa in the sense of awlaa means:
[size=14pt]
يجب عليهم أن يطيعوه فوق طاعتهم لأنفسهم[/size]

It becomes obligatory upon them to obey him above their own wishes.

This is the explanation of the mufassiroon of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah, under Qur’aan 33:6.

Therefore, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, is the mawlaa of the believers only in the sense of an absolute master. To avoid any confusion on the meaning of mawlaa in his words, this was why he asked the above question, meaning: Am I not your mawlaa in the sense of absolute master? They said: Yes. Then he says: Whomsoever I am his mawlaa, this ‘Alee is his mawlaa!

Do we need anything more? Do these people think the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, asked that question just for fun?

Yes, Imaam ‘Alee (as) became the mawlaa of the believers during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. This confirms the Hadeeth which says that Imaam ‘Alee (as) was of the same rank to our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was Prophet Haaroon (as) was to Prophet Moosaa (as). Prophet Haaroon (as) was the master of the Banoo Israaeel too along with Prophet Moosaa (as). However, as long as Prophet Moosaa (as) was around, his (Haaroon’s) authority becomes suspended. When Moosaa (as) went to meet his Lord, Prophet Haaroon (as) became his Khaleefah. Yes, there can be two mawlaas for the believers at a time. But the authority of one of them will hang as long as the most senior mawlaa is still around or alive.

Finally, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, further explained the meaning of his words in Hadeeth al-Ghadeer. Imaam al-Tayaalisee in his Musnad, vol. 1, p. 360, # 2752 records this SaHeeH Hadeeth:

[size=14pt]حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي بَلْجٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ (ص) قَالَ لِعَلِيٍّ: أَنْتَ وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ بَعْدِي.[/size]

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbaas:

Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said to ‘Alee: “You are the Walee of all believers after me.”

Shaykh al-Albaanee grades the Hadeeth as SaHeeH in his al-SaHeeHah, vol. 5, p. 222, # 2223. To get the correct meaning of Walee, let us cite Ibn Katheer. Ibn Katheer records in al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, vol. 6, p. 301 that when Aboo Bakr became the caliph, he said:

[size=14pt]لَمَّا وُلِّيَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى عَنْهُ، خَطَبَ النَّاسُ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ، ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ، أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَقَدْ وُلِّيتُكُمْ وَلَسْتُ بِخَيْرِكُمْ . وهذا إسناد صحيح.[/size]

When Aboo Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, became the Walee, he delivered a sermon. After praising Allaah, he said: “Now then, O people! I have been made your Walee while I am not the best of you.” This chain is SaHeeH.

This settles the matter completely.

vedaxcool:

like I said earlier as twisting hadiths to suit your fancy will get you nowhere indeed! as you have just proven only what suits your fancy is credible, anything else must be aforgery or ignoring details!.

what you presented from "tarekh al-islam" is not a hadith.it is a statement by the author based on sunni misinterpretation of the event of ghadir khumm.those words in the statement were not spoken by the Prophet (sa).
So accusing me that I only accept hadiths that I “fancy| does not make sense in this case because you’re not presenting a hadith that supposedly contain the Prophet’s words but a statement and interpretation from a particular POV by a sunni author of history.

Also,you should use the same yardstick on yourself and be honest.you reject hadiths found in the “sihah sittah” of the sunnis that support the shia POV when I present them.you reject your reliable hadiths.but here you went to “tarekh al-islam” to bring an interpretation.

Would you accept if I bring you an interpretation from a history book written by a shia on many contentious shia/sunni issues?no you wouldn’t.so why would I accept the views of a sunni author?

oh boy! this guy is misrepresenting the issue to win bumble bee points, yet again you engaging in treacherous falsehood! as in the sunni context, the Mawla issue started right after the Yemen battle, it is funny how you keep obscuring the issues at hand, the matter leading up to Ghadir khumm is clear, in the sharing of the spoils of war, men under Ali's command when not happy with a command they were given hence they began grumbling to the extent that Buraira spoke to Muhammad pbuh on the matter, apparently it appears the troops where still not happy despite the fact that the prophet pbuh had already spoken to them, hence he reiterated what he said earlier. that is the gist of the mawla business. as it is very clear that the Prophet pbuh would expressed the issue of leadership very clearly by saying after me Ali will be your leader.

First if the Prophet (sa) was “reiterating” ,why did Umar congratulated Imam Ali (as) and tell him that “you have BECOME the mawla of every believer”?so it was on that day that Ali (as) started becoming your so called “friend” with the believers?what the Ali (as) “BECOME” that he was not before? just  “friend”?

Secondly,the sequence of the speech by the Prophet (sa) does not support your “friend” interpretation.mawla is a word with deep meanings.if it was just “friendship” the Quran guarantees Imam Ali (as) more than “friendship” from the believers.the Quran makes it compulsory on every muslim to LOVE him as he is of the “near ones” of the Prophet (sa).the Quran says:”O Muhammad say:I aski you muslims of no reward except the LOVE of my near ones”.

also,the revelations of two verses from the Quran relevant to the occasion shows the significance of the event.

Now you invent another lie, where did the hadith points that the Prophet's first day of mission, he spoke of Ali as being their friend? is lying inherently shia in nature or are you trying hard to confuse your own self? lies upon lies would not guide you to the truth, Reading within the context of what happened, the ridicule would actually be coming from you ,

We shall see who the “liar” is .you have just shot yourself on the foot again by revealing your ignorance.your hate is based on ignorance.i will present you other occasions where the word “mawla” was used for Imam Ali (as) and Ali’s leadership after the Prophet (sa) was declared by the Prophet (sa).i will present you 3 events that took place where the Prophet declared Ali (as) to be his successor and the leader of muslims after the Prophet (sa) is dead.the first instance is when the Prophet declared his prophethood which you are not aware of as apparent from your statement quoted.i will present these events to shock you of how the truth is concealed from you while they rests within the pages of your books.in my subsequent post,I will present the 3 events.

at ghadir khum,you lie that it was because of the uneasiness that the Prophet from the battle in yemen that the Prophet (sa) made his declaration.i posed the question to you that if it was because of the battle in yemen,then what would you say about the other occasions the Prophet (sa) made similar statements about Ali’s (as) succession even before the yemen mission was embarked on?what is the excuse?

Also you keep saying that if the Prophet (sa) wanted to declare Ali (as) successor in a formal event as happened in ghadir khumm,he would have done so during the hajj.first hajj is a significant event on its own,so there is need for the event Ali (as) would be made successor to also be significant on its own and in its own right.thus we saw what happened at Ghadir Khumm.

Secondly,If we examine closely the excuses the sunnis give,we come to understand the Prophet’s wisdom in making his declaration at ghadir khumm and not during the hajj.when the Prophet ward off comments against Ali (as) in Makkah by Buraida as the hadiths you gave show,it was because of yemen that buraida was reminded the position of Ali (as).if the Prophet (sa),had gone on to make the same declaration during the hajj,or when people were still in makkah,you would still have said it was because of what happened during the yemen expedition.

But does it make sense for the Prophet (sa) to gather people and make a speech in the middle of the desert in another location (at Ghadir Khumm far away from Makkah),and at another day,and you still tell us it was because of the yemen expedition and what happened,again? Haba,this yemen excuse is exhausted!try another!!!that is why I want to give you instances before the yemen expedition and before the farewell pilgrimage where and when the Prophet made similar declarations that Ali (as) would succeed him to see what further excuses and lies you’d tell us.

the Qur'an has already declared that believers are brothers, really what is this statement suppose to proof, that the prophet telling the believers that Ali is their friend was needless, this statement has again indicted your poor thinking, as the Qur'an declared that muslims should do good, yet the prophet also in both his actions and statement encouranged muslims to be good, in essence you are saying it was needless. please lets reason well, the Prophet reiterated what the Qur'an says.

No sir!the analogy does not hold.the Quran had declared that “believers are brothers” then the Prophet (sa) come up to tell them that they are “friends”.”friendship” or “brotherhood” which is more binding?.not only that,the Prophet (sa) made an entire speech in Ghadir Khumm after he had already addressed the issue in makkah,to again tell them Ali (as) was their “friend” again?

Do you know why it does make sense furthermore?even if I am to go by your excuse that the Prophet (sa) was “reirterating “ goodness,it still does not make excuse for the Prophet’s action at ghadir khumm and wordings.

The verse of “mawaddah” in the Quran had already being revealed also.the verse says:”(O Muhammad,tell them: I ask no reward from you except the love of my near ones”.

The verse of mawaddah makes it compulsory on the muslims to LOVE Ali (as).so when such a much deeper connection exists,why would Ali (as) be made a “friend”? it doesn’t make sense.these reasons all show that what happened at Ghadir Khumm and the declaration made by the Prophet had a more significant meaning.

So those companions were going outrightly against the Quran if you say there was “hate” for Ali (as) among them and you try to paint it as if they were going to chop his neck off.or you are saying that when the Prophet (sa) made the imposing statement “of whom I am his mawla Ali is his mawla.may Allah support those who support him and be hostile to those hostile to him” in makkah and later on at ghadir khumm that was nepotism.why would the Prophet (sa) make such a statement in a gathering at an event after the pilgrimage had ended (since complaints were said to have being made in Makkah) that shuts all criticism of Ali (as) in an absolute way rather than address the complaints of some people?
I must ask this because “friendship” does not mean we cant have misunderstandings or atimes be wrong.”friendship” does not put us beyond criticism and scrutiny.but apparently,by the reaction of the Prophet (sa) Ali (as) was not to be criticized.why?
the Prophet (sa) could have looked into the complaints and settle the differences as his justice is known for.what the Prophet (sa) was doing was to tell those with “complaints” to shut up absolutely if that was the reason the event at Ghadir Khumm took place.when they complained,he replied them with with an angry look :”don’t you know Ali is the mawla of every believer”? yet still,for such thing to happen,Ali (as) must truly be more than the position of “friend’ you are trying to give him.this shows that the importance of Ali (as) in the eyes of the Prophet is beyond criticism by those men. That can either be interpreted as something justified for the person Ali (as) as someone demanding reverence and loyalty and obedience by muslims or you are telling me the Prophet (sa) was acting on his own and being biased because Ali (as) was someone he “favored”.to us the Prophet does not speak out of his desires as the Quran informs us of the high morality of the Prophet (sa).

vedaxcool:

We all who has been lying and remixing Hadiths to prove an invalid point!

you didnt present a hadith from "tareekh al-islam".you presented an "interpretation" by the author to suit your POV.

who said you the they, good you keep asserting that the first generation of shias where hypocrite and traitors casue that is what Ali, Hassan and Hussain thought of them https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720037.0.html

everywhere there are good and bad believers.that is why an entire chapter of the Holy Quran is called "al-Munafiqun" ("the hypocrites".so even among followers of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself you had hypocrites.so that does not make all followers "hypocrites".or because there is a chapter of the Quran called al-munafiqun,should i also accuse you as a muslim of being a hypocrite?

So also was the Prophet whom Allah referred to as a mercy to mankind fought wars, does that change anything?

The Prophet (sa) never fought muslims.he never enchanged in a civil war.the battle Aisha fought was against believers.it was a civil war.

since we agree that it does not change the fact the Muhammad pbuh was a mercy to manking, so also Aisha still remains mother of the believers, even if you lied that she killed millions of believers, it can not diminish the title because Allha himself refereed to as such, this war you referred to I hope you know Ali was involved in it? lying on the Mother of Believers that she waged war cast amongst the mould of the evils we know is associated with shias, as we know from history the battle was instigated by an accursed shia. So in esssence you are saying it is your right to insult Aisha, how accursed could one get, lets see what the prophet pbuh says about her: [/b]

Aisha is the “mother of the believers” as a verse of the Quran tells us.when the verse is read in context Aisha is refered to as such,in order to prohibit muslims from marrying the wives of the Prophet (sa) after his death.it does no place any angelic status.being a “mother of the believers” simply means muslims cannot marry her.it does not even give her the status of “Iya Loja”.

Read about the [b]BATTLE OF THE CAMEL [/b]that Aisha fought and killed the believers.

vedaxcool:


playing the victim here? read the curse that your lagoshit sorry lagoshia placed upon himself, one would conclude that shiasm can make people not only evol but mentally deranged! and quit playing the victim here, you are the ones claiming that sunnis changed the words of Allah's prophet's and then accuse me of concealing the words of prophet to prove a point. as for not bearing the burden of another, well your shia ancestors hold themselves responsible for the death of Hussain something that is continued till mordern date, in which people flog, injure themselves over a crime they "commit". Saying I am calling you evil is actually teaching you your religion which apparently you do not know, but in actual sense i did mean your shia ancestors, but since you want to be a victim at all cost, i chipped this in for you to know more! and it is surprising those who did the religion before appeared to be hypocrites and liars, as this thread says https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720037.0.html

LagosShia:

May Allah's curse (la'na),anger (ghadab) and severe punishment (azab) be upon the usurpers of the khilafa and upon the first to last oppressor of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and upon the supporters of the oppressors and their followers who deny the rights of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and belittle their position till the day of judgement and forever so thereafter in the fire of jahannam.may Allah punish the killers of Ali,Fatima and Hassan and Hussain.may Allah's punishment also be upon those who are pleased with the injustice and oppression done to the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and those who keep silent about it and conceal the truth.may Allah deprive those who oppress the Ahlul-Bayt (as) in word or deed the intercession of Muhammad (sa).ameen ya Rabbal-alameen!

AMEEN!

EVIDENCE OF THREE SITUATIONS WHERE IMAM ALI (as) WAS DECLARED MASTER (MAWLA) OF THE BELIEVERS AND SUCCESSOR TO THE PROPHET (SA) BEFORE THE EVENT AT GHADIR KHUMM.


1st situation:

The classical Sunnee Hadeeth scholar, ‘Amr bin Abee ‘Aasim (d. 242 H), records Hadeeth al-Khilaafah in his al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 603 as follows:



حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى، حَدَّثَ نَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَوَانَةَ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سُلَيْمٍ أَبِي بَلْجٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ:



وَخَرَجَ النَّاسُ فِي غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ، فَقَالَ عَلِيٌّ: أَخْرُجُ مَعَكَ، قَالَ: "لا"، قَالَ: فَبَكَى، قَالَ: "أَفَلا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى، إِلا أَنَّكَ لَسْتَ بِنَبِيٍّ، وَأَنْتَ خَلِيفَتِي فِي كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ مِنْ بَعْدِي".

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbaas:

The people went out (to join the Prophet) in the Tabook expedition. So, ‘Alee said (to the Prophet): “Should I come with you?” He (the Prophet) said: “No.” Then ‘Alee wept. At this, the Prophet said: “Are you not pleased to hold the same rank to me as Haaroon held to Moosaa, except that you are not a prophet? And you are my Khaleefah among all believers after me.”

further SUNNI references:
Manaqib, Khawarizmi, chap. 9, pp. 59.Ibn Majah, Sunan, Volume 1 Page 45, Cairo, 1952 CE.Manaqib, Khawarizmi, chap. 14, pp. 86.Manaqib,Khawarizmi, chap. 13, pp. 76.Dhakhad'ir- al-'uqba. p. 63.al-Fusul al-muhimmah, p. 21.Kifayat al-talib of Kaoji Shafi'l, Najaf, 1356,pp. l48-154.Khasa'is, pp. 19–25.Sawa'iq al-muhriqah, p. l77

2ND SITUATION: WHEN THE PROPHET (sa) ANNOUNCED HIS MISSION TO HIS CLAN

The First Explicit Appointment of Imam Ali (as)
Islam began when the Prophet became 40 years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islam, the Prophet was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when Almighty Allãh revealed the verse "And warn thy nearest relations." (26:214)

When this verse was revealed, the Prophet organized a feast which is known as "the Feast of the Clan" (da'wat dhi 'l-'ashíra). This is the first time that the Prophet openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of Allãh. It is also the same feast in which the Prophet declared 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib very openly, very clearly, and very explicitly as his successor and caliph. I will just summarize what the Prophet said:

O Sons of 'Abdu 'l-Muttalib! By Allãh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhí), my successor (wasiyyí) and my caliph (khalifatí)?

The Prophet (s.a.w.) used the words "my brother, my successor, my caliph". This is as explicit as it can get in the very first call to Islam! No one answered except 'Ali bin Abi Tãlib who was only around fifteen years old at that time. The Prophet called 'Ali closer to himself, patted his neck, and said:

"Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you. Therefore, listen to him and obey."[67]

This is very explicit because the audience understand the appointment of 'Ali very clearly. Some of them, including Abu Lahab, even joked with Abu Tãlib that your nephew, Muhammad, has ordered you to listen to and obey your own son! At the least, this shows that the appointment was clear and explicit, not just implied.

The greatest proof of the explicit nature of this appointment at the very early stage of Prophet Muhammad's mission is the attempt by Sunni writers to conceal the words used by the Prophet. For example, the famous Muslim historian, Ibn Jarír at-Tabari (d. 310 AH), has recorded this incident with the crucial words intact in his Ta'ríkhu 'l-Umam wa 'l-Mulûk. The 1879 edition of his Ta'ríkh, published in Leiden (Netherlands) has the words: ", this is my brother, my successor and my caliph, " But when it came to at-Tabari's Tafsír, while commenting on the verse 26:214, at-Tabari himself or the editors have changed the words as follows: ", this is my brother, and so-and-so, "

All these attempts to delete the whole incident from the pages of history or change the crucial words "my successor and my caliph" into "so-and-so" clearly shows that those terms were very explicit in supporting the appointment of Imam 'Ali as the successor of the Prophet. If it had been otherwise, then there was no need on the part of our opponents to hide or change these words.

the above mentioned feast is cited in sunni references:
Sahih Muslim, v3, pp 79-80,Sahih Muslim, v3, p79-80

3RD SITUATION:EVENT CITED BY THE HOLY QURAN

Certainly your Master is ,

     Certainly your Master is Allah and His Messenger and those who
     believe who eshtablish prayer and give charity while they bow.
     And who ever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe
     as a guardian, so surely the party of Allah will be victorious.
     (Quran 5:55-56)

It is unanimous that the verse descended about Imam Ali (AS) when he gave
away in charity his ring while he was in a state of kneeling in his prayer.
This is also authenticated successively according to the 12 Imams. Here are
some of the Shi'ite references

- Bihar al-Anwar, by Allama Majlisi
- Tafseer al-Mizan, by Allama Tabatabai
- Tafseer al-Kashaf, by Allama Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah
- al-Ghadir, by Allama Abdul Husain Ahmad al-Amini
- Asbat al-Hudate, by Allama Muhammad Ibn Hasan Amuli

But for the sake of the readers I shall produce some Sunni references, and
traditions in this respect through other sources. Many Sunni commentators
of the Quran confirm the fact that the above verse descended on the honor
of Imam Ali (AS) and many Sunni scholars have also mentioned the unanimity
or consensus of opinion in their books. Here are some references in this
regard:

(1) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ahmad Ibn Muhammad al-Tha'labi, under Verse 5:55
(2) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v6, pp 186,288-289
(3) Tafsir Jamiul Hukam al-Quran, by Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Qurtubi, v6, p219
(4) Tafsir al-Khazin, v2, p68
(5) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, pp 293-294
(6) Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, Egypt 1373, v1, pp 505,649
(7) Asbab al-Nuzool, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, Egypt 1382, v1, p73 on the
    authority of Ibn Abbas
( Asbab al-Nuzool, by al-Wahidi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
(9) Sharh al-Tjrid, by Allama Qushji
(10) Ahkam al-Quran, al-Jassas, v2, pp 542-543
(11) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v5, p38
(12) Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, p391, Tradition #5991
(13) al-Awsat, by Tabarani, narrated from Ammar Yasir
(14) Ibn Mardawayh, on the authority of Ibn Abbas
,  and more.

There is also a tradition related by Ibn Salam whose chain of sources rises
up to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) himself. Please refer to the Sahih of Nisa'i or
the commentary of Sura Ma'idah in Jam'a Bayn al-Sihah al-Sittah.

In Ghayah al-Maram, p18, Sayyid al-Bahrayni forwards twenty four (24)
traditions from sources other than the Ahlul-Bayt, all supporting the above
fact.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to confine my self to a tradition
occuring in the commentary of the Quran by Abi Is'haq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad
ibn Ibrahim Nisaboori al-Tha'labi. A few comments on the respected
personality: He died in 337 AH and Ibn Khallikan gives an account of his
death saying: "He was unique as a commentator of the Quran and his Tafsir
al-Kabir is superior to all other interpretations."

When he reached this verse he recorded this in his Tafsir al-Kabir on the
authority of Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, who said:

     Both of my ears may turn deaf and both of my eyes may become blind if
     I speak a lie. I heard the Messenger of Allah, Allah's blessings and
     peace be upon him and his posterity, saying, "Ali is the guide of the
     righteous and the slayer of the infidels. he who has helped him is
     victorious and he who has abandoned him is forsaken." One day I said
     my prayers in the company of the Prophet. A beggar came to the mosque
     and begged for alms, but nobody gave him anything. Ali was in a state
     of kneeling in the prayer. He pointed out his ring to the beggar, who
     appraoched him and removed the ring from his finger. Thereupon the
     Prophet, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him and his posterity,
     implored Allah the Mighty and Glorious, saying: "O Allah! My brother
     Moses begged you saying, 'My Lord, delight my heart and make my task
     easy and undo the knot in my tongue so that they may understand me,
     and appoint from my kinsmen, Haroon, my brother, as my vizier, and
     strenghthen my back with him and make him participate in my mission so
     that we may glorify You and remember You more frequently. Certainly
     You see us.' And You inspired him: 'O Musa! All your requests have
     been granted.' O Allah! I am your slave and your prophet. Delight my
     heart and make my task easy and appoint from among my kinsmen Ali as
     my vizier and strengthen my back with him."

     Abu Dhar, then, proceeded

     By Allah, the Messenger of Allah, Allah's blessings and peace be upon
     him and his posterity had not yet finished his supplication when the
     trustworthy Gabriel descended to him with this Verse

     "Certainly Allah is Your Master, and His Prophet and those who believe
     who establish prayer and give charity while they bow. And whoever
     takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe as a guardian, so
     surely the party of Allah will be victorious."

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Tha'labi under the commentary of
                 verses 5:55-56 of Quran.


========================================
A few comments by the other Commentators
========================================
Allama al-Tabarsi, while commenting on this verse in Majma' al-Bayan
states: "The plural form has been used for Ali, Commander of the faithful,
in order to express his honor and eminence." And masters of the Arabic
language use the plural form for an individual to show respect.

Allama al-Zamakshari in his Tafsir al-Kashshaf, has mentioned another nice
point which is as follows:

     If you inquire how this plural word is applicable to Ali, may Allah be
     gracious to him, who is an individual, I shall say that though this
     verse is about Ali, an individual, the plural form is used in order to
     presuade others to act similarly and to give alms as readily as Ali
     did. There is also an implied instruction that the faithful should
     keep themselves always on the look out for occasions of acts of
     sympathy, benevolence and charity to the poor and the needy, and
     readily do the needful without waiting till the completion of even so
     important a duty as saying a prayer.

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p649

Please refer to the Part II of the article of Ghadir Khum for further
argument in this regard.

When did they change the name to eid al ghadir.

It used to be eid el kabir.

@Zhur figar: Islam is an advise. As I will advise everyone and myself, be mindful of what you say about the consort[s] of the messenger [as].


Or is there a man you respect more than Muhammad [as], while you disrespect the wives of the prophet, you will regard any woman on earth? No one should let his emotion run over without realizing that the only man that is dearest each muslim is Muhammad and therefore his wives who are the people that will not have to knock before they enter his bedroom, while others must need to be accorded respect. I do not find the wives of the messenger neglectful of their duties to Allah after the death of the messenger.

I often say, as I said when I lost something, if Muhammad [as] said it, Allah must have ordered him. Hence, the war within his household after him was predicted and if Aisha [ra] was not fit for a wife, he would have divorced her because Allah would have commanded it, and we all know that Allah is not shy and He did not command him.

Alhamdulillah. I was not created at the beginning of the Islam of Muhammad that I have to worry about which two camps of believers [muminu, not just muslims where you have hypocrites; munafiquun]. This is my time. All I have to do is to be the best msulim i can be, doing good deeds and trying hard to not do bad deeds.

No one leads this nation of Muslims but Muhammad [as]. I will follow anyone that follows Muhammad in matters of Islam. If any muslim does not follow him in any matter, i will not follow that muslim in matter he differs. Allah says to obey Muhammad and follow him and by this, Allah will love such a person. I don't think insulting and disrespecting his wife are signs of obeying and following Muhammad [as].

If I were a divorce man, if I learned that my friend is badmouthing my ex spouse, I will be unhappy because how dare he/her to talk ill of her.

@Sweetnecta
please try to be objective.this isn't about emotions,desire and preferences.do your research and know the truth.The Quran says only the knowledgeable understands it.

tpia@:

When did they change the name to eid al ghadir.

It used to be eid el kabir.

LOL
Are you for real?
Where did you read anyone talking about changing name?

Eid al-kabir (also known as eid al-adha) and eid al-ghadir are two separate and different occassions.

tpia@:

When did they change the name to eid al ghadir.

It used to be eid el kabir.

LOL
Are you for real?
Where did you read anyone talking about changing name?

Eid al-kabir (also known as eid al-adha) and eid al-ghadir are two separate and different occassions.

[Quote]« #82 on: Today at 05:13:22 PM »

@Sweetnecta
please try to be objective.this isn't about emotions,desire and preferences.do your research and know the truth.The Quran says only the knowledgeable understands it.
[/Quote]My dear brother, if Allah says no one has the right to marry the consorts of the messenger [as], then no one has the right to stump or tramp on them [ra]. Incidentally, they are the only women on earth that Allah declared that they were beyond the reach of any man after our beloved messenger [as].

If you considered them making mistakes, then you should not for that insult them so that it is a mistake on your part. There is no man that will allow anyone insult his wife. If Allah did not see good in them, He would divorced them from the messenger. And if the messenger was chased until he married his first wife [ra], and was willing to be single up to the time he remarried, and continued to be intimate only with women he was legally married to, even though permission was given that captives as possession are legal, then I say that the messenger must have seen abundance of good in his wives, that he did not divorce Aisha, Afsat, etc [ra].

He remained married to them, even as he foretold the inevitable war that will be fought between muslims; Ali [ra] and Aisha [ra] in opposite camps. Let us restrict ourselves.

None of his wives is like the wives of Prophet Noah and Lut [as].

Sweetnecta:

My dear brother, if Allah says no one has the right to marry the consorts of the messenger [as], then no one has the right to stump or tramp on them [ra]. Incidentally, they are the only women on earth that Allah declared that they were beyond the reach of any man after our beloved messenger [as].

first you are trying to drag us away from the topic."vedaxcool" started out by pulling redherrings including this issue on Aisha.we are discussing here a more important and fundamental doctrine in the Shia school of thought than whether we should hate or love Aisha.the issue of successorship to the Prophet Muhammad (sa) is the basis of all the shia-sunni differences.if we hate Aisha,the event at Ghadir Khumm takes precedence and sets the pace for which if Aisha rebels against the order at Ghadir Khumm she would/should be condemned.i would anyways reply you on the topic of Aisha.but please let us try to stick to the topic after this if you have something to contribute.i do not have to curse or hate anyone in order that i be a Shia.it is not compulsory that I must curse.i can only absolve myself and vindicate myself from that person and that can be done in the heart and could be expressed with words.i just have to obey and believe in Islam and what Allah (swt) through His Prophet (sa) commanded;in particular to be a Shia you must believe in the wilayah (divine authority given to Imam Ali after the Prophet).this can be described as "imamate" of the 12 Imams (as).wilayah/imamate is in addition to other Islamic beliefs like shahada,salat,sawm,hajj,zakat, and many more outlined in the Holy Quran and taught by the Prophet (sa).

As for the issue about Aisha,this isn't an issue about "them".this has to do with the precedence set by the Prophet (sa).it is to preserve the honor of the Prophet (sa).marriage includes intimacy.therefore muslim men having something intimate with the wives of their Prophet (sa) is forbidden and seen as indecent.that is that.even if any of them happens to be evil and rebellious and destined for the hell fire,it is forbidden to marry her after the Prophet (sa).so this is honor to prophethood.

If you considered them making mistakes, then you should not for that insult them so that it is a mistake on your part. There is no man that will allow anyone insult his wife. If Allah did not see good in them, He would divorced them from the messenger. And if the messenger was chased until he married his first wife [ra], and was willing to be single up to the time he remarried, and continued to be intimate only with women he was legally married to, even though permission was given that captives as possession are legal, then I say that the messenger must have seen abundance of good in his wives, that he did not divorce Aisha, Afsat, etc [ra].

He remained married to them, even as he foretold the inevitable war that will be fought between muslims; Ali [ra] and Aisha [ra] in opposite camps. Let us restrict ourselves.

There were wives who were good and we honor them.Aisha and Hafsat were not the only wives.

Also,the Prophet (sa) “foretelling” there would be a war does not vindicate those who commit crimes.what you have not mentioned is that the Prophet (sa) warned Aisha in details not to embark on such war.what she did was to disobey the order of the Prophet (sa).she,as a widow,embarked on a war she was told not to by her late husband and she left her house where she was supposed to take shelter.that led to killings of muslims and dividing them.

We do not “insult” anyone.i do not see why when we condemn someone for disobeying the Prophet (sa) you see that as an insult.should we praise someone for disobeying the Prophet (sa)?we can’t!

Aisha must gain the forgiveness of her husband (sa) and her Creator (swt).until,that happens after Qiyama and judgement,Aisha is not someone that is praiseworthy in our view.for now,she did something after the death of the Prophet (sa) that broke his order.until,Qiyama we would continue to condemn what she did and with our pure intentions of upholding the command of the Prophet (sa) and standing against disobeying the Prophet (sa) by whosoever it may be,we will continue to condemn anyone who has disobeyed the Prophet or will disobey the Prophet (sa) and we would continue to gain “thawab” (reward) from that sincere action which stems from a clean and pure intention.someone cannot be remembered and praised when there is heinous crime committed.

In Sunnism,revolting against the “ruler” is punishable by death and makes the person a “kafir”.you should be fair enough to be just like our Prophet (sa) taught us justice.it is recorded in your hadith that the Prophet (sa) said :”if Fatima the daughter of Muhammad is to steal,I will cut off her hand”.be fair enough to admit that when Aisha waged war against Imam Ali (as),Imam Ali (as) was holding the caliphate and was recognized even by sunnis to be the legitimate ruler.so what judgement would any sunni judge pass on Aisha if the time favors it and she was to be tried?what would the Prophet (sa) have done?we cannot be pleased at someone who displeases the Prophet (sa).it is as simple as that.until whatever happens after Qiyama,we would continue to be displeased at anyone who has displeased our beloved Prophet (sa).is that too hard to understand?or do you want to act as the judge and “forgive” and rain mercy upon those who have gone against the Prophet (sa) by disobeying his will?what would any sane person do?what position would you take?


Furthermore,in Islam a mother that kills her own children is to be sentenced to death.Aisha,the “mother of the believers” fought a war that led to the death of the believers.

Even afterall said and Imam Ali (as) himself had being matyred,Aisha did not cease from showing her hate for the house of Ali (as).she went on to prevent Imam Hussain (as) from burying his brother,Imam Hassan (as),close to his grandfather,the Prophet Muhammad (sa),because Aisha refused to have his body to be buried in “her house” where the grave of the Prophet (sa) is.this is at a time,Muawiya’s men were raining down arrows on the funeral procession of Imam Hassan (as).now you can try to rewrite history and try hard to right the wrong action of Aisha.Sunnis try to understand the “good intention” from the bad action of the some people they revere like Aisha.as the saying goes:”the highway to hell is paved with good intentions”.

None of his wives is like the wives of Prophet Noah and Lut [as].

That is the funniest thing you said.i see that as a “pre-emptive” attack.but it is useless!do you know why?after you have given all the glory to Aisha because she was one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and reading your words on Aisha,she seemed to have become angelic and a “prophetess” herself just for that (being the wife of the Prophet),you end up shooting yourself in the foot.how?in the above you bring evidence from the Quran and cite the two wives of the two prophets (Lot and Noah (as) who are explicitly said to be destined for hell fire in the Holy Quran.so afterall being a wife of a prophet does not exempt her from going to hell.it is common logic.

If you can convince me that all that history records of Aisha makes her any different from the rebellious and disobedient wives of Lot and Noah (as),then I am ready to hear you out.

lol mr shite brought a cocktale of lies, farbricatd hadiths and ilogical reasonings and cotradtns to prove hs mawla clai

It is obvious to us now that the Sunnees on this forum who sought to call the Ghadeer incident a lie have backed down. They have seen that the event is undeniable. No matter what amount of Qiyaas is adopted to create doubt about it, it remains unassailable.

Another point that seems clear is that the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah have been completely dumbfounded by ‘Umar’s congratulations to Imaam ‘Alee (as) immediately after the declaration. ‘Umar bin al-KhaTTaab specifically and explicitly stated that Imaam ‘Alee (as) was assuming a NEW status that day. This makes all the acrobatics of the Ahl al-Sunnah on the meaning of the Ghadeer declaration a mere comical relief. No matter what they say, ‘Umar is always refuting them!

Finally, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, specifically identified Imaam ‘Alee (as) as the immediate Walee after him, and the Hadeeth is SaHeeH in the Sunnee books. I have already cited the reference, and Shaykh al-Albaanee’s grading. That puts Hadeeth al-Ghadeer in its proper context. Plus, by emphasizing that he was awlaa to the believers, our noble Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was re-iterating the kind of mawlaa he was to the believers: an absolute master. He then declared Imaam ‘Alee (as) as being the same kind of mawlaa to the believers. I have discussed all these things above. There is no need to repeat them here.

What I want to discuss here, first and foremost, is the instruction given by the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, to the SaHaabah concerning their new mawlaa, Imaam ‘Alee (as). Imaam al-Haakim, one of the most classical Sunnee Hadeethists, records this SaHeeH Hadeeth in his al-Mustadrak, with talkhees of Imaam al-Dhahabee, vol. 3, p. 121, #4556:

[size=14pt]أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو أَحْمَدَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الشَّيْبَانِيُّ مِنْ أَصْلِ كِتَابِهِ، ثنا عَلِيُّ بْنُ سَعِيدِ بْنِ بَشِيرٍ الرَّازِيُّ بِمِصْرَ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ، ثنا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَعْلَى، ثنا بَسَّامٌ الصَّيْرَفِيُّ، عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو الْفُقَيْمِيِّ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ ثَعْلَبَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي ذَرٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:

مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ عَلِيًّا فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى عَلِيًّا فَقَدْ عَصَانِي
[/size]
Narrated Aboo Dharr, may Allaah be pleased with him:

Allaah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: “Whosoever obeys me has obeyed Allaah, and whosoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allaah. Whosoever obeys ‘Alee has obeyed me, and whosoever disobeys ‘Alee has disobeyed me.”

Both Imaam al-Haakim and Imaam al-Dhahabee declared the Hadeeth to be SaHeeH.

Here, the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, was telling ALL the SaHaabah, what their duties are to their new mawlaa, Imaam ‘Alee (as). They MUST obey him in all circumstances. Whosoever disobeys Imaam ‘Alee (as) in any circumstance has disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger.

So, we ask the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa’ah: how can you say Imaam ‘Alee (as) was only the buddy of the believers when it was obligatory upon them to obey him? Is it obligatory upon us to obey our buddies? Does this not further establish that Imaam ‘Alee (as) is our mawlaa and the mawlaa of the SaHaabah primarily in the sense of absolute master?

Whoever wants the Truth must have seen it already.

This takes me to the next issue (although a diversion created by one of the Sunnee brothers): ‘Aaishah. Was Imaam ‘Alee (as) her mawlaa too? If she was a believer, then yes! Apparently, every Sunnee would agree that she was a believer. That means that obedience to Imaam ‘Alee (as) was obligatory upon her, as it was upon Aboo Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan.

There is no doubt that ‘Aaishah led an armed rebellion against Imaam ‘Alee (as) and murdered thousands of his followers. ‘Aaishah wanted to topple her own mawlaa!

So, the question is: did Aaishah disobey Imaam ‘Alee (as) or not? The answer is very obvious: she disobeyed Imaam ‘Alee (as). Fine! That means, she thereby disobeyed Allaah and His Messenger. No sensible person can deny that!

Apart from disobeying her mawlaa (Imaam ‘Alee), her Prophet (MuHammad) and her God (Allaah), ‘Aaishah was also guilty of murdering thousands of the defenders of her mawlaa. She murdered thousands of the believers.

My question is: is she above the Qur’aan or below it? Do the verses of the Qur’aan apply to her too or is she above the law?

If she is not above the law, then the verses of the Qur’aan apply to her too! I will only cite a verse relevant to her and leave the conclusion to the readers:

[size=14pt]وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا [/size]

[Yusufali 4:93] If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (For ever): And the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful penalty is prepared for him.

In the final analysis, I want to point out that it was the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, who first CURSED ‘Aaishah and Mu’aawiyah!! Shaykh al-Albaanee in his Zilaal al-Jannah, vol. 2, p. 338 states:
[size=14pt]
من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه اللهم وال من والاه و عاد من عاداه

و هو حديث صحيح غايةً[/size]

“Whomsoever I am his mawlaa, ‘Alee is his mawlaa. O Allaah! Befriend whoever is his friend, and be the enemy of whosoever is his enemy.”

It is an absolutely SaHeeH Hadeeth.

There is no doubt that both ‘Aaishah and Mu’aawiyah were enemies of Imaam ‘Alee (as) who waged a bloody civil war against his government. Due to the above CURSE of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, they both were ENEMIES of Allaah. This fact cannot be denied by any sane brain.

I will end my post with this beautiful verse from the Qur’aan:

[size=14pt]مَنْ كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِلَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِلْكَافِرِينَ [/size]

[Yusufali 2:98] Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith.

@Lagosshia: [Quote]Quote
None of his wives is like the wives of Prophet Noah and Lut [as].
That is the funniest thing you said.i see that as a “pre-emptive” attack.but it is useless!do you know why?after you have given all the glory to Aisha because she was one of the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and reading your words on Aisha,she seemed to have become angelic and a “prophetess” herself just for that (being the wife of the Prophet),you end up shooting yourself in the foot.how?[b]in the above you bring evidence from the Quran and cite the two wives of the two prophets (Lot and Noah (as) who are explicitly said to be destined for hell fire in the Holy Quran.[/b]so afterall being a wife of a prophet does not exempt her from going to hell.it is common logic.

If you can convince me that all that history records of Aisha makes her any different from the rebellious and disobedient wives of Lot and Noah (as),then I am ready to hear you out.[/Quote]Bring me the evidence from Quran in the exact same way on any of the wives of Prophet Muhammad [as] as you and I can bring from Quran on the wives of prophets Nuh and Lut [as].
Further, the Quran has evidence against the child of prophet Nuh [as], do we use this or the evidence against the wives of prophets to nor derive a condemnation on the wives and children of prophets [as] because we any fault, from our own viewpoint?

I need not convince you my dear brother. Allah kept her [ra] for the prophet [as] after pointing out the collective human female weaknesses in Surah Azhab. This shows that they are human beings and our women should be appreciated with all the good and not so good that they have. Man is not even better because Allah pointed out human weakness in the mere turning of face in Surah Abasa. Allah didn't divorce her and the co wives, because they sat up knowing the consequence of their actions. Do we continue to blame Adam [as] and Hawa? The messenger [as] after Abasa was extremely appreciative and cordially to the blind man [ra], so much so that he remarked; because of you, my Lord remembered, mentioned or addressed] me.


By the way, I am not a sunni. I am not a shia, also. I am not into you against us when it comes to muslims. No muslim has an edge over another when it comes to Muhammad [as]. And Muhammad is the best of all and also the head of his family. If I love Muhammad [as], by that love I love all the believers in his family [as], similar to loving Ibrahim [as] and all his believing household. This is what Muhammad [as] taught me. Anyone who is now picking and choosing who to love must then reflect on such a decision. Is there any pattern that is completed Islam than what Muhammad [as] was given?

[Quote]As for the issue about Aisha,this isn't an issue about "them".this has to do with the precedence set by the Prophet (sa).it is to preserve the honor of the Prophet (sa).marriage includes intimacy.therefore muslim men having something intimate with the wives of their Prophet (sa) is forbidden and seen as indecent.that is that.even if any of them happens to be evil and rebellious and destined for the hell fire,it is forbidden to marry her after the Prophet (sa).so this is honor to prophet-hood.[/Quote]Are you of the opinion that Allah did not know the future, therefore allowed His Last Messenger [as] to be a consort to those who will end up in hell fire, as you claimed above, whereas the Allah our Lord made sure that He forgave Hawa, told Nuh [as] that even his disbelieving son is not from his family, and told Lut [as] that his wife is one of those who lag behind, meaning a disbeliever?

Please explain yourself my brother and don't be emotional about it. Lets talk rationally because Islam is an advise.

The Qur'aan has actually both CONDEMNED and EXPOSED 'Aaishah in even Surah al-TaHreem. See verse 4. This is al-Mawdoodee's translation of verse 4:

If you both (women) repent to Allah, (it is better for you), for your hearts have swerved from the right path

This is his commentary:

The word saghat in the original is from Baghy which means to swerve and to become crooked. Shah Waliyullah and Shah Rafi'uddin have translated this sentence thus: "Crooked have become your hearts." Hadrat 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud, 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, Sufyan Thauri and Dahhak have given this meaning of it: "Your hearts have swerved from the right path." Imam Razi explains it thus: "Your hearts have swerved from what is right, and the right implies the right of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace)." And 'Allama Alusi's commentary is Although it is incumbent on you that you should approve what the Holy Messenger (upon whom he peace) approves and disapprove what he disapproves, yet in this matter your hearts have swerved from conformity with him and turned in opposition to him."

See http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/66/index.html#sdfootnote7anc

Some people are playing the emotional card here, and it is not helping the discussion. Both Prophet NooH (as) and Prophet LooT (as) were married to evil women. Yet, they NEVER divorced these two evil women. Does that in any way prove that those evil women were good people.

The fact that the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, did not divorce 'Aaishah and Hafsah does not make them good people.

@Sweetnecta
Brother 'shiite' has beaten me to the reply in providing you a verse you asked for from the Quran that condemns Aisha.so you would know that Aisha was no different than the wives of Lot and Noah (as) when you look at all the evidence objectively.it is not easy to discover that your eyes were sealed to many facts in Islam for a brother like you practicing the sunni ways and beliefs.i know what i am saying.the bitter fact is you cant as a sunni see the truth,when the father of Aisha is Abu bakr.you can also say that you are neither sunni or shia,but that is not true.everything in your words smell 'sunni' without you knowing.unfortunately,our ancestors were given the sunni interpretation of Islam without them knowing it.they were told simply that what they are being taught is 'Islam'.that is not even my concern in what you think you are.i am only telling you that only the word 'shia' is synonymous with 'muslim'.i am telling you,take it or leave,if you are not following the shia interpretation and beliefs,you are really missing Islam!

the verse condemning Aisha and Hafsat were revealed at a time the Prophet Muhammad (sa) was alive.if the Prophet (sa) was still alive when Aisha committed the attrocities (after the demise of the Prophet) we could have had more verses in the Quran condemning Aisha.anyways brother 'Sweetnecta',i really respect you for your devotion to and love for Islam especially in your cyber-jihad against the missionary christians.i only want to appeal to you to consider the facts at hand and evidence thus far in this enlightening thread.do not let stubborness or anything stop you from accepting the truth.may Allah (swt) be with you.

Special thanks and appreciation to brother 'shiite' aka 'kwara shia' for his contributions and great replies.

Special thanks and appreciation to brother 'shiite' aka 'kwara shia' for his contributions and great replies.