@vedaxcool,
Its like you’re looking for someone to play with?

vedaxcool:

Again the shia mocks the words in the Qur'an, thereby mocking Allah's words auzobillah! he goes to the low of calling Abubakr a coward who despite being with prophet a.s still was struck by fear is besides the point, as abubakar r.a was fearful for the prophet's life not his, the prophet pbuh was afraid when angel Gabriel came to him in cave hirah,

Do you really have the fear of God? Do you really think you’re a muslim? Do you really believe in Muhammad (sa)?

Let the world see this sunni fixation on defending the companions (even the ones that later on changed and became bad) at all cost even if it means insulting the Prophet (sa).

He accuses me of “mocking” the Quran for saying that abu bakr was afraid in the presence of the Prophet (sa) from the disbelievers.that is apparent from the verse.yet twists the verse and tell us that abu bakr was afraid for the Prophet’s (sa) life.does the verse say that?that being the case,then abu bakr lacked the faith in Allah!so many verses were revealed where Allah (swt) promised nothing but victory for His Prophet (sa).I am not calling abu bakr a coward.it is what he demonstrated which the Quran reports that I am talking about.you see abu bakr’s presence in the cave as “praise” for him.this exposes the biase and one-sidedness sunnis have.can you imagine what these sunni people would have said if it was abu bakr that the Prophet (sa) proclaimed at Ghadir Khumm?!

Anyways,he accuses me of “mocking” the Quran for stating what the Quran reported that Abu Bakr was afraid.yet,he is telling us the Prophet (sa) was also “afraid” when he saw the angel!can you imagine this logic?he does not see that as mocking the Prophet (sa).

He also forgets that this verse was revealed after his second hero ,another coward,Umar ran away from the battlefield when there was rumor that the Prophet (sa) had being killed:

Quran 3:144:
Muhammad (SAW) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.

again there are numerous verses in the Qur'an in which Allah uses the phrase grieve not in relation to Prophets a.s and even Mariam when she was apprehensive of the fact that she delivered Jesus a.a, what does this all prove?

It saddens me because you keep proving that I should not be engaging someone like you in discussion.do you know the difference between “khaw” (fear) and “hazn” (grief)?if you know the difference you would not compare abu bakr’s fear from the disbelievers for his life and the grief of the Prophets (as).yet still,you would not try to twist the reality and say he was afraid for the Prophet’s (sa) life.even that does not demonstrate faith in Allah (swt).

I think your pathetic argument should become self evident to you that, this shias would not mind belittling the Qur'an in order to prove their silly points.

What silly points?that you keep failing to make any sense?
You want to lie to us that abu bakr was afraid for the Prophet’s life?when the Prophet himself was calming abu bakr in the cave and telling him “God is with us”?

You want to lie to us that Allah sent His sakinah (tranquility) on abu bakr and not on the Prophet (sa)?the words citing Allah sending His tranquility is in singular form in the verse when read even in english.it is either Allah sent His tranquility on the Prophet (sa) or on abu bakr.Allah sent it on the Prophet (sa)!

But really what are we even arguing about? That abu bakr was in a cave with the Prophet (sa)?but we don’t deny he was a companion.funny people,trying to make an argument where there is none!

But we know their points holds no sensible ground the same liars will go as far as claiming that the reason Ali r.a refuse to take Fadak when he became caliph was becasue he feared the reaction of those that oppose him, in Ali r.a who they claim rules over the atoms etc feared doing justice because of the possible reaction of mere mortals! what a pathetic situation the shia find themselves , their thinking is very shallow to say the least. again let us recap the issues around the verse:

Fadak is another issue.whether Ali (as) took it back or not for whatever reasons beyond your understanding,does not negate the fact that abu bakr stole it from Fatima (as).it also does not negate the fact that she protested against him and swore at him.

The Prophet pbuh choose Abubakar to emigrate with him, this meant he choose someone who we took to be close with him.

Judas was also very close to Jesus.and so what?

Allah sent his tranquility upon Abubakar, very few times does the Qur'an speaks of the companions of the prophet pbuh, Allah sent his Tranquility upon Abubakar r.a.

That is your understanding of the verse.

The only logical explanation is that Abu Bakr r.a was the Prophet’s top lieutenant, bodyguard, and trusted friend.

And so? It does not excuse the later actions of abu bakr.

From a logical standpoint, we know that Abu Bakr r.a was more worried about the Prophet pbuh than himself for the simple fact that the Quraish infidels had a warrant for the arrest and capture of the Prophet pbuh not of Abu Bakr r.a. In fact, Abu Bak r.a was immune from the persecution of the Quraish infidels because he had powerful tribal connections to protect him. This simply trounce the inept argument of the shias!

Your conclusion shows that abu bakr did not have faith in Allah (swt) who will protect and aid His Prophet (sa) at all times.

Allhamdulilah how easy Allah makes it to show guidance to men that Ali refereed to as cowards, hypocrites and traitors!

Those are your likes.what those Ali (as) condemned among the shia is what you are among the muslims.you sound no different.

inshaAllah,I will present a detailed analysis of the event in the cave to shed light upon the non-issues you’re blowing for nothing and take a closer look at the verse.

[size=16pt]ARGUMENT FROM THE "VERSE OF CAVE" AND ITS REPLY [/size]

[b]Sheikh: [/b]It is strange that you claim that you do not indulge in misleading arguments, although your views are quite perverse. Allah says in the Holy Qur'an, "If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: 'Grieve not, surely Allah is with us.' So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, " (9:40)

First, this verse supports the previous verse and proves that the phrase "and those who are with him," refers to Abu Bakr who was with the Prophet in the cave on the night of the Hijra. Second, the fact that he was with the Holy Prophet is in itself a great proof of Abu Bakr's merit and his superiority to the whole umma. The Prophet could foretell that Abu Bakr was his successor, and that the existence of the Caliph after him was necessary. Therefore, he realized that he should protect Abu Bakr as he would his own. So, he took him with him so that Abu Bakr might not be caught by the enemy. Such treatment was not shown to any other Muslim. This clearly proves his right to the caliphate in preference to others.

Well-Wisher: [/b]If you would look at the verse more objectively, you would see that your conclusion is wrong.

[b]Sheikh: Can you advance reasons against the conclusions that we have drawn?

Well-Wisher: I should like you to pass over this issue at the moment because speech breeds speech. Some biased people may interpret our comments with ill will. I do not wish to incite hatred. One might conclude that we wish to dishonor the caliphs, though the position of each individual is fixed, and it is not necessary to make useless interpretations.

Sheikh: [/b]You are being evasive. Be assured that reasonable argument does not breed contempt; it removes misunderstandings.


[b]Well-Wisher: [/b]Since you have used the word "evasive," I am constrained to reply, so that you may know that I am not avoiding the issue. I wanted to maintain the propriety of our debate. I hope that you will not find fault with me. You made a thoughtless assertion that the Prophet knew that Abu Bakr would be his Caliph after him. Therefore, it was necessary for him to save his life, and so he took him with him.

[b][size=14pt]FACTS ABOUT ABU BAKR'S ACCOMPANYING THE HOLY PROPHET [/size]

Reply to your statement is simple. If Abu Bakr had been the only Caliph after the Prophet, such a view could be possible, but you believe in four caliphs. If this argument of yours is correct, and if it had been necessary for the Prophet to safeguard the life of the caliph, then the Prophet should have taken with him all four caliphs in Mecca. Why would he leave three others there, one of them in the perilous position of sleeping in the Prophet's bed, which was dangerous on a night when his enemies had gathered to murder him? According to Tabari (Part III of his History), Abu Bakr was not aware of the Prophet's movement from Mecca. When he went to Ali and asked him about the Prophet, he told him that the Prophet had gone to the cave. Ali told him that if he had any business with him, he should run up to him. Abu Bakr ran and met the Prophet on the way. So he accompanied him. This series of events indicates that the Prophet did not intend to take Abu Bakr with him. The latter accompanied him from the middle of the way without the Prophet's permission. According to other reports, Abu Bakr was taken on the journey for fear of his causing a disturbance and giving information to the enemy. Your own ulema have admitted this fact. For instance, Sheikh Abu'l-Qasim Bin Sabbagh, who is one of the well known ulema of your sect, writing in his Al-Nur wa'l-Burhan about the life of the Prophet, narrates from Muhammad Bin Ishaq, and he from Hasan Bin Thabit Ansari, that he went to Mecca to perform the Umra before the emigration of the Prophet. He saw that the Quraish unbelievers were railing at the Prophet's companions. The Prophet ordered Ali to sleep in his bed, and, fearing that Abu Bakr would disclose this fact to the unbelievers, the Prophet took Abu Bakr with him.

Finally, it would have been better if you had pointed out what evidence there is in this verse to show the superiority of Abu Bakr or whether accompanying the Prophet on a journey is proof that one is entitled to the caliphate.

[b]Sheikh: [/b]The evidence is there. First, the companionship of the Prophet and that Allah called him the Prophet's companion is in itself a qualification. Second, the Prophet himself said: "Verily, Allah is with us." Third, the sending down of tranquility upon him from Allah, as mentioned in this verse, is the most compelling proof of Abu Bakr's excellence. Therefore, all of these points taken together indicate his superiority to others regarding the caliphate.

[b]Well-Wisher: [/b]No one hesitates to acknowledge the position of Abu Bakr, an elderly Muslim, one of the distinguished companions and the father of the wife of the Prophet. However, these reasons do not prove his superiority of the caliphate. If you try to prove your point with such statements before impartial men, you will be courting strong criticism. They will say that companionship with virtuous people is no proof of merit or superiority. For example, we often see that bad people accompany good ones, and hosts of infidels accompany Muslims on journeys. Perhaps you have forgotten what the Holy Qur'an says about the Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), who said: "O my two companions of the prison (I ask you): are many lords differing among themselves better, or Allah, the One, the Supreme?" (12:39)

Regarding this verse, commentators have said that when Joseph was taken to the prison, on the same day the King's cook and the wine bearer, both of whom were unbelievers, were also put into the prison with him. For five years these three men (both believers and unbelievers) lived together as companions. When preaching to them Joseph, called them his companions. Was this companionship of the Prophet ever made grounds for regarding the two infidels as virtuous or dignified? Did their companionship with the Prophet effect a change in their faith? The writings of the commentators and historians tell us that after five years of companionship, they were separated from each other in the same condition.

Another verse of the Qur'an states, "His companion said to him while disputing with him: 'Do you disbelieve in Him who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?'" (18:37) Commentators agree that this verse refers to two brothers: one was a believer, whose name was Yahuda. The other was an unbeliever whose name was Bara'tus. This fact has also been reported in the Tafsir-e-Kabir by Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, who is one of your ulema. These two talked to each other, the details of which cannot be given here. Allah has, however, called both of them (believer and unbeliever) "companions." Did the unbeliever derive benefit from his companionship with the believer? Obviously not. Thus, companionship alone is no basis for claiming one's excellence. There are many examples in support of this view.

[size=14pt]THE PROPHET'S WORDS "ALLAH IS WITH US" NO PROOF OF EXCELLENCE OF ABU BAKR [/size]
You also said that since the Prophet said to Abu Bakr, "Allah is with us," that this is proof of Abu Bakr's excellence and his right to the caliphate! You might reconsider your views. People might ask, for example, "Does Allah remain with the believers and saints only, and not with the unbelievers?" Do you know any place where Allah does not exist? Isn't Allah with everyone? Suppose a believer and an unbeliever are together in a congregation. The Qur'an says: "See you not that Allah knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth? Nowhere is there a secret counsel between three (persons) but He is fourth of them, nor (between) five, but He is the sixth, nor less than that, nor more but He is with them wheresoever they may be." (58:7) According to this verse and according to common sense, Allah is with everyone.

[b]Sheikh: [/b]The expression "Allah is with us" meant that they were Allah's dearly loved ones because they traveled in the way of Allah for the purpose of preserving His religion. Allah's blessings were with them.

[b]Well-Wisher: [/b]But surely this expression does not prove that one possesses an eternal blessing. Allah Almighty looks at people's deeds. It has often happened that at one time, people performed good deeds and were recipients of mercy from Allah. Later they disobeyed Allah and were subjected to divine wrath. Satan, as you know, worshiped Allah for thousands of years and received kindness from Him. However, as soon as he disobeyed His Command, he was damned. The Holy Qur'an says: "He said: 'Then get out of it, for surely you are driven away. And surely upon you is a curse until the Day of Judgement.'" (15:34-35)

Excuse me, there is no harm in citing examples. My purpose is to clarify the point. History contains many examples of those who were close to Allah but who, after being tested, were cursed. Bal'am Bin Ba'ur, for example, a contemporary of Moses, became so close to Allah that Allah revealed to him the Ism-e-A'zam (the greatest name of Allah, through which anything sought for is immediately granted by Allah). He invoked Allah by means of the Ism-e-A'zam and caused Moses to suffer in the valley of Tia! But at the time of trial, Bal'am was overpowered by his love for the material world. He followed Satan and was condemned. Commentators have given detailed accounts of this event. Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi in his Commentary, Part IV, page 463, has reported this matter from Ibn Abbas, Ibn Mas'ud, and Mujahid. Allah in the Holy Qur'an tells us: "And recite to them the narrative of him to whom We give Our revelations, but he withdraws himself from them; so Satan overtakes him, and he is of those who go astray." (7:175)

[size=14pt]BARSISA ABID[/size]
Or consider the case of Barsisa Abid, who originally worshipped Allah so much that he became Mustajabu'd-da'wa (one whose invocations are granted). However, when the time of trial came, he failed. Misled by Satan, he committed fornication with a girl, was sent to the gallows, and died an unbeliever. The Holy Qur'an refers to him in these words: "Like Satan when he says to man: 'Disbelieve,' but when he disbelieves, he says; 'I am surely quit of you; surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds.' Therefore, the end of both of them is that they are both in the fire to abide therein, and that is the reward of the unjust." (59:16-17)

So if man has done good deeds at one time, it does not follow that his end will be good. It is for this reason that we are instructed to say in our invocation: "Let all our actions end in good."

Sheikh: [/b]I really didn't expect an honorable man like you to cite the examples of Satan, Bal'am-e-Ba'ur, and Barsisa.

[b]Well-Wisher: [/b]Excuse me, I have already stated that there is no harm in citing examples. In fact, we must cite them in learned debates to prove facts. Let Allah be my witness: I never intended to defame anyone by citing these examples. My purpose is to prove my point.

[b]Sheikh: [/b]This verse clearly proves Abu Bakr's excellence because it says: "So Allah sent down His tranquility upon him, " (9:40) The pronoun here refers to Abu Bakr, which proves his superiority.

[b]WELL-Wisher: You have misunderstood it. The pronoun used after Sakina (peace) refers to the Prophet. Peace was sent to him and not to Abu Bakr, as is evident from the later sentence in which Allah says: ", and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see." (9:40) The fact is that the hosts of unseen angels were to aid the Prophet, not Abu Bakr.

Sheikh: I admit that the divine help was for the Prophet, but Abu Bakr, being in company of the Prophet, was not without blessings.

[size=14pt]THE SENDING DOWN OF PEACE WAS ON THE PROPHET OF ALLAH [/size]

Well-Wisher: If the bestowal of divine blessings referred to two people, Arabic grammar would require that pronouns be used designating two people in all the phrases of this verse. But the pronouns refer to one person, the Prophet, and Allah's blessings were for him. If through him the bestowal had been intended for others as well, their names would have been mentioned. Hence, the sending down of peace in this verse is for the Prophet alone.

Sheikh: The Prophet of Allah was independent of the divine bestowal of peace. He did not need it because he was assured of divine blessings. Hence, the bestowal of peace was for Abu Bakr.

Well-Wisher: On what grounds do you say that the Prophet was independent of divine blessings? No person - Prophet, Imam, or saint - is independent of divine blessings. Perhaps you have forgotten what the Holy Qur'an says about the incident of Hunain. "Then Allah sent down His tranquility upon His Apostle and upon the believers." The same thing has been said in chapter 48 (Fath) verse 26, of the Holy Qur'an. The believers are included after the Prophet in this verse, just as in the "verse of the cave." If Abu Bakr had been a believer who deserved the bestowal of peace, either the pronoun for two persons would have been used, or his name would have been mentioned separately. This matter is so clear that your own ulema admit that the pronoun connected with peace does not refer to Abu Bakr. You might consult Naqzu'l-Uthmaniyya, compiled by Sheikh Abu Ja'far Muhammad Bin Abdullah Iskafi, who is one of the prominent ulema and Sheikhs of the Mu'tazilites. That scholar completely refutes the absurdities of Abu Uthman Jahiz. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid also recorded some of those replies in his Sharh Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume III, pages 253-281. In addition, there is a phrase in this verse, the implication of which is contrary to your point. The Prophet said to Abu Bakr: "Fear you not." The phrase indicates that Abu Bakr was frightened. Was this fear praiseworthy or not? If it was, the Prophet would not prohibit anyone from doing a good deed. A vicegerent of Allah possesses certain qualities. The most important of them, as pointed out in the Holy Qur'an, is that he never fears the vicissitudes of life. He exercises patience and fortitude. The Holy Qur'an says: "Now surely the friends of Allah - they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."(10:62)

Courtesy: Execerpts from the Peshawar Nights,a Shia-Sunni Dialogue

In refutation of the claim When your beloved Aisha left her house and led men into war against other believers did she go against the order of Allah (swt) in Quran 33:32-33 or not? this inconsequential claim lets look at the issues that led Aisha to leave her house.

Battle of the Camel

Drowing Men clutches on straw !   , the matter that made Aisha leave her house was for the good of the Muslim Ummah, In the Qur'an we read:

“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)

Hence Allah states categorically reconciling factions quarrelling is a noble deed.

The Death of Uthman r.a the Third Caliph of Islam, was done by the hands of some members the shiat of Ali r.a, hence Members of Uthman tribes and family, and even companions of the noble Prophet pbuh demanded that the killers of Uthman r.a must be dealt with, but due to prevailing circumstance Ali decided to delay the delivery of Justice, as he needed to consolidate his grip on power and was facing the prospect of civil war. Yet these further created an apprehensive situation in which people protested against. The situation continued to deteriorate, it was under this circumstances that people Aisha r.a decided to mitigate between the two warring factions to persuade Ali r.a to immediately investigate the murder of Uthman r.a.  In essence the shia slanders Aisha by claiming the intent of her leaving home was to wage war, this far away from the truth, her intent was to make peace between the warring factions. we read in Tareekh Al-Tabar,

Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha r.a: “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.”

But the muderers of Uthman r.a did not want her to be successful knowing that if she spoke with Ali r.a she would be able to convince him on persecution the accuse traitors, they immediately ploted to create confusion:

“And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

This the accursed muderers of uthman immediately set to work provoking a conflict that led to the death of many of the Prophet pbuh companions, “The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718]

we know the Saba'ites are the people Zhul Fiqah, and co look up to, but I say you take the example of a bad lead!

to sum up the story Aisha niether started the war, Ali r.a neither started the war, Talhah neither started the war instead it was the accursed murderers of Uthman r.a that again in order to serve their interest created the whole scenario.

Aisha r.a said: “I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)

again this shows her true wish for the Muslim Ummah, she persuaded people not to come out inordr to avert any possibility of conflict, unlike the misguided shias who insults her, the Muslims then held her in high esteem including Ali r.a

It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet pbuh told Saudah pbuh, one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.”

It is good to note taht despite the accursed muderers of Uthman antics, Aisha and Ali r.a were able to recouncile and to this effect Ali even escourted Aisha back home. Showing he had no grudges against her, I wonder whether the Munnafiquns are willing to follow the steps of Ali r.a whom they claim to follow.

Very funny how Aisha leaves her house to wage a war against the Imam of her time going against Allah's explicit order in the holy Quran and presently there are people saying it was in the name of 'settling differences' between muslims

so the sunni method of 'settling difference and making peace' is to wage war.not to forget that Imam Ali (as) was the leader (caliph) then recognized even by sunnis and Imam Ali (as) was not at fault and he was also not at war with anyone regardless of 'differences'.so why would Aisha wage war,if it wasn't out of hate,disobedience and madness? If you want to excuse her with whatever lie or story,you should not forget that the Prophet (sa) himself had warned her before his death against waging war.he even mentioned the war in details,so that she would not go into war against Imam Ali (as).why did she disobey the Quran  and also the Prophet (sa) himself after he gave explicit warnings against the war?

The killers of Usthman had nothing to do with Imam Ali (as).infact in order to avoid the fitnah that usthman's killing could later cause,Imam Ali (as) had sent his sons to protect usthman (as sunni hadiths record).that was at a time aisha herself had advocated against usthman and screamed against him saying:'kill Nathal (usthman) he has become a disbeliever'.

'vedaxcool',you sound in your offense and hate against the shia like someone being hired or paid to mislead people in this forum.if you have conscience and a sincere mind as a muslim,you'd be mindful of your words and careful not to propagate lies and mislead others.

vedaxcool:

In refutation of the claim When your beloved Aisha left her house and led men into war against other believers did she go against the order of Allah (swt) in Quran 33:32-33 or not? this inconsequential claim lets look at the issues that led Aisha to leave her house.

Battle of the Camel

Drowing Men clutches on straw ! , the matter that made Aisha leave her house was for the good of the Muslim Ummah, In the Qur'an we read:

“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)

Hence Allah states categorically reconciling factions quarrelling is a noble deed.

who was she reconcilling on the battlefield in basrah?

pity our ears with these wonderful stories and heavy lies.dont shatter our ear drums!



the word in the verse you are quoting above uses "fight" instead of "quarrel".dont play with words of the Quran to make a cover-up for aisha.

question:

who were the two parties fighting that Aisha needed to "make peace" between them?

was Imam Ali (as) the party that was "transgressing" that Aisha needed to wage war on?

when there was a divine order for the wives of the Prophet (sa) to maintain modesty and stay in their houses and the Prophet (sa) had warned Aisha against waging war,why did she do it?

let us see the reaction of Imam Ali (as) about those who claim that they were "avenging" usthman's blood from him:

Ahmed bin Zuhayr - his father Abu Khaythama – Wahb bin Jarir bin Hazim - his father – Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli – al-Zuhri:
"The news, that is of the seventy who were killed with al-Abdi at al-Basrah, reached Ali, so he advanced with 12000 men and came to al-Basrah , When the forces confronted each other, Ali went out on his horse and called out to al-Zubayr (Aisha's commander) and the two of them confronted each other, Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126

Five days after the murder of 'Uthman, I arrived in Medina from Mecca. I went to go and visit Ali but was told that al-Mughirah bin Shubah was with him. So I sat at the entrance for an hour. When Mughirah came out, he greeted me and said, "How long ago did you get here?". "This past hour, " I replied. I then went into Ali and greeted him. He asked me, "Did you meet al-Zubayr and Talhah (Aisha's commanders against Imam Ali in the battle of jamal)?" " I met them in al-Nawasif." "Who was with them?" he asked. "Abu Said bin Harith bin Hisham with a Qurashi force," I replied. Ali then said: "I am sure they will never refrain from coming out and saying, "We seek repayment for Uthman's blood. By Allah! We know that they are the ones who killed Uthman." History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16, page 23

The Death of Uthman r.a the Third Caliph of Islam, was done by the hands of some members the shiat of Ali r.a,

that is a lie.it was companions of the Prophet (sa) with the help of egyptian rebels that besieged usthman to force him to abdicate after major dissatisfaction by muslims and the companions alive withdrew their support for him.

Ali said to Talha: "I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman." Talha replied: "No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right." (Uthman was the head of Umayad).
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15 page 235

Ibn Asakir records:

Abu Bakar Muhammad bin al-Hussain al-Farzi – Abul Hussain Muhammad bin Ali bin al-Muhtadi – Abul Hassan Ali bin al-Umar al-Harbi – Abu Hamid Muhammad bin Harun – Abdulrehman bin Habib – Ahmad bin Muawiyah bin Bakar al-Bahali – Ismaeel bin Mujalid – Byan bin Bashar - Qays bin Abi Hazim narrates that a man had visited Talha during the siege and requested that he intervene to prevent the death of Uthman. Talha replied: ‘No by Allah, not until the Banu Ummayya surrender the right of their own accord.’
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 39 page 403


“Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.” Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202;This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).


“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

Aisha’s lead role in killing Uthman

Abdullah bin Muslim (ibn Qutayba) from Ibn Abi Maryam and Ibn Ufair – from Ibn Uon – from Mukhol bin Ibrahim and Abu Hamza al-Thumali – from Ali bin al-Hussain who said: ‘… then Ubaid said to her: ‘The first one to incite the people against him was you, and you used to say, ‘kill this Nathal because he has become dissolute.’’’Al-Mahsol, by al-Razi, v4 p343.

Ibn Qutayba in his book Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa (volume 1,page 52) records:

Abdullah bin Muslim (ibn Qutayba) from Ibn Abi Maryam and Ibn Ufair – from Ibn Uon – from Mukhol bin Ibrahim and Abu Hamza al-Thumali – from Ali bin al-Hussain who said: ‘… then Ubaid said to her: ‘The first one to incite the people against him was you, and you used to say, ‘kill this Nathal because he has become dissolute.’’’


Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated:
The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal" refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka.

hence Members of Uthman tribes and family, and even companions of the noble Prophet pbuh demanded that the killers of Uthman r.a must be dealt with, but due to prevailing circumstance Ali decided to delay the delivery of Justice, as he needed to consolidate his grip on power and was facing the prospect of civil war. Yet these further created an apprehensive situation in which people protested against. The situation continued to deteriorate, it was under this circumstances that people Aisha r.a decided to mitigate between the two warring factions to persuade Ali r.a to immediately investigate the murder of Uthman r.a. In essence the shia slanders Aisha by claiming the intent of her leaving home was to wage war, this far away from the truth, her intent was to make peace between the warring factions. we read in Tareekh Al-Tabar,

Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha r.a: “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.”

go and sleep boy.dont tell us what Aisha said or cover-up stories.tell us what happened.

she waged a war.waging a war is not the same as "reconciling".she formed and led an army and marched unto Basra,which is outside of arabia.upon arrival it is reported that she first ordered 600 muslims to be beheaded because they were pro-Ali (as).are you now denying that she waged a war?are you saying the battle of jamal did not take place?

According to Muhammad (Al-Waqidi) – Ibn Abi Sabrah – Abd al-Majid bin Suhayl – Ikramah: “Ibn Abbas, I entreat you by God: abandon this man, sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. Their powers of discernment have been clarified, the beacon light is raised high to guide them, and (the Caliph’s associates) have milked the lands that once abounded in good things. I have seen Talha b. Ubaydullah take possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph, he will follow in the path of his paternal cousin Abu Bakr”.

According to (Ibn Abbas): I said, “O Mother (of the Believers), if some evil were to befall that man [namely Uthman], the people would seek asylum only in with our companion [namely, ‘‘Ali]. She replied, “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you”.
History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 pages 289-239

she was obviously in favor of Talha Ibn Ubaydullah becoming caliph because he was related to her through her father,abu bakr.

But the muderers of Uthman r.a did not want her to be successful knowing that if she spoke with Ali r.a she would be able to convince him on persecution the accuse traitors, they immediately ploted to create confusion:

“And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

yeah, right!
it was the rebels that dragged Aisha out of her house and forced her to fight.nonsense!

This the accursed muderers of uthman immediately set to work provoking a conflict that led to the death of many of the Prophet pbuh companions,

why are you cursing? Lol

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718]

we know the Saba'ites are the people Zhul Fiqah, and co look up to, but I say you take the example of a bad lead!

i am neither a sabaite nor do i even know about them.
she left all the way from arabia to basrah and she was not to blame.LOL.

to sum up the story Aisha niether started the war, Ali r.a neither started the war, Talhah neither started the war instead it was the accursed murderers of Uthman r.a that again in order to serve their interest created the whole scenario.

this is funny.

Akrash stated: 'We were fighting with Talha against Ali. Marwan was with us, then we started to face defeat hence Marwan said: 'I will not seek for my revenge after this day, then he shot him with an arrow and killed him.''
Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 417 Tradition 5589

Aisha r.a said: “I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)

“When Uthman was killed, and Talha, Zubair and A'isha went to Basra in order to avenge the blood of 'Uthman, at that time Marwan also accompanied them. When all the people were running away in battlefield (after Aisha's forces were defeated), Marwan saw Talha and said: ‘By Allah, he is responsible for killing of Uthman, and indeed he treated Uthman badly. And I need no other testimony after watching all this from my own eyes’. He took an arrow and fired it at Talha, that killed him."
Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Volume 5 page 38, Biography of Marwan bin al-Hakam

Umar bin Shabbah - Abu al-Hasan - Abu Amr - Utbah bin al-Mughirah bin al-Akhnas: At Dhat Irq, Saeed bin al-Aas met Marwan bin al-Hakam and his men and asked: "Where are you heading for? Those from whom you seek revenge are on the rumps of camels. Kill them and then go back to your houses! "
History of Tabari, English edition, Volume 16, page 44

It is little wonder that even Talha’s son admitted the role of his father in killing Uthman. In ‘al Imama wal Siyasa’ page 60 we read that:

"Someone asked Muhammad bin Talha who killed Uthman ? He replied that "one third of his death was attributable to Aisha and one third was due to my father Talha".

again this shows her true wish for the Muslim Ummah, she persuaded people not to come out inordr to avert any possibility of conflict, unlike the misguided shias who insults her, the Muslims then held her in high esteem including Ali r.a

her standard of "reform" is below Islamic standards by far.reforming is not by inciting hatred for Usthman and when usthman was killed without helping him,she then led an army for war under the pretext of "avenging" his blood against Imam Ali (as) who became caliph and who did not kill Usthman but even went as far as risking the lives of his sons to protect usthman.what "reform" is that if not CORRUPTION AND FITNAH?!!!


I entered Uthman's presence (During the agitation against Uthman) and talked with him for an hour. He said: "Come Ibn Abbas/Ayyash," and he took me by the hand and had me listen to what the people were saying at his door. We heard some say, "what are you waiting for," while others were saying, "wait, perhaps he will repent." While the two of us were standing there (behind the door and listening), Talha Ibn Ubaydillah passed by and said: "Where is Ibn Udays?" He was told, "He is over there." Ibn Udays came to (Talha) and whispered something with him, and then went back to his associates and said: "Do not let anyone go in (to the house of Uthman) to see this man or leave his house."

Uthman said to me: "These are the orders of Talha." He continued, "O God! Protect me from Talha for he has provoked all these people against me. By God, I hope nothing will come of it, and that his own blood will be shed. Talha has abused me unlawfully. I heard the Messenger of God said: 'The blood of a Muslim is lawful in three cases: apostasy, adultery, and the one who kills except in legitimate retaliation for another.' So why should I be killed?"

Ibn Abbas continued: I wanted to leave (the house), but they blocked my path until Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr who was passing by requested them to let me go, and they did so.
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15, pages 199 -200

It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet pbuh told Saudah pbuh, one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.”

"genuine needs" does not include the war Aisha led which the Prophet (sa) before his death had warned her against.

It is good to note taht despite the accursed muderers of Uthman antics, Aisha and Ali r.a were able to recouncile and to this effect Ali even escourted Aisha back home. Showing he had no grudges against her, I wonder whether the Munnafiquns are willing to follow the steps of Ali r.a whom they claim to follow.

i wonder what you expect an honorable man like Imam Ali (as) to have done to Aisha after defeating her army.

Imam Ali (as) did not "escourt" her home.stop playing with words.what he did was to send her female body guards and arrested her and took her to medinah.imagine,what Aisha and Talha and Zubayr could have done to Imam Ali (as) if they would have won that battle?ponder!!!

read more on who killed usthman

[size=14pt]The Role of Companions including Talha (Aisha's relative) and Zubayr Who later Joined Aisha to fight Imam Ali (as),in Assasinating Usthman with the aid of Egyptian Rebels:[/size]
“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”
Ibn Atheer,Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

On the next page we find a similar tradition recorded by Ibn Katheer which begins in this manner:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

[size=14pt]Aisha's Role in Killing Usthman:[/size]
Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated:
The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal" refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka.

According to Muhammad (Al-Waqidi) – Ibn Abi Sabrah – Abd al-Majid bin Suhayl – Ikramah: Aisha said to Ibn Abbass :“Ibn Abbas, I entreat you by God: abandon this man (Usthman), sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. Their powers of discernment have been clarified, the beacon light is raised high to guide them, and (the Caliph’s associates) have milked the lands that once abounded in good things. I have seen Talha b. Ubaydullah (Aisha's relative) take possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph, he will follow in the path of his paternal cousin Abu Bakr (Aisha's father)”.

According to (Ibn Abbas): I said, “O Mother (of the Believers), if some evil were to befall that man [namely Uthman], the people would seek asylum only in with our companion [namely, ‘‘Ali]. She replied, “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you”.
History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 pages 289-239


[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Stance Towards the Killers of Usthman During the Siege[/size]
Ali said to Talha: "I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman." Talha replied: "No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right." (Uthman was the head of Umayad).
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15 page 235

“Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: "I constantly saw Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha (Aisha's paternal relative) when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman"
Tarikh al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15, pages 180-181

[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Reaction to Aisha forming an army to wage war against him:[/size]
He (Ali) said to Ibn Abbas: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘O ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108

Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas page 38, Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafiyee in Matalib al Se'ul page 112 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 record that prior to the battle of Jamal:

"He Ali (as) wrote a letter to Ayesha: 'By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"


[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Reaction that Aisha in the company of Talha and Zubair were "avenging" usthman's blood from him:[/size]
Ahmed bin Zuhayr - his father Abu Khaythama – Wahb bin Jarir bin Hazim - his father – Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli – al-Zuhri:
"The news, that is of the seventy who were killed with al-Abdi at al-Basrah, reached Ali, so he advanced with 12000 men and came to al-Basrah , When the forces confronted each other, Ali went out on his horse and called out to al-Zubayr and the two of them confronted each other, Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126


Five days after the murder of 'Uthman, I arrived in Medina from Mecca. I went to go and visit Ali but was told that al-Mughirah bin Shubah was with him. So I sat at the entrance for an hour. When Mughirah came out, he greeted me and said, "How long ago did you get here?". "This past hour, " I replied. I then went into Ali and greeted him. He asked me, "Did you meet al-Zubayr and Talhah?" " I met them in al-Nawasif." "Who was with them?" he asked. "Abu Said bin Harith bin Hisham with a Qurashi force," I replied. Ali then said: "I am sure they will never refrain from coming out and saying, "We seek repayment for Uthman's blood. By Allah! We know that they are the ones who killed Uthman."
  History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16, page 23


Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126


[size=14pt]What the Quran Says About Those Who Kill Innocent People While They Claim to Seek Revenge for Murder:[/size]
Surah al Maida verse 32:

"Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind".

[size=14pt]Usthman's Cousin (Marwan) Killed Talha After They Were Defeated Against Imam Ali (as) On Aisha's Side[/size]
“When Uthman was killed, and Talha, Zubair and A'isha went to Basra in order to avenge the blood of 'Uthman, at that time Marwan also accompanied them. When all the people were running away in battlefield (after Aisha's forces were defeated), Marwan saw Talha and said: ‘By Allah, he is responsible for killing of Uthman, and indeed he treated Uthman badly. And I need no other testimony after watching all this from my own eyes’. He took an arrow and fired it at Talha, that killed him."
Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Volume 5 page 38, Biography of Marwan bin al-Hakam

When Talhah and al-Zubayr and Aisha set out, I noticed that Talhah preferred to sit alone and would flick his beard against his chest. So I said to him: "Abu Muhammad! I see that you prefer to sit alone and keep flicking your beard against your chest. If there is something you dislike [going on], sit [and talk about it]!" "Alqamah bin Waqqas, "He replied to me, "we were all united against others. But now we have become two mountains of iron, each seeking to [finish] the other. There was indeed some thing I did against Uthman and my penance for it can be nothing less than having my blood spilled in the course of seeking vengeance for his blood." History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 79

End of Battle
Aisha's forces were defeated and Aisha was arrested.she was returned to her house in Medinah (where she belonged to by Allah's command in the Quran) in the company of her brother,Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (RA) who fought on Imam Ali's (as) side against his sister's forces.

Zhul-fiqar:

@vedaxcool,
Its like you’re looking for someone to play with?Do you really have the fear of God? Do you really think you’re a muslim? Do you really believe in Muhammad (sa)?

Alhamdulilah, I am a Muslim who respect the Prophet's companion,the prophet wives who are part of the Ahlul-bayt and the Prophets family. It is the shias that should continue to answer the questions, Do they fear Allah? Do they Respect the Prophet pbuh? Are they Muslims? why is hypocrisy so entrenched in their beliefs? etc

Zhul-fiqar:

Let the world see this sunni fixation on defending the companions (even the ones that later on changed and became bad) at all cost even if it means insulting the Prophet (sa).

He accuses me of “mocking” the Quran for saying that abu bakr was afraid in the presence of the Prophet (sa) from the disbelievers.that is apparent from the verse.yet twists the verse and tell us that abu bakr was afraid for the Prophet’s (sa) life.does the verse say that?that being the case,then abu bakr lacked the faith in Allah!so many verses were revealed where Allah (swt) promised nothing but victory for His Prophet (sa).I am not calling abu bakr a coward.it is what he demonstrated which the Quran reports that I am talking about.you see abu bakr’s presence in the cave as “praise” for him.this exposes the biase and one-sidedness sunnis have.can you imagine what these sunni people would have said if it was abu bakr that the Prophet (sa) proclaimed at Ghadir Khumm?!

the verse did not say, fear not! it said grieve not! you again show how you not only play fast and lose with hadiths of the Prophets but words of the Qur'an itself, I wonder what you will gain by mocking the Qur'an, did the Qur'an indicate that Abubakar r.a was a coward for grieving? did the Qur'an accuse him of weak faith? where did you read the silly points you raised? I pray Allah give you guidiance, we know your manners like lagoshia are very low that curse is the only thing you have to offer.

Zhul-fiqar:

Anyways,he accuses me of “mocking” the Quran for stating what the Quran reported that Abu Bakr was afraid.yet,he is telling us the Prophet (sa) was also “afraid” when he saw the angel!can you imagine this logic?he does not see that as mocking the Prophet (sa).

So you now accuse the Qur'an of mocking the prophet pbuh?

“So lose not heart and grieve not, for you will indeed be superior if you are truly believers.” (Quran, 3:139)

we know it is in your nature to lie and hypocrite but at least you should have the discretion

Zhul-fiqar:

He also forgets that this verse was revealed after his second hero ,another coward,Umar ran away from the battlefield when there was rumor that the Prophet (sa) had being killed:

Quran 3:144:
Muhammad (SAW) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.

this adds little sense to what we are talking about, and by Allah, Ali r.a call you shias cowards, liars, hypocrites and Traitors!

Zhul-fiqar:

It saddens me because you keep proving that I should not be engaging someone like you in discussion.do you know the difference between “khaw” (fear) and “hazn” (grief)?if you know the difference you would not compare abu bakr’s fear from the disbelievers for his life and the grief of the Prophets (as).yet still,you would not try to twist the reality and say he was afraid for the Prophet’s (sa) life.even that does not demonstrate faith in Allah (swt).

The lies of a shia knows no bound, the verse which I stated clearly said Grieve not, not fear not. Again you mock the Qur'an to prove what exactly? where did the verse say Abubakar actions demonstrated lack of faith in Allah?when are you going to make valid points? I asked when the Qur'an says about Muhammad pbuh, “And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and grieve not” (Quran, 16:127), in essence what mr. Zhul is saying is that the Prophet pbuh demonstrated a lack of faith in Allah! auzobillah! what sense is the man living by? my friend be careful how you play with the words of the Qur'an! as Allah the Prophet was giving Abubakar solace, this is the common sense, I bet if it were Ali r.a the fanatism you use in mocking the Qur'an will immediately turn around to praise! how pathetic is the condition of the men Ali r.a called Cowards and Traitors.

Zhul-fiqar:

What silly points?that you keep failing to make any sense?
You want to lie to us that abu bakr was afraid for the Prophet’s life?when the Prophet himself was calming abu bakr in the cave and telling him “God is with us”?

So in your shallow understanding of things, it is impossible for the Prophet pbuh to comfort Abubakar r.a not to grieve over any evil befalling him? is this how shallow your intellect is? so in essence for example using this shia low logic, if Mr. A is in trouble and Mr. B is sad over it, it is impossible for Mr. A to say to Mr. B don't be Sad , Allah is there for us? What kind of brain is this? one that thinks faultily when the truth is shown it's carrier? The Prophet pbuh assured Abubakar not to grieve for him as Allah is with them.

Zhul-fiqar:

You want to lie to us that Allah sent His sakinah (tranquility) on abu bakr and not on the Prophet (sa)?the words citing Allah sending His tranquility is in singular form in the verse when read even in english.it is either Allah sent His tranquility on the Prophet (sa) or on abu bakr.Allah sent it on the Prophet (sa)!

what a pity! in essence his low intellect again serves him poorly, as he now wants us to belief with all the fear that Abubakr r.a was under according to him, Allah decided to send his tranquillity on the Prophetn pbuh who was not grieving, are we begining to see how low the shias can go to win points? this is incredibly low, he claims that Abubakar r.a was fearful, if he could drop the jaundice in his heart he will know that Allah sent his tranquillity upon Abubakar r.a who accroding to him was fearful, how low the conditions of the m,mockers of the words of Allah is

Zhul-fiqar:

But really what are we even arguing about? That abu bakr was in a cave with the Prophet (sa)?but we don’t deny he was a companion.funny people,trying to make an argument where there is none!

after Mocking the verse in the Qur'an you now pretend not to know what it means; how low the condition of the Munafiqq is!

Zhul-fiqar:

Fadak is another issue.whether Ali (as) took it back or not for whatever reasons beyond your understanding,does not negate the fact that abu bakr stole it from Fatima (as).it also does not negate the fact that she protested against him and swore at him.

I restate my point clearly to show the hypocrisy that leaves in the heart of the shias:But we know their points holds no sensible ground the same liars will go as far as claiming that the reason Ali r.a refuse to take Fadak when he became caliph was becasue he feared the reaction of those that oppose him, in Ali r.a who they claim rules over the atoms etc feared doing justice because of the possible reaction of mere mortals! what a pathetic situation the shia find themselves , their thinking is very shallow to say the least. again let us recap the issues around the verse: and the funny thing is that in their Hadith Women do not inherit land etc yet the hadith deniers are always ready to argue blindly!

Zhul-fiqar:

Judas was also very close to Jesus.and so what?

and James was Jesus's cousin so what?

Zhul-fiqar:

That is your understanding of the verse.

which is the real interpretation of the verse!

Zhul-fiqar:

And so? It does not excuse the later actions of abu bakr.

later actions, that the accursed shias made up about him

Zhul-fiqar:

Your conclusion shows that abu bakr did not have faith in Allah (swt) who will protect and aid His Prophet (sa) at all times.

your dubious interpretation of the verse will mean that Mariam did not have faith in Allah, Muhammad pbuh did not have faith in Allah, Ibrahim did not have faith in Allah, all the muslims who greived over their loss at Uhud did not have faith in Allah, in essence you literal mock lots of people in order to prove that Abubakar is bad, how pathetic is the condition of the shia!

“So lose not heart and grieve not, for you will indeed be superior if you are truly believers.” (Quran, 3:139)

as we know here Allah was consoling the believers not condemning them, so also Muhammad pbuh was consoling Abubakar r.a not condeming him, it is very mediocre to to alter the context to which things happen

Zhul-fiqar:

Those are your likes.what those Ali (as) condemned among the shia is what you are among the muslims.you sound no different.

inshaAllah,I will present a detailed analysis of the event in the cave to shed light upon the non-issues you’re blowing for nothing and take a closer look at the verse.

Alhamdulilah, how easy it is to show the men that Ali r.a , Hassan and Hussayn condemed as Hypocrites, liars, Traitors and cowards!

Zhul-fiqar:

Very funny how Aisha leaves her house to wage a war against the Imam of her time going against Allah's explicit order in the holy Quran and presently there are people saying it was in the name of 'settling differences' between muslims

so the sunni method of 'settling difference and making peace' is to wage war.not to forget that Imam Ali (as) was the leader (caliph) then recognized even by sunnis and Imam Ali (as) was not at fault and he was also not at war with anyone regardless of 'differences'.so why would Aisha wage war,if it wasn't out of hate,disobedience and madness? If you want to excuse her with whatever lie or story,you should not forget that the Prophet (sa) himself had warned her before his death against waging war.he even mentioned the war in details,so that she would not go into war against Imam Ali (as).why did she disobey the Quran  and also the Prophet (sa) himself after he gave explicit warnings against the war?

The killers of Usthman had nothing to do with Imam Ali (as).infact in order to avoid the fitnah that usthman's killing could later cause,Imam Ali (as) had sent his sons to protect usthman (as sunni hadiths record).that was at a time aisha herself had advocated against usthman and screamed against him saying:'kill Nathal (usthman) he has become a disbeliever'.

'vedaxcool',you sound in your offense and hate against the shia like someone being hired or paid to mislead people in this forum.if you have conscience and a sincere mind as a muslim,you'd be mindful of your words and careful not to propagate lies and mislead others.

You probably read my post with your eyes closed , that is the level of fanaticism that you blind following of the muderers of Uthman r.a, you deluded yourself that you are a followers of Ali r.a, but we know he called men like your liars, hypocrites, Traitors and cowards. In your blind fanaticism, you over look the historical refutation to your lie, u deny Sunni hadiths and sources as long as it does not suit your illicit fanaticms, As the sources I quoted indicated the murderes of Uthman r.a did not want Aisha to met Ali thereby attacking her!

vedaxcool:

You probably read my post with your eyes closed  , that is the level of fanaticism that you blind following of the muderers of Uthman r.a, you deluded yourself that you are a followers of Ali r.a, but we know he called men like your liars, hypocrites, Traitors and cowards. In your blind fanaticism, you over look the historical refutation to your lie, u deny Sunni hadiths and sources as long as it does not suit your illicit fanaticms, As the sources I quoted indicated the murderes of Uthman r.a did not want Aisha to met Ali thereby attacking her!

the so called "sources" you quoted is from an anti-shia website.there is no hadith to back your claim up that those who killed Usthman were part of the Shia or what you refered to as "sabaites".there is nothing to back that up as the anti-shia website you have put your faith in is trying to claim.

talking about who the murderers of usthman were and who rejects sunni hadiths,we would shortly put that to test.i would provide you hadiths from sunni sources which point out that the murderers of usthman and those who wanted usthman dead were companions of the Prophet (sa) backed by egyptian rebels.these companions included Aisha and Talha (her relative) and Zubayr.these three later waged war under the lie that they were "avenging" usthman's killing.

i would provide you the hadiths in my next post and this would be the point where you have to prove your honesty.it is not because your father told you that you're sunni or you think you are one,you'd jump up and copy/paste whatever nonsense and historical lies quoted in anti-shia websites which sunnis have conviniently live by over the centuries in denial and concealment of the truth.

The Companions That Killed Usthman

“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”
Ibn Atheer,Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

On the next page we find a similar tradition recorded by Ibn Katheer which begins in this manner:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

delete.double posting.

Zhul-fiqar:

The Companions That Killed Usthman

see how the fanatical shia disregards his own book on who actually killed Uthman r.a

Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, “When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions’ sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house.” [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

Zhul-fiqar:

“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”
Ibn Atheer,Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

the above narration contain al-Waqidi who is consider either weak, liar or fabricator by hadeeths scholars.

Zhul-fiqar:

On the next page we find a similar tradition recorded by Ibn Katheer which begins in this manner:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

half quoting to prove a point, how pathetic the condition of men that Ali called hypocrites, liars, cowards and traitorous!

Zhul-fiqar:

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

so beseeching for various things means indictment for killing? i doff my hat for you intellect indeed!

Zhul-fiqar:

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

The hadith is weak due to broken chain of narrators.

Reading this forum, one cannot but laugh (in great surprise) at the arguments of the Ahl al-Sunnah. They are simply so ridiculous.

The Verse of the Cave neatly ends the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa'ah and exposes Aboo Bakr forever. But, strangely, they have turned it into a "merit" for him! In order to do that, some of them have to LIE that Allaah has revealed Sakeenah upon Aboo Bakr and NOT upon the Prophet! One of them even attacks the Shee'ah for claiming that the Sakeenah was revealed upon the Prophet:

[size=14pt]إِلَّا تَنْصُرُوهُ فَقَدْ نَصَرَهُ اللَّهُ إِذْ أَخْرَجَهُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ إِذْ يَقُولُ لِصَاحِبِهِ لَا تَحْزَنْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَنَا ۖ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ وَأَيَّدَهُ بِجُنُودٍ لَمْ تَرَوْهَا وَجَعَلَ كَلِمَةَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا السُّفْلَىٰ ۗ وَكَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ {40}
[/size]
[Shakir 9:40] If you will not aid him, Allah certainly aided him when those who disbelieved expelled him, he being the second of the two, when they were both in the cave, when he said to his companion: Grieve not, surely Allah is with us. So Allah sent down His tranquillity upon him and strengthened him with hosts which you did not see, and made lowest the word of those who disbelieved; and the word of Allah, that is the highest; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

So, Aboo Bakr was helped with angels as well?! This is the extent to which the Ahl al-Sunnah can go to distort the Words of Allaah.

Now, what have the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah said about that verse?

Ibn Katheer says:

[size=14pt] { فَأَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَيْهِ } أي: تأييده ونصره عليه، أي: على الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في أشهر القولين[/size]

{So, Allaah revealed Sakeenah upon him}

Meaning, helped him on it, meaning UPON THE MESSENGER OF ALLAAH, peace be upon him accoringing to the MOST FAMOUS of the statements.
Source: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=40&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Imaam al-Aloosee also states under that verse in his RooH al-Ma'aanee, vol. 3, p. 36:

[size=14pt]وقال جمهور الناس الضمير عائد على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهذا أقوى [/size]

THE MAJORITY of the people say that the pronoun (upon "him" refers to the Prophet, peace be upon him, AND THIS IS THE STRONGEST (VIEW).

In other words, the most acceptable interpretation to the 'ulamaa of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that the Sakeenah was revealed upon the Prophet only, EXCLUDING Aboo Bakr! Read the words of one of them:

Allah sent his Sakinah (serenity, peace, tranquility, etc.) down upon Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Allah sends Sakinah down upon the believers; if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was an evil-doer as the Shia claim, then Allah would have sent his Wrath upon him, not his Sakinah. The Shia consider Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to be an agent of Satan. Would Allah send his Sakinah down upon Satan?

Since it is clear now that Allaah did NOT send Sakeenah upon Aboo Bakr, would the Shee'ah then be correct?

Can this Sunnee brother venture an explanation why Allaah abandoned Aboo Bakr?!

The explanation is clear! In other verses, Allaah revealed Sakeenah upon the believers:

[size=14pt]ثُمَّ أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ سَكِينَتَهُ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَعَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَأَنْزَلَ جُنُودًا لَمْ تَرَوْهَا وَعَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا ۚ وَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ }[/size]

[Shakir 9:26] Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers.

So, we know why Allaah did not send it upon Aboo Bakr.

vedaxcool:

see how the fanatical shia disregards his own book on who actually killed Uthman r.a

Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, “When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions’ sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house.” [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

I HAVE ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE ME WITH JUST ONE HADITH REPORT THAT BACKS YOUR CLAIM THAT MEN ONCE ALLIED TO ALI (as) WHO WERE SHIA OR AS YOU REFER TO THEM "SABAITES" ACTUALLY KILLED USTHMAN.

The report you provided above mentions "rebels".which rebels?we know of egyptian rebels.

also,please who is "al-masoudi" that you're refering to as a shia historian?can you tell me about him?ive never heard of him.

please refer to the many sunni hadith reports implicating the companions in he murder of Usthman posted by "LagosShia".

another challenge:PLEASE TELL ME WHY DID MARWAN IBN HAKAM,USTHMAN'S COUSIN,WHO WAS ALSO FIGHTING IMAM ALI (as) IN THE BATTLE OF JAMAL,KILLED TALHA BOTH OF WHOM WERE ON AISHA'S SIDE.THAT IS JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT THE ABOVE REPORT MENTIONED BY YOUR HISTORIAN "AL-MASOUDI" IS FALSE.

vedaxcool:

so beseeching for various things means indictment for killing? i doff my hat for you intellect indeed!

i am not going to even answer your stu.pidity.how can your beloved caliph,Usthman,be under siege,yet he beseeched his companions and they did not save his life?ask yourself.

The hadith is weak due to broken chain of narrators.

first of all this is enough evidence to show who really cherry-pick hadith and accept a hadith only when it suits his fantacy.this has being your false allegation against me.but now you are the one doing it.

besides,there are more reports with other chains of narrations which implicated the companions.LET ME QUOTE THEM FOR YOU AS REMINDER:

LagosShia:

[size=14pt]The Role of Companions including Talha (Aisha's relative) and Zubayr Who later Joined Aisha to fight Imam Ali (as),in Assasinating Usthman with the aid of Egyptian Rebels:[/size]
“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”
Ibn Atheer,Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

On the next page we find a similar tradition recorded by Ibn Katheer which begins in this manner:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

[size=14pt]Aisha's Role in Killing Usthman:[/size]
Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated:
The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal" refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka.

According to Muhammad (Al-Waqidi) – Ibn Abi Sabrah – Abd al-Majid bin Suhayl – Ikramah: Aisha said to Ibn Abbass :“Ibn Abbas, I entreat you by God: abandon this man (Usthman), sow doubt about him among the people, for you have been given a sharp tongue. Their powers of discernment have been clarified, the beacon light is raised high to guide them, and (the Caliph’s associates) have milked the lands that once abounded in good things. I have seen Talha b. Ubaydullah (Aisha's relative) take possession of the keys to the public treasuries and storehouses. If he becomes Caliph, he will follow in the path of his paternal cousin Abu Bakr (Aisha's father)”.

According to (Ibn Abbas): I said, “O Mother (of the Believers), if some evil were to befall that man [namely Uthman], the people would seek asylum only in with our companion [namely, ‘‘Ali]. She replied, “Be quiet! I have no desire to defy or quarrel with you”.
History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 15 pages 289-239


[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Stance Towards the Killers of Usthman During the Siege[/size]
Ali said to Talha: "I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman." Talha replied: "No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right." (Uthman was the head of Umayad).
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15 page 235

“Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: "I constantly saw Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha (Aisha's paternal relative) when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman"
Tarikh al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15, pages 180-181

[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Reaction to Aisha forming an army to wage war against him:[/size]
He (Ali) said to Ibn Abbas: ‘Go to that woman and tell her to return to her home wherein Allah had ordered her to remain’. He (Ibn Abbas) said: ‘I therefore went to her and asked permission to enter, but she didn’t grant it. I therefore entered the house without her permission and sat on a cushion. She (Ayesha) said: ‘O ibn Abbas, by Allah I have never witnessed anyone like you! You entered our house without permission and sat on our cushion without our permission’. I said: ‘By Allah this is not your house, your only house is the one wherein Allah ordered you to remain, but you didn’t obey. The Commander of the Faithful orders you to return to that homeland from which you had left.
Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 108

Shaykh Sibt Jauzi al-Hanafi in Tazkirah tul Khawwas page 38, Shaykh Ibn Talha Shafiyee in Matalib al Se'ul page 112 and Ibn Sabagh Maliki in Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 record that prior to the battle of Jamal:

"He Ali (as) wrote a letter to Ayesha: 'By leaving your home you have disobeyed Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"


[size=14pt]Imam Ali's Reaction that Aisha in the company of Talha and Zubair were "avenging" usthman's blood from him:[/size]
Ahmed bin Zuhayr - his father Abu Khaythama – Wahb bin Jarir bin Hazim - his father – Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli – al-Zuhri:
"The news, that is of the seventy who were killed with al-Abdi at al-Basrah, reached Ali, so he advanced with 12000 men and came to al-Basrah , When the forces confronted each other, Ali went out on his horse and called out to al-Zubayr and the two of them confronted each other, Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126


Five days after the murder of 'Uthman, I arrived in Medina from Mecca. I went to go and visit Ali but was told that al-Mughirah bin Shubah was with him. So I sat at the entrance for an hour. When Mughirah came out, he greeted me and said, "How long ago did you get here?". "This past hour, " I replied. I then went into Ali and greeted him. He asked me, "Did you meet al-Zubayr and Talhah?" " I met them in al-Nawasif." "Who was with them?" he asked. "Abu Said bin Harith bin Hisham with a Qurashi force," I replied. Ali then said: "I am sure they will never refrain from coming out and saying, "We seek repayment for Uthman's blood. By Allah! We know that they are the ones who killed Uthman."
History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16, page 23


Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126


[size=14pt]What the Quran Says About Those Who Kill Innocent People While They Claim to Seek Revenge for Murder:[/size]
Surah al Maida verse 32:

"Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind".

[size=14pt]Usthman's Cousin (Marwan) Killed Talha After They Were Defeated Against Imam Ali (as) On Aisha's Side[/size]
“When Uthman was killed, and Talha, Zubair and A'isha went to Basra in order to avenge the blood of 'Uthman, at that time Marwan also accompanied them. When all the people were running away in battlefield (after Aisha's forces were defeated), Marwan saw Talha and said: ‘By Allah, he is responsible for killing of Uthman, and indeed he treated Uthman badly. And I need no other testimony after watching all this from my own eyes’. He took an arrow and fired it at Talha, that killed him."
Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Volume 5 page 38, Biography of Marwan bin al-Hakam

When Talhah and al-Zubayr and Aisha set out, I noticed that Talhah preferred to sit alone and would flick his beard against his chest. So I said to him: "Abu Muhammad! I see that you prefer to sit alone and keep flicking your beard against your chest. If there is something you dislike [going on], sit [and talk about it]!" "Alqamah bin Waqqas, "He replied to me, "we were all united against others. But now we have become two mountains of iron, each seeking to [finish] the other. There was indeed some thing I did against Uthman and my penance for it can be nothing less than having my blood spilled in the course of seeking vengeance for his blood." History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, page 79

End of Battle
Aisha's forces were defeated and Aisha was arrested.she was returned to her house in Medinah (where she belonged to by Allah's command in the Quran) in the company of her brother,Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (RA) who fought on Imam Ali's (as) side against his sister's forces.

vedaxcool:

the above narration contain al-Waqidi who is consider either weak, liar or fabricator by hadeeths scholars.

half quoting to prove a point, how pathetic the condition of men that Ali called hypocrites, liars, cowards and traitorous!

There are numerous sunni hadith reports with different chains of narrators not including Waqidi that have implicated the companions in usthman's murder and also exposed their complacency.

as for al-waqidi,there is nothing wrong with his reporting/narrations by sunni standards.you can further see evidence about him by yourself in the following link:

Muhammad bin Umar al-Waqidi

so stop cherry-picking and even rejecting sunni reporters of hadiths when they report what does not appeal to your fantacies.

you have not being able to present a hadith report that shia men or "sabaites" as you called them actually killed usthman.this is a lie invented by an anti-shia website which you are propagating without scrutiny.

you can check the links earlier presented by my brother ShiaMuslim for more evidence and sunni reports of how companions actually murdered usthman:

ShiaMuslim:

Detailed Reading and Evidence on "the Role of Some Companions" (including Aisha,Talha,and Zubayr) in Assasinating Usthman and The "Battle of Jamal" Against Imam Ali (as) Initiated By Aisha Under The False Pretext of Avenging Usthman's Blood:

Identifying the Killers of Usthman

The Rebellion of Aisha in the Battle of Jamal

The Battle of Jamal (camel)

vedaxcool:

Alhamdulilah, I am a Muslim who respect the Prophet's companion,the prophet wives who are part of the Ahlul-bayt and the Prophets family. It is the shias that should continue to answer the questions, Do they fear Allah? Do they Respect the Prophet pbuh? Are they Muslims? why is hypocrisy so entrenched in their beliefs? etc

You are foolish.
Those companions killed themselves.the Shia respect the good ones and not the bad ones
The Ahlul-Bayt (as) we believe in are the ones purified by Allah as mentioned in the Quran verse 33:33.they do not include the wives among whom is the warrior,Aisha who hated Ali (as) and the daughter and grandchildren of the Prophet.we also love the good wives and not the bad ones.

the verse did not say, fear not! it said grieve not! you again show how you not only play fast and lose with hadiths of the Prophets but words of the Qur'an itself, I wonder what you will gain by mocking the Qur'an, did the Qur'an indicate that Abubakar r.a was a coward for grieving? did the Qur'an accuse him of weak faith? where did you read the silly points you raised? I pray Allah give you guidiance, we know your manners like lagoshia are very low that curse is the only thing you have to offer.

Firstly,you have being very abusive and insulting,worse than a street child.you’re a shame to islam if you dare claim to be muslim.indeed,you are like those bad companions and Aisha you claim to follow.dont think that I cannot also rain insults on you.i can but I know that insults are not part of Akhlaq (manners) which Islam teaches me.

I didn’t say the verse said “fear not”.”fear” can be positive or negative.for instance the fear of Allah is a positive fear.but when the word “grief” or “hazn” is used in the case of abu bakr,that is purely negative.that is evident from the words of the Prophet (sa) to abu bakr :"Allah is with us".it shows that abu bakr had lost hope!

From the wordings of the verse,there is nothing positive for abu bakr.i don’t know why you decided to publicize what is more of criticism than praise for your hero.you alleged that abu bakr wasn’t scared for his life but for the Prophet’s.i then told you that logically,if he believed in Allah who promised to protect and make His Prophet (sa) victorious,he would have no negative fear to the extent of grieving!

So you now accuse the Qur'an of mocking the prophet pbuh?

“So lose not heart and grieve not, for you will indeed be superior if you are truly believers.” (Quran, 3:139)

we know it is in your nature to lie and hypocrite but at least you should have the discretion

You are the one to answer here.you said I am mocking the Quran for saying abu bakr was afraid as the Quranic verse (9:40) reports.yet you hypocrite did not think that you are mocking the Quran when you said the Prophet (sa) was afraid when he saw the angel.

And just for your info,when someone who claims to be a believer is afraid when under threat from the disbelievers,that fear has to do with the alleged believer having fear for his life.but when a Prophet (sa) sees an angel and he experiences fear,that is fear of the unknown or fear in the form of reverence.while the former is a coward the latter is a saint whose intentions are pure.

this adds little sense to what we are talking about, and by Allah, Ali r.a call you shias cowards, liars, hypocrites and Traitors!

You would soon have a Christian shout at you:”By Christ,Allah in your Quran call you muslims hypocrites” because there is a chapter in the Quran named “chapter of the hypocrites” and verses in the Quran which exposes the hypocrites who claimed to have followed the Prophet (sa) and become muslims.

So therefore what would be the difference between vedaxcool and a block headed kaffir who rejects using his head?

The lies of a shia knows no bound, the verse which I stated clearly said Grieve not, not fear not. Again you mock the Qur'an to prove what exactly? where did the verse say Abubakar actions demonstrated lack of faith in Allah?when are you going to make valid points? I asked when the Qur'an says about Muhammad pbuh, “And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and grieve not” (Quran, 16:127), in essence what mr. Zhul is saying is that the Prophet pbuh demonstrated a lack of faith in Allah! auzobillah! what sense is the man living by? my friend be careful how you play with the words of the Qur'an! as Allah the Prophet was giving Abubakar solace, this is the common sense, I bet if it were Ali r.a the fanatism you use in mocking the Qur'an will immediately turn around to praise! how pathetic is the condition of the men Ali r.a called Cowards and Traitors.

You lack common sense.
You indeed do not know the difference between “fear” (khawf) and “grief” (hazn).fear can be positive.for instance “fear of Allah”.but grief in the case of abu bakr is pure negative.he was scared of the disbelievers.
Where is taqwa and where is iman?

So in your shallow understanding of things, it is impossible for the Prophet pbuh to comfort Abubakar r.a not to grieve over any evil befalling him? is this how shallow your intellect is? so in essence for example using this shia low logic, if Mr. A is in trouble and Mr. B is sad over it, it is impossible for Mr. A to say to Mr. B don't be Sad , Allah is there for us? What kind of brain is this? one that thinks faultily when the truth is shown it's carrier? The Prophet pbuh assured Abubakar not to grieve for him as Allah is with them.

Those are your words and that is your interpretation.you’re becoming like the Christians who understand the opposite of what they read.so,read the Quranic verse again!

what a pity! in essence his low intellect again serves him poorly, as he now wants us to belief with all the fear that Abubakr r.a was under according to him, Allah decided to send his tranquillity on the Prophetn pbuh who was not grieving, are we begining to see how low the shias can go to win points? this is incredibly low, he claims that Abubakar r.a was fearful, if he could drop the jaundice in his heart he will know that Allah sent his tranquillity upon Abubakar r.a who accroding to him was fearful, how low the conditions of the m,mockers of the words of Allah is

after Mocking the verse in the Qur'an you now pretend not to know what it means; how low the condition of the Munafiqq is!

There is nowhere in that verse that suggests that the pronoun of “him” refers to abu bakr.
“tranquility” can either be in form of sending peace or reassurance or to strengthen a person.
Also,Allah (swt) did not only send “sakinah”.he also sent angels to “protect him”.so Allah (swt) sent angels to protect abu bakr and not the Prophet (sa) since the pronoun is in singular form?how can that be?

Furthermore,there is no logic as evidence from the verse that because it was abu bakr that was shaking,”sakinah” and angels must have being sent to “protect him” (i.e. abu bakr).if anyone sees the verse,it is so clear that Allah (sa) strengthened His Prophet (sa) with “sakinah” and sent angels to protect him and not abu bakr at all.

I restate my point clearly to show the hypocrisy that leaves in the heart of the shias:But we know their points holds no sensible ground the same liars will go as far as claiming that the reason Ali r.a refuse to take Fadak when he became caliph was becasue he feared the reaction of those that oppose him, in Ali r.a who they claim rules over the atoms etc feared doing justice because of the possible reaction of mere mortals! what a pathetic situation the shia find themselves , their thinking is very shallow to say the least. again let us recap the issues around the verse: and the funny thing is that in their Hadith Women do not inherit land etc yet the hadith deniers are always ready to argue blindly!

When any hadith contradicts the Quran,the Quran must take precedence.ask any student of hadith.in the Quran we have evidence of Prophets leaving inheritance.abu bakr’s testimony that prophets do not leave inheritance is therefore false.

Also,when different hadiths contradict themselves,you take the one closest to the Quran and the ones that are more consistent with the Quran and in report,chains and with reasoning.there is nothing in Shia fiqh that prevent a woman from inheriting anything and even inheriting everything if she is the lone child.in sunnism,if the female is lone child,she is forced to share her inheritance with her father’s brothers.

later actions, that the accursed shias made up about him

The usurpers and their supporters are accursed.that is the reward for tyranny and oppression.

your dubious interpretation of the verse will mean that Mariam did not have faith in Allah, Muhammad pbuh did not have faith in Allah, Ibrahim did not have faith in Allah, all the muslims who greived over their loss at Uhud did not have faith in Allah, in essence you literal mock lots of people in order to prove that Abubakar is bad, how pathetic is the condition of the shia!

“So lose not heart and grieve not, for you will indeed be superior if you are truly believers.” (Quran, 3:139)

as we know here Allah was consoling the believers not condemning them, so also Muhammad pbuh was consoling Abubakar r.a not condeming him, it is very mediocre to to alter the context to which things happen

Mariam (as) saw a strange being, an angel.abu bakr saw and was afraid of disbelievers for his life
The fear factor between the people of God and abu bakr is different and from two different extremes.you are comparing apples to oranges.the people in Uhud were even given limited number of days to mourn their loved ones who were matyred.whose martyrdom was abu bakr grieving about when he was in the cave and thought the disbelievers would enter and get hold of him? The Prophet (sa) had to remind him of Allah and not to be afraid.
You actually presented a verse to “praise” abu bakr.it turned out to be there is nothing praiseworthy for abu bakr in the verse.now you’re in the defensive to salvage his image

Alhamdulilah, how easy it is to show the men that Ali r.a , Hassan and Hussayn condemed as Hypocrites, liars, Traitors and cowards!

Alhamdulillah.how easy it is show the men that Almighty Allah (swt) in the holy Quran condemned as hypocrites.

So be mindful of your deceit.there were bad muslims in the days of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) called “hypocrites”.there were bad muslims and shia in the days of Ali (as).and in every religion you find them and in every time.you are a good example of one!

Zhul-fiqar:



The report you provided above mentions "rebels".which rebels?we know of egyptian rebels.

also,please who is "al-masoudi" that you're refering to as a shia historian?can you tell me about him?ive never heard of him.

[b]
Another story narrated by Al-Arbali, “Then some people from Iraq entered upon him (Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen Ali bin Al-Hussain) and said some bad things about Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. When they were done, Ali bin Al-Hussain told them, ‘Tell me, Are you the (Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones)? They answered, ‘No!’ Then Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘So, are you (those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot))?’ They answered, ‘No!’ Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Therefore, you disassociated yourselves from being one of these two groups and I bear witness that you are not the ones (who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Get out of here, may Allah curse you!” [Ibid, vol. 2, p. 291, under the subtitle of “Virtues of Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen”][/b]

alhamdulilah,, how Ali r.a cursed men that insults the prophet pbuh companion.


“And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718

the hypocrite debies not knowing Al-Masoudi? indeed Ali r.a curse has already taken effect upon the denigrate!

Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, "When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions' sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house." [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

www.ansar.org/english/Uthman.htm.

Zhul-fiqar:

i am not going to even answer your stu.pidity.how can your beloved caliph,Usthman,be under siege,yet he beseeched his companions and they did not save his life?ask yourself.

, getting frustrated? another sign that the curse Ali placed on you head for cursing the sahabahs is taking effect, where did beseeched turn to kill? oh! accursed one! where did the hadith say they killed him? or partook in his killing, we know you are quoting berbatim from anti - Islamic sites but atleast use your brain which Ali r.a cursed to think, an in addition, it seems you forget that Ali r.a was also a sahabah, meaning he did nothing to save Uthman r.a alive when he was beseeched, that is what your argument makes, again according to Al Mausoodi, a shia historian, the Sahabah sent their wards to fight the accursed rebels!

Zhul-fiqar:

first of all this is enough evidence to show who really cherry-pick hadith and accept a hadith only when it suits his fantacy.this has being your false allegation against me.but now you are the one doing it.


besides,there are more reports with other chains of narrations which implicated the companions.LET ME QUOTE THEM FOR YOU AS REMINDER:

, how low is the condition of men that Ali r.a called Hypocrites, Liars, cowards and traitors, cherry picking fallacy? you see why the curse of Ali r.a is besieging you, as you are the ones that leave numerous hadiths that speaks positively of the sahabah including the account of the shia historian Al Masoudi, to take weak, farbriocated hadiths to support you usual weak case!

delete

vedaxcool:


Another story narrated by Al-Arbali, “Then some people from Iraq entered upon him (Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen Ali bin Al-Hussain) and said some bad things about Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. When they were done, Ali bin Al-Hussain told them, ‘Tell me, Are you the (Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones)? They answered, ‘No!’ Then Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘So, are you (those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot))?’ They answered, ‘No!’ Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Therefore, you disassociated yourselves from being one of these two groups and I bear witness that you are not the ones (who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Get out of here, may Allah curse you!” [Ibid, vol. 2, p. 291, under the subtitle of “Virtues of Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen”.

when has the reference you are quoting become a source for us shia?

secondly,even in the above hadith you quoted,there is nowhere Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain (as) praised abu bakr,Umar or Usthman.he praised the ansar and the muhajireen,among whom are men and women worthy of praise.also note the words highligted above:"Therefore, you disassociated yourselves from being one of these two groups and I bear witness that you are not the ones (who came after them say:".so please do not quote hadith funnily and then cook its context.at least quote hadith that you will not misquote.

besides,even if such a hadith exist whereby the any of the Imams (as) are compelled to praise those criminals the hypocrites like yourself idolize,that praise is to be understood in its context.i can bring you hadiths in abundance talking about the reality of the criminals you praise.and why do you people see it as insult or even curse for the simple fact that a shia is not brain dead and incapacittated to examine facts from the past? with all the crimes abu bakr and co committed,do you reallly find it sound that a member of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) like Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain,Zaynul-Abidin (as) would praise these criminals?cant you think? from the words of the hadith mentioning abu bakr (while the words of the Imam do not) it really becomes amusing.

alhamdulilah,, how Ali r.a cursed men that insults the prophet pbuh companion.

so Ali (as) was cursing Usthman? because i can see somewhere Usthman himself cursing his fellow sahaba:
“When the Egyptian forces landed at Jahafa and began to talk ill of Uthman, he got to know about it and climbed on the pulpit and said, “O Sahaba (companions) of Prophet Muhammad (s), May Allah curse you for bad mouthing me. You advertised my shortcomings and concealed my virtues. You have also provoked people against me.
Kanz al Ummal, Volume 13 page 82 Tradition 36293

and ofcourse not to forget how Marwan killed Talha.

vedaxcool,you find your brain incacerated and you still want us to follow that blind way of living in denial when the facts are there and are alarming.

“And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers[/b]…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

nice one.the christians who add and subtract from their bible have taught you well.now you have learnt the use of brackets to add words that are not said like.

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718

amazing hypocrisy!
Aisha contributed in the killing of Usthman.read the words of Imam Ali (as) in reaction to the allegation that Aisha was "avenging" Usthman's death and seeking "reform" for the ummah.the reaction of Imam Ali (as) has being posted.

you have sucessfully FAILED to provide me with a sigle hadith which says that the "sabaites" (God knows who these "sabaites" were for those who dont know that it is a deregatory term refering to "Shia" killed Usthman.[/b]what you have done is to give me the words of the author from Musnad Ibn Abi Sheibah that the so called "sabaites" were throwing lances on Aisha.you tried to be crafty and tried to make desperately bring the word "sabaite" into the picture.but you have still yet not provided me with a hadith that the "sabaites" were the ones who laid siege on usthman and finally killed him.

[b]the other challenge i posed to you was to tell me: WHY DID MARWAN IBN HAKAM,USTHMAN'S COUSIN,KILLED TALHA (AISHA'S COUSIN) AFTER THE BATTLE OF JAMAL ENDED WITH THE DEFEAT OF AISHA?NOTE THAT BOTH TALHA AND MARWAN FOUGHT ON AISHA'S SIDE AGAINST IMAM ALI (as).

the hypocrite debies not knowing Al-Masoudi? indeed Ali r.a curse has already taken effect upon the denigrate!

you keep saying "al-masoudi".who is this your "al-masoudi".at least give me his full name and his date and place of birth.

Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, "When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions' sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house." [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

www.ansar.org/english/Uthman.htm.

the above narration either does not exist since this "al-masoudi" of yours taken from the blind ansar.org website is annoymous,or the narration is fabricatedfor an obvious purpose which is to vindicate Talha and Zubayr.do you think if the companions really protected Usthman,they could not have broken the siege and saved Usthman's life?both Talha and Zubayr took part in murdering Usthman.so how did they send their sons? you're obviously refusing to think.you're coopying falsehood verbatim.

Stalwert:

, getting frustrated?

it is your rude and insulting words that testify of frustration and desperation.

i cannot be frustrated when truth is on my side.the only thing i'm at lose with,is the time you are making me waste replying to your nonsense.

just keep in mind that i would do what it takes to expose falsehood and propagate the truth but i am not here to convince you.

you're the one allergic to the word "shia".whenever a thread having to do with "shia" is started as apparent in the forum,you keep copy-pasting from anti-muslim sunni websites who hate the shia and the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) just like the criminals you sunnis defend also do.

so no one here really cares about what you think.

Surah 24:54
Say: "Obey God, and obey the Apostle: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Apostle's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).

Surah 64:12
And obey ALLAH and obey the Messenger. But if you turn away, then Our Messenger is responsible only for conveying the Message clearly.

another sign that the curse Ali placed on you head for cursing the sahabahs is taking effect, where did beseeched turn to kill? oh! accursed one! where did the hadith say they killed him? or partook in his killing, we know you are quoting berbatim from anti - Islamic sites but atleast use your brain which Ali r.a cursed to think,

provide me a hadith to tell us who killed Usthman.you accused the so called "sabaites".give us evidence.why are you hiding?

your hadiths earlier quoted shows that Usthman was begging the companions to spare him.yet you deny it.

“Imam Ahmed stated: Ishaq bin Sulaiman told us that he heard Muawiyah bin Aslam that Salmah narrated from Mutraf from Nafi’e from Ibn Umair that Uthman during his siege looked at his companions and said: ‘Why do you people want to kill me? I have heard Holy Prophet [s] that the blood of a person becomes Halal only in three conditions i.e. if he committed adultery after marriage, such a man should be stoned to death, or someone deliberately killed another person, his punishment is death or if someone becomes apostate, his punishment is death as well. By Allah! I neither committed adultery during the days of ignorance nor during the days of Islam, nor have I killed someone that I may give Qasas via my life, also I didn’t become apostate after becoming Muslim. I testify that there is no God except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet and Messenger’. Nasai has narrated it Ahmed bin Al-Azahar from Ishaq bin Sulaiman.”
Ibn Atheer,Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Arabic), Vol 7 page 202

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 63 while the margin writers of the book such as Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout declared it ‘Hasan’ and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p358).

On the next page we find a similar tradition recorded by Ibn Katheer which begins in this manner:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that[b] Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) [/b] on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”

This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

an in addition, it seems you forget that Ali r.a was also a sahabah, meaning he did nothing to save Uthman r.a alive when he was beseeched, that is what your argument makes, again according to Al Mausoodi, a shia historian, the Sahabah sent their wards to fight the accursed rebels!

the fact is Imam Ali (as) had avoided Usthman for a period when dissatisfaction from the people was rising and Usthman did not abdicate.Imam Ali (as) infact never sent his sons (who are two Imams) to protect your usthman.your "al-masoudi" is yet to be identified by you that.also,even the report you posted from your "al-masoudi" mentions that Talha and Zubayr also sent their son.now that is funny.let us read from your almighty sunni al-Tabari:

Ali said to Talha: "I ask you by Allah to send people away from (attacking) Uthman." Talha replied: "No, by God, not until the Umayad voluntarily submit to what is right." (Uthman was the head of Umayad).
History of al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15 page 235

“Abdurrahman Ibn al-Aswad said: "I constantly saw Ali avoiding (Uthman) and not acting as he formerly had. However, I know that he spoke with Talha (Aisha's paternal relative) when Uthman was under siege, to the effect that water skins should be taken to him. Ali was extremely upset (from Talha) about that until finally water skins were allowed to reach Uthman"
Tarikh al-Tabari, English version, Volume 15, pages 180-181


HOW DOES IT FEEL "vedaxcool"?                         

, how low is the condition of men that Ali r.a called Hypocrites, Liars, cowards and traitors, cherry picking fallacy? you see why the curse of Ali r.a is besieging you, as you are the ones that leave numerous hadiths that speaks positively of the sahabah including the account of the shia historian Al Masoudi, to take weak, farbriocated hadiths to support you usual weak case!

tell us why you decided to ignore the numerous reports in "reliable" sunni  books such as al-tabari and musnad Ahmad which point out that companions killed Usthman and you conjured up a so called "al-masoudi",who you claim him to be a "shia historian". that is ridiculous.for the decades that i have lived and being a shia,i have never heard of this al-masoudi of yours.may be you can tell us more about him.

WHAT IMAM ALI SAID ABOUT THE LIES THAT AISHA AND TALHA AND ZUBAYR WERE "AVENGING" USTHMAN'S MURDER AND AISHA WAS "REFORMING" THE UMMAH?

Imam 'Ali (as) rejects Ayesha's demand of Qisas for Uthman
In Muttalib al Saul page 116 by Shaykh Mufti Kamaluddin Ibn Talha Shafiyee we read that when Ayesha reached Basra, Hadhrath 'Ali wrote a letter to her, part of it stated here:"…Tell me Ayesha what role do women have in leading armies and reforming the Ummah? You claim that you want to avenge Uthman's blood, Uthman was a man from Banu Ummaya whilst you are a woman from Banu Taym Ibn Murra".

Ahmed bin Zuhayr - his father Abu Khaythama – Wahb bin Jarir bin Hazim - his father – Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli – al-Zuhri:
"The news, that is of the seventy who were killed with al-Abdi at al-Basrah, reached Ali, so he advanced with 12000 men and came to al-Basrah , When the forces confronted each other, Ali went out on his horse and called out to al-Zubayr and the two of them confronted each other, Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126


Five days after the murder of 'Uthman, I arrived in Medina from Mecca. I went to go and visit Ali but was told that al-Mughirah bin Shubah was with him. So I sat at the entrance for an hour. When Mughirah came out, he greeted me and said, "How long ago did you get here?". "This past hour, " I replied. I then went into Ali and greeted him. He asked me, "Did you meet al-Zubayr and Talhah?" " I met them in al-Nawasif." "Who was with them?" he asked. "Abu Said bin Harith bin Hisham with a Qurashi force," I replied. Ali then said: "I am sure they will never refrain from coming out and saying, "We seek repayment for Uthman's blood. By Allah! We know that they are the ones who killed Uthman."
History of Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16, page 23


Ali said to al-Zubair: "Are you asking me for compensation for the blood of 'Uthman, when it was you who killed him? I ask Allah in His power right now to give a hateful punishment to he among us who was the severest in opposing 'Uthman." Ali said to Talhah: " You have brought the Messenger of Allah's wife to make her fight while you hide your wife at home.”
History of al-Tabari, English Edition, Volume 16 pages 125-126

[size=14pt]Sahaba and Tabiyeen had highlighted Aisha’s shift in policy on Uthman[/size]

The change in circumstances in Aisha’s portrayal of Uthman from a kaafir to victim occurred when Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [as] had attained power. Her new policy of regret had not gone unnoticed and she may well have denied this later, but the fact is the Sahaba were fully aware that Aisha WAS responsible for Uthman’s killing and they pointed this out to her.

In Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 100 Ibn Atheer records that:

"Ubayd bin Abi Salma who was a maternal relative of Aisha met her as she was making her way to Madina. Ubayd said "Uthman has been killed and the people were without an Imam for eight days" to which Aisha asked "What did they do next?". Ubayd said "The people approached '‘Ali and gave him bayya". Aisha then said 'Take me back! Take me back to Makka". She then turned her face towards Makka and said, 'Verily Uthman was murdered innocently, and By Allah, I shall avenge his blood'. Ubayd then said 'You are now calling Uthman innocent, even though it was you who said 'Kill Nathal, this Jew".

Imam ‘Ali [as] wrote a letter to Aisha in which He [as] had openly questioned Aisha’s motives, as recorded in Seerat al Halabiyah (Urdu), Volume 2 part 2 page 437:

"You have acted in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) by leaving your home, you have made demands for those things that you have no right. You claim to wish to reform the Ummah, tell me, what role do women have in reforming the Ummah and participating in battles? You claim that you wish to avenge Uthman 's murder despite the fact that he is a man from Banu Ummayya and you are a woman from Banu Taym. If we look in to the matter it was only yesterday that you had said 'Kill Nathal May Allah (swt) kill him because he has become a kaafir".
Seerat al Halabiyah (Urdu), Volume 2 part 2 page 437, translation by Deobandi scholar Maulana Muhammad Aslam Qasmi

In al-Iqd al-Fareed, Volume 2 page 91:

Aysha went out weeping and saying: Uthman has been killed as one that is oppressed.’ Ammar bin Yasir replied: ‘Yesterday you were inciting people against him and today you weep for him!’

In Tabaqat al Kubra, Volume 3 page 82 we read the testimony of famous Tabayee namely Masrooq which has also been quoted by the Abu Sulaiman and has declared the tradition as authentic:

"Musrooq said to Aisha, Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him".

In Iqd al Fareed, Volume 2 page 210 we learn that:

"Marwan approached Aisha and said Uthman died because of you, you wrote to people and incited them against him".

Also in Iqd al Fareed, Volume 2 page 93 we read that:

"Mugheera bin Shuba approached Aisha and she said to him, 'In Jamal some of the arrows that were fired, nearly pierced my skin.' Mugheera replied 'If only an arrow had killed you, that would have acted as penance for the fact that you had incited the people to kill Uthman ".

For those who make attempts to have us believed that Ayesha shared very cordial relations with Uthman, we should remind such people that at one place Ayesha, herself made the following admission:

Ibn Jarir Tabari - Ziyaad bin Ayub - Muassab bin Sulaiman al-Tamimi - Muhammad - Asim bin Kulayb - his father:
During the time of Uthman bin Affan, I had a dream. I saw a man who was ruling the people while he was ill in bed, and a woman was by his head. The people were after him and hastened toward him and had she forbidden them, they would have stopped. But she did not, so they seized and killed him. I used to recount this dream of mine to everyone, whether settled or nomad, and they were surprised and did not know what it meant.
Then when Uthman was killed the news reached us as we were returning from a raid, and my companions said: ‘You dream Kulayb!’. When we got to Basrah, and we had not been there long when someone said: ‘Talha and al-Zubayr are coming and the Mother of the Faithful is with them’. This alarmed the people and they were surprised, but they were claiming to the people that they had only come out of anger over Uthman and in penance over the way they had not supported him. The Mother of the Faithful spoke up: "We became angry at Uthman on your behalf because of three things he did: giving command to youths, expropriating common property and beating (people) with whips and sticks".
History of Tabari, English Edition, volume 16, pages 99-100

Ziyad bin Ayub: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2 p508), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p318). Mussab bin Salam al-Tamimi: Al-Albaani considered him Thiqah (Silsila Sahiha, v5 p280). Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p186). Muhammad bin Suqah: Dahabi said: ’Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v6, p1340, Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p84). Asim bin Kulayb: Dahabi said: ‘Authenticated’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v8 p457), Al-Albaani said:‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p334), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p459). Kulayb bin Shehab: Ibn Hajar said: 'Seduq' (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p44), Dahabi said: 'Authenticated' (Al-Kashif, v2 p149).


Aisha in her opposition to Uthman deemed the Egyptians as oppressed ones, then in her opposition to Ali [as] she deemed Egyptians to be oppressors

Let us give a clear stance of Aisha about the people of Egypt who were at the front line in their agitation against Uthman. During the time of these tensions, she was incorrectly informed that Uthman was not murdered rather Uthman killed the people of Egypt who had besieged him. The reaction of Aisha on hearing this news is worth noting:

According to Umar bin Shabbah – Abul Hassan al-Madaini – Suhaym, the mawla of Wabrah Al-Tamimi- Ubayd bin Amr al-Qurashi: Aisha had left Madina while Uthman was being besieged. A man [just in from Madina] called Akhdar came up to her in Makka, so she asked: “What are the people doing?” “Uthman has killed the Egyptians” he replied. “We belong to Allah and to Him we return” exclaimed Aisha. “Does he kill people who come seeking justice and denouncing injustice? By Allah! We don’t approve of such a thing”. Presently another man came. “What are the people doing?” she asked. “Uthman has been killed by the Egyptians” he replied. Akhdar amazed. She He alleged that the killed was the killer.
History of Tabari [English translation] Volume 16 page 39

Ibn Shabbah: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p63), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p719). Abu al-Hassan al-Medaini: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v16 p289), Imam Yahya ibn Mueen said: ‘Thiqah Thiqah Thiqah’ (Mizan al-Etidal, v3 p153), Tabari said: ‘Seduq’ (Lisan al-Mizan, v4 p253). Suhaim muwla Wabra: Imam Abu Hatim mentioned him and didn’t record any negative remakrs about him (Al-Jarh wa al-Tadil, v4 p304). Ubaid bin Amro: A Sahabi (Al-Isaba, v4 p345).

The narration clarifies Aeysha stance according to which the people of Egypt were on the right path and were denouncing the injustice of Uthman. Then she met Ibn Abbas and tired to persuade him to support Talha as next caliph. Ibn Abbas told her but Ibn abbas told her that the people were rather interested in Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. This statement of Ibn Abbas spoiled her mood. Then she met Ubaid bin Abi Salmah who told her that people had then formally chosen Ali bin Abi Talib [as] as next caliph. This news incensed her and that was the precise time and reason which made her change her policy about Uthman and since that day, her stance was that Uthman was killed as an oppressor, the stance which Nawasib of today including the author of Ansar.org would like us to believe.

vedaxcool:

Al-Masoudi, the Shia historian, narrates in his book Murooj Al-Thahab, "When Ali was told that they [the rebels] wanted to kill him [Uthman], he sent his two sons Al-Hasan and Al-Hussain along with his slaves with weapons to Uthman to support him. Ali ordered them to defend Uthman. Al-Zubair sent his son Abdullah, Talha sent his son Muhamed, and the vast majority of the Companions' sons were sent by their fathers. They prevented the rebels from entering the house." [Murooj Al-Thahab, vol.2, p.344]

www.ansar.org/english/Uthman.htm.

[size=14pt]REFUTATION TO THE ALLEGATION THAT AL-MASOUDI WAS A SHIA HISTORIAN[/size]

By calling Masudi a Shia, the Nasibi author is obviously is trying to suggest that he belonged to the Imamiyah or Shia Astha Ashari faith and hence his work is reliable for us, which is a blatant lie. Only a Nasibi can adhere to the logic to suggest that an individual that praises Ahl’ul bayt [as] is Shia (Imamiyah/Rafidhi). It might be difficult for a Nasibi (who in previous writings had extolled his Imam Yazeed) to understand this but actual Sunnis also have love for Imam Ali [as]. Al Masudi is a recognized Mutazili / Sunni scholar as recorded by Imam Dahabi (Siar alam alnubala, v15 p569) and even if his faith is criticized by some segments of Nawasib, the work advanced by Masudi in the field of Islamic History is happily accepted by the Ahle Sunnah, this is an established fact, Abu Sulaiman is either ignorant or intentionally lying, judging from his exploits in previous articles the latter seems to be the more stronger option!

Would Imams of Ahle Sunnah, past and present be heaping praise on a Rafidhi writer? One of the beloved scholars of Deobandies Allamah Shibli Numani states clearly in Al-Faruq (English translation) Volume 1 page 9 that:

“…Masudi (died 386 Hijri) is the ‘Father of History’. Islam has not produced a historian equal to him in comprehensive information and width of thought…Has all his historical works been extant, all other attempts in this direction would have been regarded as superfluous, but it is a pity that owing to the corrupted taste of the Muslim nations most of his books are not extant now. Occidental research has, after considerable scrutiny and labor, been able to discover two of his books, namely Muruj-ud-Dhahab and Kitab al Tanbih wal-Ashraf. The former has been printed in Egypt”.
Al-Faruq (English translation) Volume 1 page 9

As for those Sunnies who call Al-Masudi a Shia, it should be noted that it is said in terms of preferring Ali [as] over Uthman only and nothing else, as recorded by Sunni scholar Ahmad Ibn al-Sidiq in his book Fath al-Malik al-Ali, page 143:

Nay they attributed Darqutni to Shiasm although he is far from it, just because he memorized the poems of Hemayri. Nay they talked about Shafiyee and attributed him to Shiasm just because he agreed with the Shia in some issues in which they (Shias) were right and didn’t innovate in it such as pronouncing Bismilah loudly, performing Qunoot during morning prayer, wearing ring in the right hand and his inclination towards Ahlulbayt, he may Allah be pleased with him pointed to that in his famous poems. And they called al-Masudi weak and attributed him to Shiasm just because of his statement in Muruj al-Dahab: ‘The things which the companions of Allah's Messenger deserved virtue because it is their preceding to (bring) Iman, migration, support to Allah's messenger, nearness to Him, conviction and sacrifices by their souls for Him, their knowledge about Quran, Jihad for the sake of Allah, godliness, asceticism, judgment, chastity, knowledge and all that Ali had the biggest share of, beside his (Ali’s) distinction by special virtues such as brotherhood, inclining towards Him [s], status (of Aaron)’

Even if for arguments sake we were to accept that Imam Hasan [as] and Imam Hussain [as] were in Uthman’s quarters, then we would argue that their presence would have only been to protect women and children inside, not Uthman. It is a religious duty to ensure that women and children are not harmed. If Imam ‘Ali [as] mediated to ensure that food and water was sent to Uthman’s house, it was to ensure the well being of the women and children inside, what would be the harm in sending water and food for the children?

courtesy: Answering-Ansar.org

lol!   ,on al waqiqi the my last post was swallowed up by the spam bolt, in any case you could check my profile on the matter, al waqiqi was branded a liar by majority of Hadeeths scholars, yet mr. zhul insist that his hadeeths are the most trustworthy, no wonder Ali r.a called men like him coward, liars, traitor and hypocrites!

Zhul-fiqar:

You are foolish.
Those companions killed themselves.the Shia respect the good ones and not the bad ones
The Ahlul-Bayt (as) we believe in are the ones purified by Allah as mentioned in the Quran verse 33:33.they do not include the wives among whom is the warrior,Aisha who hated Ali (as) and the daughter and grandchildren of the Prophet.we also love the good wives and not the bad ones.

lol!   , foolish is what Ali r.a should have called men that he branded hypocrites, liars, cowards and Traitors, men that he cursed and ordered to leave his presence!   look at how the accursed shias denies the prophet's family, they say the wife of the prophet is not his Ahlul - bayt! no wonder Ali r.a cursed them, again the shia denies the words of the Qur'an

“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:32-33)

The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33)

Zhul-fiqar:

Firstly,you have being very abusive and insulting,worse than a street child.you’re a shame to islam if you dare claim to be muslim.indeed,you are like those bad companions and Aisha you claim to follow.dont think that I cannot also rain insults on you.i can but I know that insults are not part of Akhlaq (manners) which Islam teaches me.

lol! lol! look at the shia thug that has spent the entire thread insulting people that do not hold his view, your furstration is sign of the false path you walk! as for insulting you, I simply conveyed the message of Ali r.a, the grand hypocrites pretends that he have not insulted on previous post, yet he calls his manners teach, so Islam teaches you to insult teh prophet's wife, Mother of Believers? Insults the prophets pbuh friends? mock the words of the Qur'an? you condition is a very dire case indeed! no wonder Ali r.a cursed men that insults the prophet's pbuh companion! alhamdulilah. Sunnis have the best character, we are not looking for who to pass judgement on, even the christians have better manners than the shias, the Christians as bad as Judas was, they never made it a religious obligation to insult him, manner less pig indeed is an understatement of what constitute the low of insulting the prophet's family

Zhul-fiqar:

I didn’t say the verse said “fear not”.”fear” can be positive or negative.for instance the fear of Allah is a positive fear.but when the word “grief” or “hazn” is used in the case of abu bakr,that is purely negative.that is evident from the words of the Prophet (sa) to abu bakr :"Allah is with us".it shows that abu bakr had lost hope!

Lol!   how low the condition of men that Ali r.a called liars, cowards, hypocrites and Traitors, until the day you can prove that the verse said Abubakar had lost hope, we will have to brand you a LIAR who exceeds all logical bounds to prove a lie, as teh word grief clearly meant saddened, see how the shias play with Qur'an? see how the shias mock the word of God? It does not surprise me his actions because shias blashpehem the Qur'an and claim it is incomplete, did Ali r.a cursed them!

Zhul-fiqar:

From the wordings of the verse,there is nothing positive for abu bakr.i don’t know why you decided to publicize what is more of criticism than praise for your hero.you alleged that abu bakr wasn’t scared for his life but for the Prophet’s.i then told you that logically,if he believed in Allah who promised to protect and make His Prophet (sa) victorious,he would have no negative fear to the extent of grieving!

keep mocking the Qur'an, you can get away with insulting the Prophets wives, Companions and even the Prophet pbuh himself, but you can never get away with mocking the words of Allah, as I indicated the verse I quoted clearly showed the level of camaraderie between the prophet pbuh and Abubakar r.a, the prophet pbuh choose Abubakar r.a particularly to emigrate with him, that showed beyound reasonable doubt that he was  his closest leutenent, that Allah refered to him and because of his grieving sent Tranquillity to him again is noteworthy, in the hadith I indicated earlier, the prophet's pbuh told Abubakar r.a to delay his migration so that they could both leave together. In any case the shia whom Ali r.a called liars, hypocrites etc would have to mock Ali r.a whom according to them feared the reactions of his opponents that he feared retrieving the Oasis of Fadak , any explanation you can give to that would suffice in the case of Abubakar r.a, as you not only indicate that he feared his opponents but also did not have faith in Allah, it is the logic of the shia I expound.

Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 244:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

…Allah’s Messenger added, “No doubt, I am indebted to Abu Bakr more than to anybody else regarding both his companionship and his wealth. And if I had to take a Khaleel (friend) from my followers, I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr, but the fraternity of Islam is sufficient. Let no door of the Mosque remain open, except the door of Abu Bakr.”

Zhul-fiqar:

You are the one to answer here.you said I am mocking the Quran for saying abu bakr was afraid as the Quranic verse (9:40) reports.yet you hypocrite did not think that you are mocking the Quran when you said the Prophet (sa) was afraid when he saw the angel.

the Qur'anic verse says grieve but the talkers of vanity change it to fear andf being afraid while it indicates sadness, the Qur'an has even use exactly the same line of word in reference to the prophet pbuh, “And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and grieve not” (Quran, 16:127), your condition is low indeed as Ali r.a called you a hypocrite and coward, and even cursed individuals  that insulted the prophet Sahabahs. again I ask Ali r.a failed to retrieve the Oasis of Fadak because he feared the reaction of his opponents ignoring the critical issue of Justice and failing to fear Allah solely, tell us what you think of him now!

Zhul-fiqar:

And just for your info,when someone who claims to be a believer is afraid when under threat from the disbelievers,that fear has to do with the alleged believer having fear for his life.but when a Prophet (sa) sees an angel and he experiences fear,that is fear of the unknown or fear in the form of reverence.while the former is a coward the latter is a saint whose intentions are pure.

whatever you keep repeating pls us apply it to Ali r.a on Fadak and the Prophet pbuh in this verse “And be patient (O Muhammad) and your patience is not but by (the assistance of) Allah, and grieve not” (Quran, 16:127) any silly kafir would not mind changing the context to which the verse was revealed, the shias adopte the methodology of teh Kafir in attacking the Qur'an. pathetic!  

Zhul-fiqar:

You would soon have a Christian shout at you:”By Christ,Allah in your Quran call you muslims hypocrites” because there is a chapter in the Quran named “chapter of the hypocrites” and verses in the Quran which exposes the hypocrites who claimed to have followed the Prophet (sa) and become muslims.

by Allah Ali called men that claimed to follow him, Hypocrites, Liars, traitors and Cowards, and even cursed man for insulting the sahabahs of the Prophet pbuh.

Zhul-fiqar:

So therefore what would be the difference between vedaxcool and a block headed kaffir who rejects using his head?
You lack common sense.

Aya is it becuase Ali called you a Hypocrite and a liar?  

Zhul-fiqar:

You indeed do not know the difference between “fear” (khawf) and “grief” (hazn).fear can be positive.for instance “fear of Allah”.but grief in the case of abu bakr is pure negative.he was scared of the disbelievers.

where did the verse say that, I see why Ali called you Traitor and coward!  

Zhul-fiqar:

Where is taqwa and where is iman?
Those are your words and that is your interpretation.you’re becoming like the Christians who understand the opposite of what they read.so,read the Quranic verse again!
There is nowhere in that verse that suggests that the pronoun of “him” refers to abu bakr.
“tranquility” can either be in form of sending peace or reassurance or to strengthen a person.
Also,Allah (swt) did not only send “sakinah”.he also sent angels to “protect him”.so Allah (swt) sent angels to protect abu bakr and not the Prophet (sa) since the pronoun is in singular form?how can that be?
Furthermore,there is no logic as evidence from the verse that because it was abu bakr that was shaking,”sakinah” and angels must have being sent to “protect him” (i.e. abu bakr).if anyone sees the verse,it is so clear that Allah (sa) strengthened His Prophet (sa) with “sakinah” and sent angels to protect him and not abu bakr at all

lol! didn't Ali curse those that Insult the Prophet Sahabahs, keep playing fast and loose with Qur'an the truth stands out clear from error!  

.

Zhul-fiqar:

When any hadith contradicts the Quran,the Quran must take precedence.ask any student of hadith.in the Quran we have evidence of Prophets leaving inheritance.abu bakr’s testimony that prophets do not leave inheritance is therefore false.
Also,when different hadiths contradict themselves,you take the one closest to the Quran and the ones that are more consistent with the Quran and in report,chains and with reasoning.there is nothing in Shia fiqh that prevent a woman from inheriting anything and even inheriting everything if she is the lone child.in sunnism,if the female is lone child,she is forced to share her inheritance with her father’s brothers.
The usurpers and their supporters are accursed.that is the reward for tyranny and oppression.
Mariam (as) saw a strange being, an angel.abu bakr saw and was afraid of disbelievers for his life

Continue denying the Hadiths that disprove your case, you keep showing why you are just men fanatical follwoing the devils lead!

In the Shia book of Hadith al-Kafi, al-Kulayni has included a chapter entitled “Women do not inherit land.” In this chapter, he narrates a Hadith from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir:

   “Women do not inherit anything of land or fixed property.” (al-Kafi, vol. 7 p. 127, Kitab al-Mawarith, hadith no. 1)

He asked Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq about what a woman inherits. The Imam replied:

   “They will get the value of the bricks, the building, the wood and the bamboo. As for the land and the fixed property, they will get no inheritance from that.” (Tahdhib al-Ahkam, vol. 9 p. 299; Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 104 p. 351)

Zhul-fiqar:

The fear factor between the people of God and abu bakr is different and from two different extremes.you are comparing apples to oranges.the people in Uhud were even given limited number of days to mourn their loved ones who were matyred.whose martyrdom was abu bakr grieving about when he was in the cave and thought the disbelievers would enter and get hold of him? The Prophet (sa) had to remind him of Allah and not to be afraid.
You actually presented a verse to “praise” abu bakr.it turned out to be there is nothing praiseworthy for abu bakr in the verse.now you’re in the defensive to salvage his image

, did the Qur'an said Abubakar grieved because he did not want the unbelievers to get hold of him, how pathetic is the condition of those Ali cursed, the Qur'anic verse would not have referred to the incident if it is unimportant, trust shias ever willing to mock the verses of the Qur'an, in any case are also willing to claim that Ali feared that his opponent will get hold of him if he had retrieved Fadak? the jokes is on you

Zhul-fiqar:


Alhamdulillah.how easy it is show the men that Almighty Allah (swt) in the holy Quran condemned as hypocrites.

who Ali r.a also called Hypocrites, Liars, cowards and Traitors, to which they proved they were such to the extent that they killed Ali r.a, his two sons and killed two of his descedants. Yes cursed they truly are.  

Zhul-fiqar:

So be mindful of your deceit.there were bad muslims in the days of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) called “hypocrites”.there were bad muslims and shia in the days of Ali (as).and in every religion you find them and in every time.you are a good example of one!

Ali cursed the shias for insulting the prophet's sahabahs, that makes all of them bad especially the hypocritical ones who are extremely fanatical!  

ABDALLAH IBN SABA
By : Hartwig Hirschfeld

A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).

Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201);
Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.

Source: JewishEncyclopedia,
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=189&letter=A