vedaxcool:

@Mushin and others, do not engage this fitnah creator in any discussion, as the OP has shown that sowing disunity is the only way he can celebrate his religion -Shia -Division-, rather than engage people like him in any discuss that would only help the enemies of Islam, it is better to start threads that shows the immense cordiality and respect the Sahabas of the Prophet S.A.W accoreded each other. Masalam

Thanks for the call. But I kinda believe it doesn't reach that level yet. And, whenever it goes there I'll simply leave him alone; for good. May Allah reward and guide us all to the right path, amin.

[Quote]he was nationalistic in orientation & loved his country/tribe/city.

Its this quest for improving his people (arabs) that led to most of his writings etc.[/Quote]he was nationalist and a prolific writer alright, when he said no arab is better than a non arab or vice versa except by his or her dutifulness to Allah in Islamic monotheism and the fact that he was unlettered was not a sexret to the world that he existed in in his time or even now 14 centuries after his death [AS].

was Muhammad [AS] a tribalist, arab nationalist just be cause he longed for Makka the city of his birth as he was emigrating from her? Absolutely not.

history tells us that the first caller to prayer under his community was a former slave african man name Bilah ibn Rabah [ra] over all the eloquent speakers of the arabic language, including Ali ibn Abitalib [ra]. if you know the honor of a prayer caller today, imagine the honor of calling the prayers in the time of the Chairman of True Belief [AS] which made the position of the caller direct behind the Imam and as the reference point to begin any line as the center moving rightward and then leftward.

Allah's messenger described that the callers will have long neck as the symbol of their duties of being the callers. you can see why almost all persons in the community wants the position. i have seen many big scholars eager to call the prayers while they may not want to be the one to lead the prayers.

muhammad [AS] made salman al farsi, shuaib al romi and bilal ibn rabah [ra] all who were slaves and non c=revert to islam members of his household.



you need to settle down, man.


nigeria and indeed third world nations in africa and beyond her have problems, in spite of immensing themselves in religions. just if there is no moral codes of conduct to tame them, they might actually have been worse than animals in the wild. the hindu used to or maybe they still tell the wife to jump into the raging fire they are burning her husband as if after him, she has bo life left. imagine a young wife, say 20 years old who her husband died [young like her or not]. what a waste of innocent life. this is one thing Islam eradicated. among the arabs, the burying of daughters alive.

tell me what improvement the native religions made about females exvept if they are caught outside the house, they may lose their lives?

And i long for my nation, tribe and city. yet i ma not a nationalist but a patriot.

LagosShia:

Please dear "Muhsin" tell us the meaning of the hadiths below and their likes from the most "authentic" sunni hadith books:

"The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount". 'Abdullah added: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'you do not know what they did after you had left.''
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 578

"The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."
1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 584
2. Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54

"The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people whom I will recognise, and they will recognise me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added: Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say: They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'. I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from the true Islam)"
Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 585

"The Prophet said, "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah' I asked, 'What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left.' Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.' I asked, 'What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left.' So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd".
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587

LagosShia:

for further reading on the sahaba and the shia view in comparison with the sunni view on the sahaba:

"The Sahaba According to the Followers of Ahl al-Bayt"  

http://www.al-islam.org/real/39.htm

My time is invaluable. Hence won't waste it explaining to you that you don't even believe in. I'll finished and at last you'll straight-away throw out everything I say.

Or, do you now believe in those ahadeeth books?

@LagosSHI'A,

Although you terribly failed answering my questions and u resort to evade some cunningly there, here is one more verse regarding the prestigious positions held by the Sahabas most of whom you ignorantly abuse.

Bismillahirrahmaanirraheem:

[center]If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge! 4:115[/center]

Still waiting for my answers. . .

Salam,

Although I didn't plan it, i.e. to respond directly to the matter regarding the alleged burning of Fadima (ra)'s house, I'll like to share one succinct piece of info I found on that on one Muslim website. Here it goes:

Common Sense can prove this story is fabricated by the shia

It is a well know fact that Fatimah (ra) died almost six months after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s). So how is it possible that she was assaulted after the event of Saqifa which happend at the death of Prophet Muhammad (s) and she had a miscarriage due to that injury and she died SIX MONTHS LATER? That is obviously not possible. If things go wrong at miscarriage then death occurs soon after, not six months later! Any doctor can verify that!

Answer:
Thanks are due to Allah and prayer and peace upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and his Companions. The story of the assault on Fatima, the burning of her house, and the murder of her fetus is not supported by a prophetic narration or by an authentic historical story. Logic and common sense rejects this story at all costs.

Let us assume for the moment that Abu Bakr and Omar bin Al-khattab really committed that heinous crime. But what about Ali bin Abi Talib? How could Ali stay quiet while his wife is beaten, his house is assaulted, and his son is killed? Is this the portrait of Ali bin Abi Talib that the Shia are trying to paint? The least man in faith, chivalry, and manhood will not allow his wife to be beaten. Then how come when the woman is the daughter of the Prophet peace be upon him and the man is the mighty Ali bin Abi Talib? This is the result of the fabrication in history that became one of the tenets of faith for the Shia.

Al-Sayyed Hussain FadlAllah, the grand Shia scholar in Lebanon, had denied the incident of the assault on Fatima. Hence, lots of Shia scholars waged a war on him. They charged him with “Wahhabisim”. One of the grand Shia scholars in Iran Al-Tabrizi had issued a verdict excommunicating FadlAllah from Shiasim because FadlAllah had denied one of the major religious beliefs of the Shia. FadlAllah’s denial had come after extensive research in the Shia’s version of the story of the assault and he depended much on logic and common sense.

The book of “The Leadership and Politics” (Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah) by Ibn Qutayibah is the only Sunni book that narrated such a story. Nevertheless, many Muslim scholars declared that the book is wrongfully attributed to Ibn Qutayibah. In the following link we had examined the authenticity of the book. Ibn Qutayibah did not write that book. http://www.ansar.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=17

Therefore, it is not fair to take that book as an argument against Ahl Al-Sunnah. Even if we assumed that Ibn Qutayibah really did write that book, then we find out that the incident of the assault is written without an attribution. We do not know who really narrated that story. History books contain the good and the bad. We have to always distinguish the good from the bad through attribution.

muhsin:

@Lagosboy,

Although you awfully evaded to answer my questions there,

LagosBOY ke?  My home boy? My bro?

Salam, thanks Sister (above), for the correction. It's a typo which was inadvertently made. Bros Lagosboy should forgive the mixed up as I've already corrected, pls.

sorry for the late contribution in the thread as i am out of the country and may not reply on time.

muhsin:

@LagosSHI'A,

Although you terribly failed answering my questions and u resort to evade some cunningly there, here is one more verse regarding the prestigious positions held by the Sahabas most of whom you ignorantly abuse.

Bismillahirrahmaanirraheem:

[center]If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge! 4:115[/center]

Still waiting for my answers. . .

Muhsin,you keep accusing me of not answering your question when there is really no question to answer.what makes you think that the term "men of faith" refer to abu bakr and umar?and have i not already told you that no matter what praise any man was given for a good deed that by no chance guaranties he will never go astray since the man is neither a prophet or an infallible person?i even cited hadiths in your books about such companions whom the Prophet (sa) himself said they would be taken away from him in the pond.

muhsin:

Salam,
Although I didn't plan it, i.e. to respond directly to the matter regarding the alleged burning of Fadima (ra)'s house, I'll like to share one succinct piece of info I found on that on one Muslim website. Here it goes:

First let me point out 2 things:
1.) You did not know what to reply,hence you’re providing us with a website piece of info.
2.) There is a shia website which specializes in answering the trash and nonsense of “ansar.org”.so I will provide you with the website to counter your website.fair enough.

Common Sense can prove this story is fabricated by the shia

It is a well know fact that Fatimah (ra) died almost six months after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s). So how is it possible that she was assaulted after the event of Saqifa which happend at the death of Prophet Muhammad (s) and she had a miscarriage due to that injury and she died SIX MONTHS LATER? That is obviously not possible. If things go wrong at miscarriage then death occurs soon after, not six months later! Any doctor can verify that!

The question is “how is it possible she died 6 months after the assault”?
Should I remind you that your books like the almighty “sahih” bukhari narrate that the Prophet (sa) ate poison in khaybar and died more than 2 years after as a result?!

Miscarriage does not necessarily kill a woman.but the effect of the infection of the injury sustained could kill her after six months due to swelling and inflammation.

Answer:
Thanks are due to Allah and prayer and peace upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and his Companions. The story of the assault on Fatima, the burning of her house, and the murder of her fetus is not supported by a prophetic narration or by an authentic historical story. Logic and common sense rejects this story at all costs.

You people are truly devoid of logic and common sense.any hadith that simply does not go with your desires of protecting some ill-famed companions is ignored.then on what basis do you accept hadiths and base your beliefs on them?the incident of the assault is recorded in your books as I earlier showed.

Let us assume for the moment that Abu Bakr and Omar bin Al-khattab really committed that heinous crime. But what about Ali bin Abi Talib? How could Ali stay quiet while his wife is beaten, his house is assaulted, and his son is killed? Is this the portrait of Ali bin Abi Talib that the Shia are trying to paint? The least man in faith, chivalry, and manhood will not allow his wife to be beaten. Then how come when the woman is the daughter of the Prophet peace be upon him and the man is the mighty Ali bin Abi Talib? This is the result of the fabrication in history that became one of the tenets of faith for the Shia.

The idiot forgets that umar did not assault the house in order to injure Lady Fatima (as).he assaulted the house in order to drag Imam Ali (as) out and force him to pay allegiance. also, the above writer is trying to dramatize as it is the usual wahhabi style that the wife was beaten and the husband stayed quiet. That was not the case. If this is a fabrication in history then sunni books are also responsible for fabricating history. Then on what basis do you accept the historicity of an event?

The portrait of Imam Ali (as) is one of a fighter and also a wise man who can defend his right both through the sword and through the intellect as time permits.the reason why it was inappropriate for Imam Ali (as) to raise his sword at that time is what the wahhabis keep ignoring.

Al-Sayyed Hussain FadlAllah, the grand Shia scholar in Lebanon, had denied the incident of the assault on Fatima. Hence, lots of Shia scholars waged a war on him. They charged him with “Wahhabisim”. One of the grand Shia scholars in Iran Al-Tabrizi had issued a verdict excommunicating FadlAllah from Shiasim because FadlAllah had denied one of the major religious beliefs of the Shia. FadlAllah’s denial had come after extensive research in the Shia’s version of the story of the assault and he depended much on logic and common sense.

Sayyed Fadlullah did not deny the story. He said based on his research he cannot 100% confirm it is true but nonetheless he said he cannot deny the story. Based on the numerous stance of our scholars and based on the traditions from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) from whom many of our black turbaned scholars are descendants, the event is common knowledge and the story is passed down from father to son right to the time of the 12 Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) as it is found in our books of hadiths compilations. History and hadiths also show it took place.

If the sunnis keep denying the event,they should kindly tell me what was the cause of death of Lady Fatima (as) who was a youth at the time of her death.also tell me why Lady Fatima (as) requested to be buried at night so abu bakr would not follow to bury her?mind you abu bakr was the “caliph” or successor of the Prophet (sa) who was Lady Fatima’s (as) father.

The book of “The Leadership and Politics” (Al-Imamah wa Al-Siyasah) by Ibn Qutayibah is the only Sunni book that narrated such a story. Nevertheless, many Muslim scholars declared that the book is wrongfully attributed to Ibn Qutayibah. In the following link we had examined the authenticity of the book. Ibn Qutayibah did not write that book. http://www.ansar.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=17

Other books also narrate the incident.al-tabari did.

Therefore, it is not fair to take that book as an argument against Ahl Al-Sunnah. Even if we assumed that Ibn Qutayibah really did write that book, then we find out that the incident of the assault is written without an attribution. We do not know who really narrated that story. History books contain the good and the bad. We have to always distinguish the good from the bad through attribution.

You can also find more on the incident and the replies to the website you quoted (ansar.org) in the below website:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap12.php

[color=#000099]If the sunnis keep denying the event,they should kindly tell me what was the cause of death of Lady Fatima (as) who was a youth at the time of her death.also tell me why Lady Fatima (as) requested to be buried at night so abu bakr would not follow to bury her?mind you abu bakr was the “caliph” or successor of the Prophet (sa) who was Lady Fatima’s (as) father.[/color]

Haba! Haven't you ever hear of heathy looking child dying? talkless of a fully grown adult? Haba! Are you now trying to say ALLAH can not effect the death of anyone unless someone or something causes the person to die? so unless she died due to miscarrage she could not have died from other possible causes or even just like that? One must not sustain certain incredulous argument with an even more unimaginable reason.

vedaxcool:

[color=#000099]If the sunnis keep denying the event,they should kindly tell me what was the cause of death of Lady Fatima (as) who was a youth at the time of her death.also tell me why Lady Fatima (as) requested to be buried at night so abu bakr would not follow to bury her?mind you abu bakr was the “caliph” or successor of the Prophet (sa) who was Lady Fatima’s (as) father.[/color]

Haba! Haven't you ever hear of heathy looking child dying? talkless of a fully grown adult? Haba! Are you now trying to say ALLAH can not effect the death of anyone unless someone or something causes the person to die? so unless she died due to miscarrage she could not have died from other possible causes or even just like that? One must not sustain certain incredulous argument with an even more unimaginable reason.

yes i have heard.but can you please tell us the cause of her death if you know of any according to sunnism?or did she just sleep and never woke up?!!!

^^^^^

we might end up going in circles, based on authentic hadiths, there was no indication on what exactly killed her, but like i inidcated couldn't she have died of other causes, like illness or due to the loss of the Holy prophet Muhammad s.a.w. If it is any consolation, i hope you know Umar married Ali and Fatima's daughter, Umm Kulthum, whom he married after Abu Bakr taking Khilafa, showing the good relations he had with Ali at the time. This is the same Umar r.a that u people accuse of killing Umm Kultum's mum or was it another tactic of getting power? please we need to be objective in our queries.thank you.

vedaxcool:

^^^^^

we might end up going in circles, based on authentic hadiths, there was no indication on what exactly killed her, but like i inidcated couldn't she have died of other causes, like illness or due to the loss of the Holy prophet Muhammad s.a.w. If it is any consolation, i hope you know Umar married Ali and Fatima's daughter, Umm Kulthum, whom he married after Abu Bakr taking Khilafa, showing the good relations he had with Ali at the time. This is the same Umar r.a that u people accuse of killing Umm Kultum's mum or was it another tactic of getting power? please we need to be objective in our queries.thank you.

let me give it one more try and i hope it helps you:

based on authentic hadiths from both sunni and shia sources,Lady Fatima requested her husband in her will to bury her at night so that particular men would not follow her funeral or say the prayers of the dead upon her.why did that happen?

the Prophet (sa) said (also in authentic sunni sources) :"he who does not know the imam of his time has died the death of jahiliyyah".if abu bakr was the head of the muslims and successor to the Prophet (sa),then he must have being the "imam" of Lady Fatima (as).so why did she make a will that excluded her "imam of the time" to be present in her funeral?or are you saying she died the "death of jahiliyahh"?astaghfirullah!

note:the issue you riased about a so called daughter of Imam Ali (as) named Umm Kulthum was married to umar is a disputable argument.this is one of the propaganda put forth to make it look that all was well.this is a topic on its own.and if i go into it,it would divert the topic of the thread.

LagosShia:

let me give it one more try and i hope it helps you:

based on authentic hadiths from both sunni and shia sources,Lady Fatima requested her husband in her will to bury her at night so that particular men would not follow her funeral or say the prayers of the dead upon her.why did that happen?

from what i read she instructed according to authentic hadith that she shuld burried without ceremony, why did it happen, maybe humility, may simplicity, may be her easy going nature which made her despite having servants, do her chores by herself. But since you apparently have ability to read peoples intentions from stories maybe you are in a better position to "know", but definitely by Islamic culture it is wrong to keep malice with your Muslim brothers or sisters. Even authentic hadiths did point that she and Abu bakar settled their difference. But well what am i saying, you can only trhive if there is dissension. that makes me sad. and please learn to give adequate reference to what you are talking about.

LagosShia:

the Prophet (sa) said (also in authentic sunni sources) :"he who does not know the imam of his time has died the death of jahiliyyah".if abu bakr was the head of the muslims and successor to the Prophet (sa),then he must have being the "imam" of Lady Fatima (as).so why did she make a will that excluded her "imam of the time" to be present in her funeral?or are you saying she died the "death of jahiliyahh"?astaghfirullah!

Hahahaha, you have a talent for cracking jokes, so how does the hadith you talked about fits into exclusion of her imam at that time? and funny thing is did she mention directly that Abu bakar should be barred from her funeral? you are evidently clutching on straws.please learn to give adequate reference to what you are talking about.

LagosShia:

note:the issue you riased about a so called daughter of Imam Ali (as) named Umm Kulthum was married to umar is a disputable argument.this is one of the propaganda put forth to make it look that all was well.this is a topic on its own.and if i go into it,it would divert the topic of the thread.

, man you are a real rib cracker, so when the argument does not favor you, you quickly claim propaganda and inauthentic, we can not get anywhere with this myopic pretense of yours, we could as well claim forgery, no be only get sense. so at the end you mean to say that umar was not married to umm kultum? I see why you deserve being a shia, no one is more deserving of such title than you.

Arab tales by moolight again 

How did Oduduwa die?

What is the name of Oba Kosoko's mother ?

What year was the Kiriji war fought ?

Tell me the existing kingdoms in Yoruba land that are direct descendants of Oduduwa .

Anyone that can answer this will get a special prize from me 

Africans focus on your roots and leave arab lullabies to bedouins and arabs .

A short story on Sense;
A man that watches P***g**phy on his friends Laptop comes to a forum to give advise to others on how to priorities the use of their own time by talking of how oduduwa died as if that makes any form of difference, since this things where not written, anyway he should award himself his gift if he finds his questions important.

vedaxcool:

A short story on Sense;
A man that watches P***g**phy on his friends Laptop comes to a forum to give advise to others on how to priorities the use of their own time by talking of how oduduwa died as if that makes any form of difference, since this things where not written, anyway he should award himself his gift if he finds his questions important.

Even shorter story on Non-sense

A wan.ker that strokes himself every half hour and pretends to be a 'holy mohammedan' 

Always churning out hypocrisy at every turn.

Denying his roots in search of some holy grail in arabland 

F**king pretender 

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwBBDpiuzaM?fs=1&hl=en_GB"[/flash]

^^^^^
I knew that would strike pains -have some panadol- in your hypocritical heart. I am loving it

vedaxcool:

from what i read she instructed according to authentic hadith that she shuld burried without ceremony, why did it happen, maybe humility, may simplicity, may be her easy going nature which made her despite having servants, do her chores by herself. But since you apparently have ability to read peoples intentions from stories maybe you are in a better position to "know", but definitely by Islamic culture it is wrong to keep malice with your Muslim brothers or sisters. Even authentic hadiths did point that she and Abu bakar settled their difference. But well what am i saying, you can only trhive if there is dissension. that makes me sad. and please learn to give adequate reference to what you are talking about.

"Sahih Bukhari"
Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:
Narrated 'Aisha:

(mother of the believers) After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her, her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqa (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

since it is wrong to keep malice with a muslim for more than “3 days” and Lady Fatima (as) did for 6 months and up till her death with abu bakr,you decide who was the kafir:Lady Fatima (astaghfirullah) or abu bakr?

Hahahaha, you have a talent for cracking jokes, so how does the hadith you talked about fits into exclusion of her imam at that time? and funny thing is did she mention directly that Abu bakar should be barred from her funeral? you are evidently clutching on straws.please learn to give adequate reference to what you are talking about.

“Sahih al-Bukhari”,
Chapter of "The battle of Khaibar",
Volume 5,
tradition #546,
pp 381-383

Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that:

, Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.

Al-Tabari, vol IX p 196 [The Events of the Year 11, English version:

Abu Salih al Dirari- Abd al Razzaq b. Hammam- Mamar- al Zuhri - Urwah- Aishah: Fatimah and al Abbas came to Abu Bakr demanding their [share of] inheritance of the Messenger of God. They were demanding the Messenger of God's land in Fadak and his share of Khaybar ['s tribute]. Abu Bakr replied, "I have heard the Messenger of God say: 'Our [i.e the prophet's property] cannot be inherited and whatever we leave behinds is alms [i.e to be given in charity]. The family of Muhammad will eat from it. ' By God, I will not abandon a course which I saw the Messenger of God practicing, but will continue doing it accordingly." Fatimah shunned him and did not speak to him about it until she died. Ali buried her at night and did not permit Abu Bakr to attend [her burial].

, man you are a real rib cracker, so when the argument does not favor you, you quickly claim propaganda and inauthentic, we can not get anywhere with this myopic pretense of yours, we could as well claim forgery, no be only get sense. so at the end you mean to say that umar was not married to umm kultum? I see why you deserve being a shia, no one is more deserving of such title than you.

If you know the history of islam and false muslim leaders,you will not laugh at all but rather weep.many more fabrications by the fake caliphs can be exposed when it comes to the event of ashura and its commemorations.the banu umayya did their utmost to cover up anything that relate the day of ashura to the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) or in honor of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).they even made it a day of happiness and celebration.

In regards the alleged marriage of Umm Kulthum to Umar ,I did not want to go into it because if we do,the entire topic would become about that alleged marriage.just as the issue regarding the number of children or wives the Prophet (sa) had,this issue is also not certain.first of all,umar had more than one wife with the name of “umm kulthum”.to simply say because Imam Ali had a daughter called by that name so umar’s wife must be a daughter of Imam Ali (as) is not right to do.

The main shia view has being to disprove the marriage ever took place and that can be done in many ways.also a few hadiths (not sahih) in shia sources which exist report the alleged marriage but in a negative light.the few hadiths show that the marriage was forced and not voluntary.come to think of it,umar is older than Imam Ali (as) himself and umar had proposed to the Prophet (sa) to marry the mother of Umm Kulthum,Lady Fatima (as) daughter of the Prophet (sa).i can state many points which exist to disprove the alleged marriage directly.i will contain myself with what ive said for now.

1.) Who was the Imam of Lady Fatima(a.s.)? :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ydHL1d66A

2.)Abu Bakr vs Fatima al-Zahra(as) 1/4 - [Eng Subs] فاطمة الزهراء عند الوهابية :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WwVVK7VtTg

3.) Abu Bakr-Can You Handle the Truth:

http://abubakr.org/

may Almighty Allah reward me, His poor servant, abundantly in this world and the next and pardon my sins and shortcomings and bestow His mercy and favor upon me to overcome the difficulties of time and accept my effort for the truth to prevail and my service to Al-Zahra (Lady Fatima a.s.) as an act of ibada.may Almighty Allah also guide whoever comes with a clean mind and open heart to see the truth and may he/she be rewarded abundantly.ameen Ya Rab al-Alameen!

When Fatima fell sick Abu Bakr Siddiq came and asked permission to see her. Ali said: "Fatima, here is Abu Bakr asking permission to see you." She said: "Would you like me to give him permission?" He said yes, whereupon she gave him permission. He entered to see her, seeking her good pleasure, and said: "By Allah! I did not leave my house, property, family, and tribe except to please Allah, and to please His Prophet (?) , and to please you, the People of the House (ahl al bayt)! He continued to seek her good pleasure until she was pleased."
(Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: "It is narrated with a fair (hasan) chain." Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.)

I wonder if they where in a state of malice how would Abu bakar be able to visit Fatima?

it is funny you asked me to pass judgement on Fatima and Abu bakar, unlike your shia masters who think make imam are equals to prophets and have the audacity to insult the Prophets' sahaba and even accuse one of his wife of unspeakable things, I on the other hand recognize my how far i am compared to these individuals in question, since you on the other hand follow a path that only knows how to insult the prophet sahaba let me give you the honor to respond to your own question but in doing so take time to read this:

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 76:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:
'Ali demanded the hand of the daughter of Abu Jahl. Fatima heard of this and went to Allah's Apostle saying, "Your people think that you do not become angry for the sake of your daughters as 'Ali is now going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. "On that Allah's Apostle got up and after his recitation of Tashah-hud. I heard him saying, "Then after! I married one of my daughters to Abu Al-'As bin Al-Rabi' (the husband of Zainab, the daughter of the Prophet ) before Islam and he proved truthful in whatever he said to me. No doubt, Fatima is a part of me, I hate to see her being troubled. By Allah, the daughter of Allah's Apostle and the daughter of Allah's Enemy cannot be the wives of one man." So 'Ali gave up that engagement.

al a3sha posted

Shia narrate many reasons, but one particular story (in Bihar Al-Anwar Vol. 35 p.50 & Elal Al-Sharai p. 63) matches that which is mentioned in Ahlul Sunnah books of the reason being that after Ali and Fatimah had a dispute / quarrel, Ali (r.a.a) slept in the Masjid , with the sand (i.e Turab in Arabic) covering him. The Prophet (S.A.W) came to him and said: rise Abu Turab! and then he mediated between him and Fatima (r.a.a) and reconciled them together.

The hadith in bukhari is in book of companions

No. 3452 - Narrated Abu Hazim:
A man came to Sahl bin Sad and said, "This is so-and-so," meaning the Governor of Medina, "He is calling 'Ali bad names near the pulpit." Sahl asked, "What is he saying?" He (i.e. the man) replied, "He calls him (i.e. 'Ali) abu turab." Sahl laughed and said, "By Allah, none but the Prophet called him by this name and no name was dearer to 'Ali than this." So I asked Sahl to tell me more, saying, "O Abu 'Abbas! How (was this name given to 'Ali)?" Sahl said, "'Ali went to Fatima and then came out and slept in the Mosque. The Prophet asked Fatima, "Where is your cousin?" She said, "In the Mosque." The Prophet went to him and found that his (i.e. Ali's) covering sheet had slipped of his back and dust had soiled his back. The Prophet started wiping the dust off his back and said twice, "Get up! O abu turab (i.e. O. man with the dust)."

The point being is that Ali radiallahu anhu got in an argument with fatima radiallahu anhu and went and slept in the masjid(which is also attested in shia traditions). This sort of thing happends to us HUMANS yet the shia wish to say that this never happends and that Fatima radiallahu anhu was angry at abu bakr radiallahu anhu so therefor he earns the curse of Allaah. Which is odd is for the shia dont mention the hadith

on your second point



On your second point you simply don't just get it do how does the bolded part of your statement mean that Fatima barred Abu bakar from her funeral? the bolded part of your statement simply alludes that a lot of people were unaware of her death including Abu bakar. And like i keep pointing out to you Ali refusal to correct the injustice when he had the chance only proved that Abubakar's judgement was right. May ALLAH give us guidiance amin.

on your final note it only shows why you do not want to see the light, you wrote the issues are not certain, yet even the alledged kicking of Fatima by Umar is also quite an uncertainty as there atleast to reading of the same event and the manner of naration differs. again the issue of Fatima's life long anger with Abubakar appears uncertain, because it even contradicts the spirit of Islam and the nature of fatima, because she is someone who is humble, yet you people make it seem as if she is materialistic. But why prefer to leave one uncertainty to follow yet another? does it make you any more pious? or does it strengthen your faith? please learn to be consistent, if a narative from the sunni block follows your fancy it is excessively certain, but when it contradicts your false notions you accuse it of uncertainty. may ALLAH guide us all.amin

vedaxcool:

^^^^^
I knew that would strike pains -have some panadol- in your hypocritical heart. I am loving it

Pain ke ?

Abi olofo ni e ni ?

Nothing gives me more pleasure than exposing hypocritical wan.kers like you

vedaxcool:

Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari.)

so now the above stated sources by you are more authoritative and correct than "sahih bukhari"?

it’s amazing how you asked for references to my shia "claims" and beliefs and when I present them from the most accepted and authoritative text for sunnis, you twist and serve me with hadith from a lesser source and authority.

I’m not asking for your beliefs as I know mine and I proved them to you from the most authoritative of your sources.

The game of forging hadiths and making hadiths that contradict other hadiths and history is an old hadith game perfected by the banu umayya and ever present in sunni sources and used well.

I wonder if they where in a state of malice how would Abu bakar be able to visit Fatima?

Don’t ask me because that meeting never took place.Ask Bukhari,the man who compiled one of your most authoritative hadith books and which you refer to as a “sahih”.

it is funny you asked me to pass judgement on Fatima and Abu bakar,

I didn’t ask you to pass judgement because you already did.you said it is forbidden for two muslims to hold malice for more than 3 days and that is recorded in your hadith.so I simply showed that according to your hadith sources Lady Fatima (as) did not talk to abu bakr till she died.so therefore both could not have being muslims.so its your call.

unlike your shia masters who think make imam are equals to prophets

We do not make them equal to prophets.Allah (swt) has chosen them to be His hujjah over His creation.simply because Prophet Muhammad (sa) is the final prophet does not make them any less honorable than prophets.and the Prophet (sa) himself said this which is unanimously accepted by all sunnis:
"Are you (Ali) not pleased to have the position (manzilah) in relation to me as that Aaron had in relation to Moses, except that after me there will be no other prophet?"(Sunan Ibn Majah Volume 1 Page 45, Cairo, 1952 CE)

and have the audacity to insult the Prophets' sahaba

Sahabas are not infallibles or prophets.they are vulnerable to sinning and mistakes.there are good and bad ones among them.some were evil who committed atrocities while others were exemplary men who personified Islamic teachings and morals and we love and respect those.

and even accuse one of his wife of unspeakable things,

That is a lie.

The point being is that Ali radiallahu anhu got in an argument with fatima radiallahu anhu and went and slept in the masjid(which is also attested in shia traditions). This sort of thing happends to us HUMANS yet the shia wish to say that this never happends and that Fatima radiallahu anhu was angry at abu bakr radiallahu anhu so therefor he earns the curse of Allaah. Which is odd is for the shia dont mention the hadith

If you have the open mind to research you could have seen the truth and know the tons of hadiths fabricated to discredited Imam Ali (as) particularly.simply because some of those reports are recorded in shia sources does not make them true because we do not have “sahih” hadith compilations as sunnis do.unfortunately you just rejected a hadith from a “sahih” compilation (“sahih” bukhari) and accepted lesser hadiths.secondly,Imam Ali (as) was Lady Fatima’s husband and marital problems are not impossible.even the Prophet (sa) wanted to divorce Aisha and Hafsa at a time.abu bakr illegally took over the possession of an orphan and a daughter of the Prophet (sa) which amounts to a sin according to the Quran.
Holy Quran 4:2-
Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.

On your second point you simply don't just get it do how does the bolded part of your statement mean that Fatima barred Abu bakar from her funeral? the bolded part of your statement simply alludes that a lot of people were unaware of her death including Abu bakar.

i did not say those statements.these are recorded in your books.you asked for references and I gave them to you.did you read them or not?

And like i keep pointing out to you Ali refusal to correct the injustice when he had the chance only proved that Abubakar's judgement was right. May ALLAH give us guidiance amin.

Imam Ali (as) not taking back fadak was due to political reasons and because the time did not permit him and above all as a religious duty to avoid more fitnah and bloodshed among muslims.that could have being used as an excuse to further fuel rebellion and attacks against Imam Ali (as).let me remind you that Imam Ali (as) was to take the caliphate after umar (and not usthman) but Imam Ali (as) refused to the condition that he must “abide by the sunnah of the shaykhain” (meaning the sunnah of abu bakr and umar).if Imam Ali (as) would have taken back fadak,he could have being accused of many things.let me remind you also of the incident in the masjid of Kufa where Imam Ali (as) sent his son Imam Hassan (as) to disperse people from performing tarawih during the month of Ramadhan because that was a bid’a of umar.but people still persisted and accused the Imam of going against the sunnah of the shaykhain.you just need an insight into history and an open mind to see these things.

on your final note it only shows why you do not want to see the light, you wrote the issues are not certain,

The shia consensus is simply that the marriage never took place.i said many indications and reasons can be used to show that the marriage never took place.but for argument’s sake I simply tell you that because of the existence of some weak hadiths from here and there we can simply say that matter is not certain as is the case with other issues.but even if we are to accept the weak hadiths,there is nothing good in them that would portray a cordial relationship between Imam Ali (as) and umar to the extent of giving his daughter to a very old man like umar.the weak hadiths in shia source report that the marriage was not consensual or voluntary.

yet even the alledged kicking of Fatima by Umar is also quite an uncertainty as there atleast to reading of the same event and the manner of naration differs.

I never used the word “kicking”.umar is too small and insignificant to have done that against Lady Fatima (as).the general consensus we can accept from both sunni and shia hadiths that are acceptable is the fact that at least we can only say umar assaulted the house of Lady Fatima (as) and threatened to burn it if those inside don’t come out to pay allegiance to abu bakr.an assault is an assault regardless of the other details or actions that took place.i don’t know why you want to ignore that?

again the issue of Fatima's life long anger with Abubakar appears uncertain, because it even contradicts the spirit of Islam and the nature of fatima, because she is someone who is humble, yet you people make it seem as if she is materialistic. But why prefer to leave one uncertainty to follow yet another? does it make you any more pious? or does it strengthen your faith? please learn to be consistent, if a narative from the sunni block follows your fancy it is excessively certain, but when it contradicts your false notions you accuse it of uncertainty. may ALLAH guide us all.amin

We do not accuse any sunni hadith of anything nor do we even give a d*** if it contradicts our hadiths/beliefs.the problem of contradiction lies in your hadiths and in your schools of thought.you have one hadith in the most authoritative sunni hadith books saying she died in anger and never spoke with abu bakr till she died.then you got a lesser hadith that claims otherwise.and you choose the lesser one.the problem of contradiction is yours and not ours.

We do not accuse her of being materialistic because the will of the Prophet to us is the will of Almighty Allah that must be followed to the dot.it is the right of the orphan to get the inheritance and that is guaranteed by the Holy Quran.if you want to call that materialistic then you can as well feel free to utter the unthinkable and say the Holy Quran is a materialistic book (astaghfirullah).see Holy Quran 4:2.think before you write.research and read the links and references I presented.dont just implicate yourself.

Sayed Ammar Nakshawani - Did Ali anger Fatima? Part 1:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qURl7vT7zcU

Umar's marriage to Umm Kulthum bint Ali fact or fiction? :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNyU-2Uc5O0

LagosShia:

so now the above stated sources by you are more authoritative and correct than "sahih bukhari"?
it’s amazing how you asked for references to my shia "claims" and beliefs and when I present them from the most accepted and authoritative text for sunnis, you twist and serve me with hadith from a lesser source and authority.

I’m not asking for your beliefs as I know mine and I proved them to you from the most authoritative of your sources.

The game of forging hadiths and making hadiths that contradict other hadiths and history is an old hadith game perfected by the banu umayya and ever present in sunni sources and used well.

accept what you want, I am contented with what i believe, ALHAMDULILAH.
Regarding the claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was averse to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees (رضّى الله عنها) explained that she had seen one woman’s body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did.

When Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). She instructed Asma (رضّى الله عنها) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (رضّى الله عنه) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma (رضّى الله عنها) was the wife of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which serves as another evidence that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) before her death.

(In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatima’s grave [رضّ الله عنها]. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.)

LagosShia:

Don’t ask me because that meeting never took place.Ask Bukhari,the man who compiled one of your most authoritative hadith books and which you refer to as a “sahih”.

accept what you will, I am contented with my believe that ascert the following of Rasulilah, ALHAMDULILAH

LagosShia:

I didn’t ask you to pass judgement because you already did.you said it is forbidden for two muslims to hold malice for more than 3 days and that is recorded in your hadith.so I simply showed that according to your hadith sources Lady Fatima (as) did not talk to abu bakr till she died.so therefore both could not have being muslims.so its your call.

Maybe you speak too much of your local dialect as this is what you wrote:

LagosShia:


since it is wrong to keep malice with a muslim for more than “3 days” and Lady Fatima (as) did for 6 months and up till her death with abu bakr,you [size=18pt]decide [/size]who was the kafir:Lady Fatima (astaghfirullah) or abu bakr?

the word 'decide' simply indicate to pass judgement, and since you have passed judgement on them by saying they both could not be muslim auzobillah, i leave it to your mistaken belief that places materiel consideration above piety. You say it is my call, I dey Laugh oh, it is ALLAH whose judgement has meaning not yours or mine. keep passing judgement on individuals you and your entire living shia bosses are not comparable to, i on the other hand recognise my low status in comparison to them.

LagosShia:

We do not make them equal to prophets.Allah (swt) has chosen them to be His hujjah over His creation.simply because Prophet Muhammad (sa) is the final prophet does not make them any less honorable than prophets.and the Prophet (sa) himself said this which is unanimously accepted by all sunnis:
"Are you (Ali) not pleased to have the position (manzilah) in relation to me as that Aaron had in relation to Moses, except that after me there will be no other prophet?"(Sunan Ibn Majah Volume 1 Page 45, Cairo, 1952 CE)

Keep deluding yourself, for God to elect an individual for the position of Prophethood is incomparable, just being the prophet S.A.W family member does not grant you any perks or status, neither is ALI comparable to any of ALLAH's prophets, their position are not attainable by any mortal, but you can delude yourself and think because one is called an Imam, appointed by humans like himself not ALLAH, makes the person equal to the status of prophet:
Sunnis don't consider this hadith as a proclamation from Muhammad for Ali to succeed him after his death. Aaron and his lineage were prohibited by the Law of Moses to take executive roles, but only religious ceremonial duties. Joshua, not the descendants of Aaron, led Israel after Moses. Sunnis consider Ali one of the best Muslims after the death of Muhammad.

They do not see this hadith as assigning to Ali any greater merit than the many other hadiths have assigned to the other companions of Muhammad such as Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah of whom Muhammad said "You are the Secretary of this nation."

It should be taken into consideration that the above hadith is duly accepted in the context of the position of Ali as to Aaron and Moses by Muhammad by scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari, Hakim, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others.

Sunnis also have a similar hadiths for the second Sunni Caliph Umar, the Hadith of Umar and prophecy.

LagosShia:

Sahabas are not infallibles or prophets.they are vulnerable to sinning and mistakes.there are good and bad ones among them.some were evil who committed atrocities while others were exemplary men who personified Islamic teachings and morals and we love and respect those.

and ALI too was a Sahaba, making him definately not infallible but hey, no be shia you be?

LagosShia:

That is a lie.

really, don't play dumb, you particularly accused Ayesha the prophet's SA.w wife of trachery, go to youtube and see how you shia boses are insulting her.

LagosShia:

If you have the open mind to research you could have seen the truth and know the tons of hadiths fabricated to discredited Imam Ali (as) particularly.simply because some of those reports are recorded in shia sources does not make them true because we do not have “sahih” hadith compilations as sunnis do.unfortunately you just rejected a hadith from a “sahih” compilation (“sahih” bukhari) and accepted lesser hadiths.secondly,Imam Ali (as) was Lady Fatima’s husband and marital problems are not impossible.even the Prophet (sa) wanted to divorce Aisha and Hafsa at a time.abu bakr illegally took over the possession of an orphan and a daughter of the Prophet (sa) which amounts to a sin according to the Quran.
[b]Holy Quran 4:2-[/b]Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin.

yeah yeah we know every other thing people say is faulty, thank God you did not say that i placed it, it was your fellow shias who collected such hadiths, it is only a pity that you see ALI r.a a human as being infallible.So if since marital problems are not impossible between Ali and Fatima-which shows he was fallible- then why all this hyperventilating over hadiths over hadiths collected by shias also? beats me. Saying Abubakar r.a illegally took over Fatma possession, thank goodness when ALI r.a got to the position of correcting the "wrong" he not only refused to correct the "wrong" but carried on as if there was no problem, the funny thing is that Abubakar r.a did take the oasis of fadak not for himself rather he returned it to state control and guaranteed  payments to the Household of the prophet S.A.W, ALHADULILAH, HOW ALLAH makes matter very clear to those off course.

LagosShia:

i did not say those statements.these are recorded in your books.you asked for references and I gave them to you.did you read them or not?
Imam Ali (as) not taking back fadak was due to political reasons and because the time did not permit him and above all as a religious duty to avoid more fitnah and bloodshed among muslims.that could have being used as an excuse to further fuel rebellion and attacks against Imam Ali (as).let me remind you that Imam Ali (as) was to take the caliphate after umar (and not usthman) but Imam Ali (as) refused to the condition that he must “abide by the sunnah of the shaykhain” (meaning the sunnah of abu bakr and umar).if Imam Ali (as) would have taken back fadak,he could have being accused of many things.let me remind you also of the incident in the masjid of Kufa where Imam Ali (as) sent his son Imam Hassan (as) to disperse people from performing tarawih during the month of Ramadhan because that was a bid’a of umar.but people still persisted and accused the Imam of going against the sunnah of the shaykhain.you just need an insight into history and an open mind to see these things.

Let me quote the verse that you gave me some few steps back:[b]Holy Quran 4:2-[/b]Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin. Since Ali r.a refused to rectify the problem and your alleged illegality, he not only willing participated in the illegality but accd. to the Quran he committed 'great sin'.  Again you mean to indicate that ALI was a coward, who refused to do what is right simply because he feared the reaction of his opponents, now let me remind of of the service of Abubakar r.a who had
waged a war against defecting tribes in arabia, because of mass apostation of tribes of yemen if he had feared doing what was right Islam will have crumbled. again the prophet s.a.w had brought a lot of  unpopular polices that were against the elites of Mecca, yet he refused to politicise the truth rather, he courageously followed the upper hand of morality by taking the message of ALLAH to the people. If using the Quranic verse in which ALLAH calls the deprivation of an Orphan her property, great sin, then know that maintaining your untenable position that Abubakar r.a illegally too Fatima possession makes Ali just as complicit for not correcting such "wrong". you need to drop that shia toga you jubilantly carry around before u can see the truth. Again Ali refusal to correct the "wrong" also adds a dent to the fallacious claim of you shias that he is infallible. And your claim that Ali r.a was to take the mantle of leadership after uthman but was not given because he refused to follow the sunnah of the previous caliphs is evidently half truth, as he participated in the election process that brought Uthman r.a, and Uthman actually voted for Ali r.a, but uthman took the reign of the caliph because he got more votes. 

LagosShia:

The shia consensus is simply that the marriage never took place.i said many indications and reasons can be used to show that the marriage never took place.but for argument’s sake I simply tell you that because of the existence of some weak hadiths from here and there we can simply say that matter is not certain as is the case with other issues.but even if we are to accept the weak hadiths,there is nothing good in them that would portray a cordial relationship between Imam Ali (as) and umar to the extent of giving his daughter to a very old man like umar.the weak hadiths in shia source report that the marriage was not consensual or voluntary.

The sunni concesus is that the marriage took place, this simply disprove your trenchant lies against Ali r.a, to show how a drunken shia collected a weak hadith that shows it the marriage was not consensual, such hadith simply accuses Ali r.a of one of the greatest sins, negligence of duty towards family, if Ali r.a viewed umar as being a Kafir auzobillahminashaytanrajim,then no amount of force should have made him even allow his daughter to wed/be captured by Umar such a person, it only goes to show how low the shia can actually go to justify their confusion. whether na by force or not, the whole issue passes an indictment you shia tales of treachery and directly calling Ali ra a coward, but no way is Ali know as a coward his heroic fight in khaybar is there for all to read. pathetic hiss: a shia once asked the question:

[’Aalim Network QR] Silence of Imam Ali(AS)- Follow-up

Aalim: Mohammad Soleiman-Panah

Salaamun alaykum,

The follow-up question below on the marriage of the daughter
of Imam Ali (AS) to Omar was answered by Mohammed Soleiman-Peneh.

Wasalaam,

Mustafa Rawji
Acting Moderator,ABDG-A

QUESTION:

I read in the Shia Encyclopedia that Omar did not marry Ume Kulsum. Now here a Learned Aalim is giving a different Answer. Now I am confused what is right and wrong. Could someone further elaborate this?

ANSWER:

…As far as the discrepancy between my reply and the Shia Encyclepedia - Which is a respectful text- is concerned, I’d like you to know that what I said concerning the marriage of Omar with Um-e Kulthum is not based on my personal historical research , I relied on the work of Dr. Sayyed Ja’far Shahidi ” Life of Fatemeh Zahra(SA)” Pp.263-265. [size=18pt]Dr. Shahidi is in my opinion the most distinguished contemporary Shia Historian, and I know of no contemporary Shia historian to be more reliable than him, but at the same time we all may make mistake. I have no basis to challenge Shia Encyclepedia, but if I have to choose between Dr. Shahidi’s work and Shia Encyclepedia, I believe it is safer to choose former in the case of discrepancy. However this by no means takes way from the value of the Shia Encyclepedia which is a great work and I have relied on it in many cases (may God rewards those responsible for it’s compiling).
[/size]

source: Aalim Network, http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/AalimNetWork/msg00168.html

LagosShia:

I never used the word “kicking”.umar is too small and insignificant to have done that against Lady Fatima (as).the general consensus we can accept from both sunni and shia hadiths that are acceptable is the fact that at least we can only say umar assaulted the house of Lady Fatima (as) and threatened to burn it if those inside don’t come out to pay allegiance to abu bakr.an assault is an assault regardless of the other details or actions that took place.i don’t know why you want to ignore that?

You and who can both accept what? such incidence never happened since there are atleast two reporting of such incidence, one claiming he umar ordered someone auzobillahminashaytanirajim, and the other assault. the assualt never happened only in the intoxicated dreams of some porpagandist did such happen.

LagosShia:

We do not accuse any sunni hadith of anything nor do we even give a d*** if it contradicts our hadiths/beliefs.the problem of contradiction lies in your hadiths and in your schools of thought.you have one hadith in the most authoritative sunni hadith books saying she died in anger and never spoke with abu bakr till she died.then you got a lesser hadith that claims otherwise.and you choose the lesser one.the problem of contradiction is yours and not ours.

Yeah the "lesser" hadith made more sense and seem to clarify what ctually transpired as i understand the hadith only indicated their disagreement which they settled, since keeping malice with your muslim brother is not acceptable.

LagosShia:

We do not accuse her of being materialistic because the will of the Prophet to us is the will of Almighty Allah that must be followed to the dot.it is the right of the orphan to get the inheritance and that is guaranteed by the Holy Quran.if you want to call that materialistic then you can as well feel free to utter the unthinkable and say the Holy Quran is a materialistic book (astaghfirullah).see Holy Quran 4:2.think before you write.research and read the links and references I presented.dont just implicate yourself.

Then you can not absolve Ali r.a of complicity in the entire saga, since he refused/failed to correct such wrong. believe what you want to, but the way shia leans to idol worship baffles one, only someone that is ignorant of Islam will refer to imams as being infallible. keep dreaming but if you must wake up, learn to read. you are free to misinterpret what i said, you have done so to all your evidences, you still failed to point where Fatima instructed that Abubakar should not attend her funeral.

ALI r.a names children after the Umar,uthman and Abubakar:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/76_ali_bin_talib.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/shia_mosques.htm

So "Ya Ali Madad" (O Ali Help) is clearly an absurd prayer especially when neither him or his son Hussein could help themselves from death when they did not want to die.  Not only that, but his oldest son, Hasan, is considered as a "coward" by some Shias, as I was personally told, for not revenging for his father.  Hasan is Ali's son and Prophet Muhammad's grand son and he is one who was supposed to be perfect, sinless and infallible according to the Shia's twisted beliefs, since he was part of the Ahlul-Bayt when Noble Verse 33:33 came down.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/refuting_shia_blasphemies.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkWc711YgFA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/sahabah/umm-kulthoom-2.html

Shias doing what they know best: insulting the prophet's wife
http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/video-aisha.html

vedaxcool:

accept what you want, I am contented with what i believe, ALHAMDULILAH.
Regarding the claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was averse to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees (رضّى الله عنها) explained that she had seen one woman’s body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did.

When Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). She instructed Asma (رضّى الله عنها) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (رضّى الله عنه) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma (رضّى الله عنها) was the wife of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which serves as another evidence that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) before her death.

Two points:
1.) Lady Fatima (as) was buried secretly because she did not want a non-mahram to view her body.
2.) The presence of Asma Bint Umais (ra) shows there was no contention with abu bakr.
Reponse:
1.) A non-mahram for a woman in Islam is an strange man (or simply a stranger who is male).in other words a man not connected to a woman through blood or marriage. So how does men burying a shrouded woman amount to non-mahram viewing the body of that woman? Do women even perform the task of burying a corpse in Islam? is it even allowed for women to do that?
2.) Asma Bint Umais was the wife of Ja’far Ibn Abu-Taleb,the brother of Imam Ali (as). she married abu bakr after the martyrdom of Ja’far. even if abu bakr was not good to the Ahlul-Bayt (as),Asma did have a relationship with them that marriage with abu bakr cannot break.worthy to note is the fact that Asma Bint Umais (ra) later on married Imam Ali (as) after the death of abu bakr.

(In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatima’s grave [رضّ الله عنها]. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.)

We know the site of her grave.and may Allah hold you accountable on judgment day for calling muslims “polytheists”.

Is praying in front of a grave shirk in Islam or not?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPPFjjqDyLU

Maybe you speak too much of your local dialect as this is what you wrote:

the word 'decide' simply indicate to pass judgement, and since you have passed judgement on them by saying they both could not be muslim auzobillah, i leave it to your mistaken belief that places materiel consideration above piety. You say it is my call, I dey Laugh oh, it is ALLAH whose judgement has meaning not yours or mine. keep passing judgement on individuals you and your entire living shia bosses are not comparable to, i on the other hand recognise my low status in comparison to them.

Again, I never passed judgment. asking you to “decide” is for you to make up your mind.you’re confused and holding contradictory statements which you yourself this time around presented. your highly esteemed bukhari states:
1.) A Muslim is forbidden to keep malice with a fellow Muslim for more than 3 days.
2.) Lady Fatima (as) kept malice with abu bakr for 6 months.
Ask bukhari if it was wrong for Lady Fatima (as) to have done that. according to ibn taymiyyah (la),Lady Fatima (as) was wrong and sinful to hold a grudge against abu bakr and bukhari only recorded that hadith to point out that the well beloved daughter of the Prophet was a “grave sinner”.these are the words of those you look up to. they are crazy!

Keep deluding yourself, for God to elect an individual for the position of Prophethood is incomparable, just being the prophet S.A.W family member does not grant you any perks or status, neither is ALI comparable to any of ALLAH's prophets, their position are not attainable by any mortal, but you can delude yourself and think because one is called an Imam, appointed by humans like himself not ALLAH, makes the person equal to the status of prophet:
Sunnis don't consider this hadith as a proclamation from Muhammad for Ali to succeed him after his death. Aaron and his lineage were prohibited by the Law of Moses to take executive roles, but only religious ceremonial duties. Joshua, not the descendants of Aaron, led Israel after Moses. Sunnis consider Ali one of the best Muslims after the death of Muhammad.

They do not see this hadith as assigning to Ali any greater merit than the many other hadiths have assigned to the other companions of Muhammad such as Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah of whom Muhammad said "You are the Secretary of this nation."

The Holy Quran can decide this matter:
Holy Quran 3:33-34
God did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,- Offspring, one of the other: And God heareth and knoweth all things.

Say (Muhammad): I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.
Quran [42:23]

It should be taken into consideration that the above hadith is duly accepted in the context of the position of Ali as to Aaron and Moses by Muhammad by scholars such as Muhammad al-Bukhari, Hakim, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others.

Can you please tell us what was the position of Aron to Moses (as)?thanks.

Sunnis also have a similar hadiths for the second Sunni Caliph Umar, the Hadith of Umar and prophecy.

A fabricated hadith to say the least- that had Muhammad (sa) not being the last of prophets,umar would have being a prophet. umar was someone who worshipped idols and drank wine before the Prophet Muhammad(sa).so on what basis of piety does it qualify umar or give him the least similarity between him and prophets who since their creation never worshipped idols or broke the commandments of Allah (swt)?

Besides,did the Prophet (sa) liken him to a position or status as he did with ranking Imam Ali (as) to Prophet Harun (as)?so tell us what was the position of Harun to Musa (as)?

and ALI too was a Sahaba, making him definately not infallible but hey, no be shia you be?

If that qualifies me for being shia, then surely I am proud because the Prophet (sa) was the number shia!try and listen to his words and know that you’re dead wrong!!!

"Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar".
Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124

"Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali"
Kanz ul Ummal Tradition 33018

Jibir bin Abdullah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj, on the Day of Arafah (on his last pilgrimage). He was upon his camel Al-Qaswa, giving a Khutbah, so he said: O People! Indeed, I have left among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you shall not go astray: The Book of Allah (Quran) and my Household,who are my progeny (Ahlul-Bait).(Sahih Muslim 31:5920)

And finally from the Quran and a little quiz for you:
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you." (Quran 4:59).
We know Allah and His Messenger.please tell us who are those “vested with authority” whom obedience to them is mandatory as is obedience to Allah (swt)? Can you identify them?and how do you do that and with what criteria?

really, don't play dumb, you particularly accused Ayesha the prophet's SA.w wife of trachery, go to youtube and see how you shia boses are insulting her.

We accuse her of treachery because of the wars she led which claimed the lives of many innocent souls and because she rebelled against the Imam of her time.

But when you say we accuse her of “so many unspeakable things”, and then use that headline to sandwich the lie that we accuse her of committing adultery which the Quran absolves her of, then you’re a liar. you people keep lying that we accuse her of adultery when the Quran had absolved her of such. that is not true.

yeah yeah we know every other thing people say is faulty, thank God you did not say that i placed it, it was your fellow shias who collected such hadiths, it is only a pity that you see ALI r.a a human as being infallible.So if since marital problems are not impossible between Ali and Fatima-which shows he was fallible- then why all this hyperventilating over hadiths over hadiths collected by shias also? beats me. Saying Abubakar r.a illegally took over Fatma possession, thank goodness when ALI r.a got to the position of correcting the "wrong" he not only refused to correct the "wrong" but carried on as if there was no problem, the funny thing is that Abubakar r.a did take the oasis of fadak not for himself rather he returned it to state control and guaranteed payments to the Household of the prophet S.A.W, ALHADULILAH, HOW ALLAH makes matter very clear to those off course.

The fact remains that there was no marital problem between them. and even if for argument’s sake we accept there was which is not impossible with a spouse,usurping anyone’s inheritance whether for personal or state gain is forbidden. confiscating fadak which produced much returns was simply aimed at weakening the Household and ensure that they are not suffient to stand up for their right. Imam Ali (as) not returning fadak has political dimensions and it was not in his hand to do that because the time did not permit him.

Let me quote the verse that you gave me some few steps back:[b]Holy Quran 4:2-[/b]Give unto orphans their wealth. Exchange not the good for the bad (in your management thereof) nor absorb their wealth into your own wealth. Lo! that would be a great sin. Since Ali r.a refused to rectify the problem and your alleged illegality, he not only willing participated in the illegality but accd. to the Quran he committed 'great sin'. Again you mean to indicate that ALI was a coward, who refused to do what is right simply because he feared the reaction of his opponents,

You will explain that to Allah (swt);not to me. i know fully understand that there was an inheritance confiscated unjustly by abu bakr and that is recorded in your “sahih” books.if that is not enough to convince you, I can’t do anything about it.

now let me remind of of the service of Abubakar r.a who had
waged a war against defecting tribes in arabia, because of mass apostation of tribes of yemen if he had feared doing what was right Islam will have crumbled. again the prophet s.a.w had brought a lot of unpopular polices that were against the elites of Mecca, yet he refused to politicise the truth rather, he courageously followed the upper hand of morality by taking the message of ALLAH to the people. If using the Quranic verse in which ALLAH calls the deprivation of an Orphan her property, great sin, then know that maintaining your untenable position that Abubakar r.a illegally too Fatima possession makes Ali just as complicit for not correcting such "wrong". you need to drop that shia toga you jubilantly carry around before u can see the truth. Again Ali refusal to correct the "wrong" also adds a dent to the fallacious claim of you shias that he is infallible. And your claim that Ali r.a was to take the mantle of leadership after uthman but was not given because he refused to follow the sunnah of the previous caliphs is evidently half truth, as he participated in the election process that brought Uthman r.a, and Uthman actually voted for Ali r.a, but uthman took the reign of the caliph because he got more votes.

When one hears how ridiculous you’re,it is really sad that you call yourself “Muslim”. with the much nonsense, it looks best to simply put an ignore tab on you while I continue propagating true Islam.

See the nonsense you typed:”usthman got more votes than Ali”. that is crazy. can you please tell us how many votes were cast in total? please just do that and let people see how ridiculous you and your likes and your entire sect is.

You keep repeating how Imam Ali (as) did not “correct” what abu bakr did. and you fail to understand that fighting under the banner of islam as many false preachers do today is easier than fighting fellow muslims and making a civil war.many muslims even to this day are either confused or swayed by petty lies to revile the shia.the same was done against Imam Ali (as).you forget that in his days he fought against the daughter of abu bakr who rebelled against him for no good reason.today people like you would even make and accept a pretext for her armed rebellion against the Imam of her time which led to thousands dead.you forget also that muawiya did likewise and fought two wars against the Imam.

I’d simply concede that history is not a simple matter and there are issues not every brain can comprehend.

The sunni concesus is that the marriage took place,

Clap for yourselves!

this simply disprove your trenchant lies against Ali r.a, to show how a drunken shia collected a weak hadith that shows it the marriage was not consensual, such hadith simply accuses Ali r.a of one of the greatest sins, negligence of duty towards family, if Ali r.a viewed umar as being a Kafir auzobillahminashaytanrajim,then no amount of force should have made him even allow his daughter to wed/be captured by Umar such a person, it only goes to show how low the shia can actually go to justify their confusion. whether na by force or not, the whole issue passes an indictment you shia tales of treachery and directly calling Ali ra a coward, but no way is Ali know as a coward his heroic fight in khaybar is there for all to read. pathetic hiss: a shia once asked the question:

My friend you mentioned earlier that the marriage is recorded in shia hadith.i told you first of all that shia hadith compilations are not viewed as “sahih” as sunni view theirs and even call them by that word.i also brought to your understanding that the hadith is weak and there are 1001 ways of proving that the marriage never took place. I also posted a clip where the speaker used history(dates) to show that Um Kulthum (daughter of Imam Ali) could not have being the same person who became the wife of umar. what else do you want me to do or say? To accept the marriage? No I do not. To recognize you are happy with it? thats good for you.

You’re presenting me with the opinions of a historian or an alim from here or there simply under the name “shia”. I have explained to you the basis of the two views and which is accepted. If any shia historian accepts the marriage, then he is simply looking at it from the angle of history through a weak hadith recorded which even goes on to cast doubt on the fairness of the marriage. even that, I cannot say the historian himself believed in the marriage. take for example, tabari (and Ibn Hisham) recorded the incident of the so called “satanic verses” which were allegedly recited by the Prophet (sa).but the same Tabari says he is not responsible for the records which he compiled. also looking into the event of the so called “satanic verses” defies logic,history and the Quran’s structure.

The ” alim” answering the question even went on to admit that his answer is not based on his personal research!but I guess you’re blind not to have read that.

The Alim further states:

Having said this, I like to call your attention to the fact that
in my response I intended to argue that even in the case of such marriage
it cannot be used as a sign of agreement of Imam Ali (AS) with Omar's
Khilafa.

You and who can both accept what? such incidence never happened since there are atleast two reporting of such incidence, one claiming he umar ordered someone auzobillahminashaytanirajim, and the other assault. the assualt never happened only in the intoxicated dreams of some porpagandist did such happen.

You should know that the assault is recorded by your scholars of hadiths which are considered to be “sahih” compilations. therefore you’re also referring to them as “propagandists and intoxicated”. judging from your urge and passion I can simply remind you of the shia view of the large body of innocent sunnis who have being blind-folded and the truth concealed from them as “victims of a distorted history”.

Your intention is good but the reality is bitter which you do not accept,therefore you reject the truth and follow what your mind desires.
Holy Quran 53:23
-They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.

Yeah the "lesser" hadith made more sense and seem to clarify what ctually transpired as i understand the hadith only indicated their disagreement which they settled, since keeping malice with your muslim brother is not acceptable.

So how did you arrive at the conclusion that the lesser hadith does make “more sense” than the “almighty sahih” of bukhari?

Hope you now see that you are only following conjecture and your desires.

Then you can not absolve Ali r.a of complicity in the entire saga, since he refused/failed to correct such wrong. believe what you want to, but the way shia leans to idol worship baffles one, only someone that is ignorant of Islam will refer to imams as being infallible. keep dreaming but if you must wake up, learn to read. you are free to misinterpret what i said, you have done so to all your evidences, you still failed to point where Fatima instructed that Abubakar should not attend her funeral.

I presented hadiths for that. Scroll up and read again.
The problem is you don’t know what Islam is because you have being taught half-truths. If you go among the large body of Muslims like your kind and ask them “are you Sunni”?they will not know what you’re talking about but here you have the boldness to call yourself “ahlus-sunnah wal-jamah” and defend it. by the way that name was not uttered by the Prophet (sa) and not mentioned in the Quran. it is a bid’ah and therefore a forbidden name. So who gave you that name? do you want to know? Find out!

Guess what? the Prophet (sa) said:”Ali and his shia are the victorious on judgment day” and it is recorded in Sunni sources.

To conclude, I don’t blame you for misusing words like “infallibility” and “polytheism” or “idol-worship”. you do not know what they are or how they are and who performs what. And if you do have any knowledge about them,they are half-correct.My advice to you once more is to read from all sources and compare and then make your conclusions. don’t just read in a scattered way to find something to say or reply. Read extensively from both sources and sides of the story.

vedaxcool:

ALI r.a names children after the Umar,uthman and Abubakar:

The names of Imam Ali[as]'s sons:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/names/en/index.php

So "Ya Ali Madad" (O Ali Help) is clearly an absurd prayer especially when neither him or his son Hussein could help themselves from death when they did not want to die. Not only that, but his oldest son, Hasan, is considered as a "coward" by some Shias, as I was personally told, for not revenging for his father. Hasan is Ali's son and Prophet Muhammad's grand son and he is one who was supposed to be perfect, sinless and infallible according to the Shia's twisted beliefs, since he was part of the Ahlul-Bayt when Noble Verse 33:33 came down.

"Ya Ali Madad" or "tawassul,is it shirk?:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/tawassul/en/index.php

anyone who considers Imam Hassan (as) a coward is not shia and not even muslim.so your words are stupid.also can you tell us from whom could Imam Hassan (as) taken revenge for his father's matyrdom?please tell us and show us how ridiculous you and your likes are.

Shias doing what they know best: insulting the prophet's wife

Aisha:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php

LagosShia:

Two points:
1.) Lady Fatima (as) was buried secretly because she did not want a non-mahram to view her body.
2.) The presence of Asma Bint Umais (ra) shows there was no contention with abu bakr.
Reponse:
1.) A non-mahram for a woman in Islam is an strange man (or simply a stranger who is male).in other words a man not connected to a woman through blood or marriage. So how does men burying a shrouded woman amount to non-mahram viewing the body of that woman? Do women even perform the task of burying a corpse in Islam? is it even allowed for women to do that?

I hope shia hypocricy has not covered your eyes as where did i write Asma beurried her? it was clearly written ALI burried her. Like i indicatewhere did Fatima particularly say ABu BAkar should not attend her funeral? She only asked for a secrete burial. But again delusions of shiasm will not allo common sense to prevail.

LagosShia:

2.) Asma Bint Umais was the wife of Ja’far Ibn Abu-Taleb,the brother of Imam Ali (as). she married abu bakr after the martyrdom of Ja’far. even if abu bakr was not good to the Ahlul-Bayt (as),Asma did have a relationship with them that marriage with abu bakr cannot break.worthy to note is the fact that Asma Bint Umais (ra) later on married Imam Ali (as) after the death of abu bakr.
We know the site of her grave.and may Allah hold you accountable on judgment day for calling muslims “polytheists”.

Make sure you go asked for a keke napepsa when you get there.

LagosShia:

Again, I never passed judgment. asking you to “decide” is for you to make up your mind.you’re confused and holding contradictory statements which you yourself this time around presented. your highly esteemed bukhari states:
1.) A Muslim is forbidden to keep malice with a fellow Muslim for more than 3 days.
2.) Lady Fatima (as) kept malice with abu bakr for 6 months.
Ask bukhari if it was wrong for Lady Fatima (as) to have done that. according to ibn taymiyyah (la),Lady Fatima (as) was wrong and sinful to hold a grudge against abu bakr and bukhari only recorded that hadith to point out that the well beloved daughter of the Prophet was a “grave sinner”.these are the words of those you look up to. they are crazy!

this does not make sense at all!

LagosShia:

The Holy Quran can decide this matter:
Holy Quran 3:33-34
God did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people,- Offspring, one of the other: And God heareth and knoweth all things.

Say (Muhammad): I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.
Quran [42:23]

LagosShia:

Can you please tell us what was the position of Aron to Moses (as)?thanks.
A fabricated hadith to say the least- that had Muhammad (sa) not being the last of prophets,umar would have being a prophet. umar was someone who worshipped idols and drank wine before the Prophet Muhammad(sa).so on what basis of piety does it qualify umar or give him the least similarity between him and prophets who since their creation never worshipped idols or broke the commandments of Allah (swt)?

,

LagosShia:

Besides,did the Prophet (sa) liken him to a position or status as he did with ranking Imam Ali (as) to Prophet Harun (as)?so tell us what was the position of Harun to Musa (as)?
If that qualifies me for being shia, then surely I am proud because the Prophet (sa) was the number shia!try and listen to his words and know that you’re dead wrong!!!

"Ali is with the Qur'an and the Qur'an is with Ali, they will never separate until they reach me at the Fountain of Kauthar".
Al Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 p 124

"Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with 'Ali"
Kanz ul Ummal Tradition 33018

Jibir bin Abdullah said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj, on the Day of Arafah (on his last pilgrimage). He was upon his camel Al-Qaswa, giving a Khutbah, so he said: O People! Indeed, I have left among you, that which if you hold fast to it, you shall not go astray: The Book of Allah (Quran) and my Household,who are my progeny (Ahlul-Bait).(Sahih Muslim 31:5920)

And finally from the Quran and a little quiz for you:
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you." (Quran 4:59).
We know Allah and His Messenger.please tell us who are those “vested with authority” whom obedience to them is mandatory as is obedience to Allah (swt)? Can you identify them?and how do you do that and with what criteria?
We accuse her of treachery because of the wars she led which claimed the lives of many innocent souls and because she rebelled against the Imam of her time.

But when you say we accuse her of “so many unspeakable things”, and then use that headline to sandwich the lie that we accuse her of committing adultery which the Quran absolves her of, then you’re a liar. you people keep lying that we accuse her of adultery when the Quran had absolved her of such. that is not true.

Only a fooooool calls his mum tracherous, I repeat a only a foooool call his mum tracherous. if you need links ask for it, instead of performing tarrqiyyah here. a Uselesss religion that trains it adherants trachery 24/7

LagosShia:

The fact remains that there was no marital problem between them. and even if for argument’s sake we accept there was which is not impossible with a spouse,usurping anyone’s inheritance whether for personal or state gain is forbidden. confiscating fadak which produced much returns was simply aimed at weakening the Household and ensure that they are not suffient to stand up for their right. Imam Ali (as) not returning fadak has political dimensions and it was not in his hand to do that because the time did not permit him.

ALI remains as coulpable as ABU bakar in the oppression

LagosShia:

You will explain that to Allah (swt);not to me. i know fully understand that there was an inheritance confiscated unjustly by abu bakr and that is recorded in your “sahih” books.if that is not enough to convince you, I can’t do anything about it.
When one hears how ridiculous you’re,it is really sad that you call yourself “Muslim”. with the much nonsense, it looks best to simply put an ignore tab on you while I continue propagating true Islam.

Confused indeed is what shiasm is in its totality, ALI failure to retrn the ppty makes him as culpable as Abu bakar that is what common sense should tell you, It seems being a shai insulates you from thinking well, indeed the polythesim associated with shiasm makes it as repugnant as one worshiping a idol he made with his own gands

LagosShia:

See the nonsense you typed:”usthman got more votes than Ali”. that is crazy. can you please tell us how many votes were cast in total? please just do that and let people see how ridiculous you and your likes and your entire sect is.

it seem you actually loosing some bolts up there, Every group in Medina pledged their allegiance to uthman, if you have any sense to read you would know that was definately a majority ruling.

LagosShia:

You keep repeating how Imam Ali (as) did not “correct” what abu bakr did. and you fail to understand that fighting under the banner of islam as many false preachers do today is easier than fighting fellow muslims and making a civil war.many muslims even to this day are either confused or swayed by petty lies to revile the shia.the same was done against Imam Ali (as).you forget that in his days he fought against the daughter of abu bakr who rebelled against him for no good reason.today people like you would even make and accept a pretext for her armed rebellion against the Imam of her time which led to thousands dead.you forget also that muawiya did likewise and fought two wars against the Imam.

Aya, so u mean to say Ali prefered the throne more than doing what ws right? Becasue shia is based on hypocrisy you have failed to adequately explained why the infallible imam, failed to rectify what he personaly considered to be wrong, but you keep dodging the question. You delude non but yourself, Ali refused to rectufy the wrong because it was a just decision.

LagosShia:

I’d simply concede that history is not a simple matter and there are issues not every brain can comprehend.

yes especially if you are a hypocrite shia who performs tarqiya with no apparrent reason.

LagosShia:

Clap for yourselves!

the truth must be hurting you.

LagosShia:

My friend you mentioned earlier that the marriage is recorded in shia hadith.i told you first of all that shia hadith compilations are not viewed as “sahih” as sunni view theirs and even call them by that word.i also brought to your understanding that the hadith is weak and there are 1001 ways of proving that the marriage never took place. I also posted a clip where the speaker used history(dates) to show that Um Kulthum (daughter of Imam Ali) could not have being the same person who became the wife of umar. what else do you want me to do or say? To accept the marriage? No I do not. To recognize you are happy with it? thats good for you.

, the truth is a bitter pill indeed.

LagosShia:

You’re presenting me with the opinions of a historian or an alim from here or there simply under the name “shia”. I have explained to you the basis of the two views and which is accepted. If any shia historian accepts the marriage, then he is simply looking at it from the angle of history through a weak hadith recorded which even goes on to cast doubt on the fairness of the marriage. even that, I cannot say the historian himself believed in the marriage. take for example, tabari (and Ibn Hisham) recorded the incident of the so called “satanic verses” which were allegedly recited by the Prophet (sa).but the same Tabari says he is not responsible for the records which he compiled. also looking into the event of the so called “satanic verses” defies logic,history and the Quran’s structure.

yawns, shia garbage I see.

LagosShia:

The ” alim” answering the question even went on to admit that his answer is not based on his personal research!but I guess you’re blind not to have read that.

The Alim further states:

[b]Having said this, I like to call your attention to the fact that
in my response I intended to argue that even in the case of such marriage
it cannot be used as a sign of agreement of Imam Ali (AS) with Omar's
Khilafa.[/b

Hehehe, it makes nonsense of the entire argument that they were arch enemies, an dit simply indicates that he did agreed to the Umar's caliphate. Only shias can think in such strange manner, it also means he did not view Umar as a kafir, something certain sick individuals say. the truth is gradually coming up. Shias in the past did accept hat Umar married Umm Kultum, it seems the historical acceptance is being rejected by ignorant mordern day shia what a pity

LagosShia:

You should know that the assault is recorded by your scholars of hadiths which are considered to be “sahih” compilations. therefore you’re also referring to them as “propagandists and intoxicated”. judging from your urge and passion I can simply remind you of the shia view of the large body of innocent sunnis who have being blind-folded and the truth concealed from them as “victims of a distorted history”.

Yawns

LagosShia:

Your intention is good but the reality is bitter which you do not accept,therefore you reject the truth and follow what your mind desires.
Holy Quran 53:23
-They follow naught but conjecture and the low desires which (their) souls incline to; and certainly the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
So how did you arrive at the conclusion that the lesser hadith does make “more sense” than the “almighty sahih” of bukhari?

makes more sense by complementing it, you are too ignorant for me to engage. shia lies keep raring it head in your response. it seems u are brain washed

LagosShia:

Hope you now see that you are only following conjecture and your desires.
I presented hadiths for that. Scroll up and read again.
The problem is you don’t know what Islam is because you have being taught half-truths. If you go among the large body of Muslims like your kind and ask them “are you Sunni”?they will not know what you’re talking about but here you have the boldness to call yourself “ahlus-sunnah wal-jamah” and defend it. by the way that name was not uttered by the Prophet (sa) and not mentioned in the Quran. it is a bid’ah and therefore a forbidden name. So who gave you that name? do you want to know? Find out!

, shiasm is a joke and a mockery of commonsense

LagosShia:

Guess what? the Prophet (sa) said:”Ali and his shia are the victorious on judgment day” and it is recorded in Sunni sources.

To conclude, I don’t blame you for misusing words like “infallibility” and “polytheism” or “idol-worship”. you do not know what they are or how they are and who performs what. And if you do have any knowledge about them,they are half-correct.My advice to you once more is to read from all sources and compare and then make your conclusions. don’t just read in a scattered way to find something to say or reply. Read extensively from both sources and sides of the story.

None of what you wrote address what i raised, shia delusion in play i see. The sad thing is that it was one of Ali r.a allies that actually killed him, the Khrawajis were part if his followers.

What will make a mum harm her own child? see the picture then you would be glad that you are not a shia, this was during the ashura festival. it is pathetic you will see people beating themselves with chains, Alhamdulilah, i am not in the a party that engage in such.

In this chapter, Answering-Ansar has adopted the tone of the apologist, denying integral parts of their belief in order to seem more presentable. They deny that the book Al-Kafi, written by the venerated Imam Al-Kulayni, is authentic. We see a similar approach used by the so-called “modern” and “liberal” Muslims who deny certain verses of the Quran (such as marrying more than one wife or going to Jihad) in order that they may please the disbelievers and be more effective in argumentation with them. Similarly, the Shia propagandist has attempted to deny the authoratative nature of Al-Kafi; this is in an effort to hide the many embarassing narrations in Al-Kafi that expose the Shia belief.

However, a little investigation into the matter quickly reveals that Al-Kafi is considered absolutely authentic by the Shia. The akhbariyun (traditionists) have declared that Al-Kafi is completely Sahih except two or three narrations in it. This opinion was held by the traditionalist party for so many centuries, and it was only long after–especially during the Safavid Empire–in which the Shia scholars decided that it was time to discard the claim of authenticity due to the fact that there were so many “troublesome” Hadith in Al-Kafi. There has been a recent drive for the Shia to deny that Al-Kafi is the Sahih Bukhari of the Shia, but again, a little research on the matter shows that the historical opinion of the Shia was that Al-Kafi is as Sahih to the Shia as Sahih Bukhari is to the Sunni.

How this relates to the debate on Umm Kulthoom’s marriage is two-fold: firstly, the Hadiths which document the marriage of Umm Kulthoom are contained in that portion of Al-Kafi which was abandoned by the latter scholars, and this too based not upon Isnad (chain of transmission) but upon Matn’ (content). [/b]Secondly, we see an over-arching theme in Shia history, [b]namely that the contemporary Shia scholars hold beliefs that run contrary to their ancestors and some of the same people that they claim to follow. More importantly, the traditionists and classical scholars that the Shia now reject are the same ones who were the direct link to the so-called Infallible Imams, including those who had direct contact with the Hidden Imam during the Minor Occultation! When a religious faith has different views than the ones they claim to originate from, then this is a good sign that it is a faith which has been horribly corrupted over the centuries and therefore should not be followed.
www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/response-to-chapter7.html


this only goes to prove how low a shia will go to prove his points, lagos shia pretence that shia have no sahihs only indicates how dubious shiasm really is.

Your mode of debate lacks intellectuality. You keep arguing and bringing up one separate issue after the other and throwing attacks from here and there, and pulling up too many red herrings to spoil the thread and make it unbearable for others to read and gain something reasonable from it. I tried to ignore you but obviously you brought something misleading to use as propaganda to bring me back through "pinching". you want me to decend to your level.The fact is you will often be ignored after this because you’re silly. The way you debate shows you lack knowledge. You do not even represent what you claim to believe. You just discovered you’re Sunni, so it makes sense to you to defend that even though you never had the choice to be or not to. Please tell me I’ lying. This is the reality in Africa.

vedaxcool:

What will make a mum harm her own child? see the picture then you would be glad that you are not a shia, this was during the ashura festival. it is pathetic you will see people beating themselves with chains, Alhamdulilah, i am not in the a party that engage in such.

The same ignorance that makes you call “ashura” a “festival”. how many times would I repeat that this thing is more cultural than religious and many of our scholars have denounced it?

In this chapter, Answering-Ansar has adopted the tone of the apologist, denying integral parts of their belief in order to seem more presentable. They deny that the book Al-Kafi, written by the venerated Imam Al-Kulayni, is authentic.

Kulayni was not a “venerated imam”.he was and still is a respectable scholar and we pray for him and wish him well and that Almighty Allah have mercy on his soul and be pleased with him and may his soul rest in perfect peace.ameen.

Secondly,the point is shia do not have “sahih” collections of hadiths as the sunni do.to the shia each individual hadith is subject to scrutinity.Kulayni compiled a book of so many hadiths.he did not author them.so we examine each hadith and make sure it is acceptable or we may reject it especially if it contradicts the Holy Quran.

On the other side, sunnis have books like “sahih bukhari” and “sahih muslim”. ”sahih” means “authentic”. to them everything compiled in those 2 books is true even the ones that are ridiculous and contradict the Quran.

Take an example a hadith found in bukhari where monkeys stoned another monkey for adultery! That is incredible!!! I would really not be surprised if you defend that hadith as true out of stupidity.

We see a similar approach used by the so-called “modern” and “liberal” Muslims who deny certain verses of the Quran (such as marrying more than one wife or going to Jihad) in order that they may please the disbelievers and be more effective in argumentation with them. Similarly, the Shia propagandist has attempted to deny the authoratative nature of Al-Kafi; this is in an effort to hide the many embarassing narrations in Al-Kafi that expose the Shia belief.

There are many narrations in al-kafi that are true and many that are false and rejected.

To the shia unlike the sunni who venerate hadith compilations, only the Holy Quran is infallible and “sahih” 100%.every other writing is questioned and examined.

However, a little investigation into the matter quickly reveals that Al-Kafi is considered absolutely authentic by the Shia. The akhbariyun (traditionists) have declared that Al-Kafi is completely Sahih except two or three narrations in it.

Please repeat the phrase:
“except two or three narrations in it”.

That means they must have applied a method to know which hadith is true and which is not.we simply do not accept al-kafi simply because al-Kulayni compiled it nor do we call it “sahih kulayni” as you have “sahih bukhari” of your Imam Bukhari or Muslim.
I don’t know where you got your statistics from or what you mean by “akhbariyyun”.

This opinion was held by the traditionalist party for so many centuries, and it was only long after–especially during the Safavid Empire–in which the Shia scholars decided that it was time to discard the claim of authenticity due to the fact that there were so many “troublesome” Hadith in Al-Kafi. There has been a recent drive for the Shia to deny that Al-Kafi is the Sahih Bukhari of the Shia, but again, a little research on the matter shows that the historical opinion of the Shia was that Al-Kafi is as Sahih to the Shia as Sahih Bukhari is to the Sunni.

There is nothing that forbid us from finding out that a hadith is actually wrong. I do definitely disagree with the nonsense you present as “history”. al-kafi is a book of authority. No doubt about that. And it is highly regarded up to this day. But not everything in it is authentic including the “two or three hadiths” you mentioned.

And even if we do for argument sake say that al-kafi is 100% authentic. Does that make your stupidity of having a compilation of hadiths called “sahih bukhari” any less silly? So to you, two wrongs make a right. Or rather makes you feel better. Nonsense.

How this relates to the debate on Umm Kulthoom’s marriage is two-fold: firstly, the Hadiths which document the marriage of Umm Kulthoom are contained in that portion of Al-Kafi which was abandoned by the latter scholars,

As I earlier explained,there is nothing like “portion”,”compilation” or “book” that is completely as a whole considered as false or “sahih”.we examine each and every individual hadith to make sure it is true or false.

and this too based not upon Isnad (chain of transmission) but upon Matn’ (content).

Many a hadith with “reliable” chain of transmission that is false and ridiculous. isnad is not the only prerequisite to determine if a hadith is true or false.

Secondly, we see an over-arching theme in Shia history, namely that the contemporary Shia scholars hold beliefs that run contrary to their ancestors and some of the same people that they claim to follow.

Please present those beliefs.

More importantly, the traditionists and classical scholars that the Shia now reject are the same ones who were the direct link to the so-called Infallible Imams, including those who had direct contact with the Hidden Imam during the Minor Occultation! When a religious faith has different views than the ones they claim to originate from, then this is a good sign that it is a faith which has been horribly corrupted over the centuries and therefore should not be followed.

We do not reject any of our classical scholars including al-Kulayni (ra).we hold them in high esteem.your assumption that we reject them because a hadith is found to be false in a sea of compiled hadiths not even authored by the scholar himself but compiled from hearsay is nonsense.

No matter what you do or say and the propaganda and lies spread and paid for to be spread, even you will see the truth and everyone will when they research and investigate every issue. Lies don’t work anymore. Before they use to lie to us that the shia are this and that. But this is the age of the internet. Everyone can research and see the truth.

Because you got really no grounds to prove and argue your case, you now use a lie that we have changed and are different from our predecessors’ beliefs. well, if we have “learn” for the better, then you should learn from us and you too can “learn”. I just would like you to point out one difference we have with our predecessors that you did not invent or lie about. Then everyone is free to do his research.

Even the Holy Quran tells us:

Holy Quran 39:17-18
But those who have avoided Taghut, lest they worship it, and turned back to Allah - for them are good tidings. So give good tidings to My servants
[b]Who listen to speech and follow the best of it.[/b]Those are the ones Allah has guided, and those are people of understanding.

this only goes to prove how low a shia will go to prove his points, lagos shia pretence that shia have no sahihs only indicates how dubious shiasm really is.

So calling a compilation of hadiths book “sahih” is not dubious. calling a book like bukhari’s “sahih bukhari” is not dubious. accepting everything in a hadith compilation is not dubious.
but the moment the shia says we do not accept a compilation as “sahih” in its entirety, that is dubious. the moment the shia examines each and every individual hadith, that is dubious.

That shows how crazy you’re. sorry, but we cannot be like you’re. We will not accept an entire compilation which includes ridiculous hadiths as completely acceptable. To us only the Holy Quran is a “sahih” book 100% and is beyond scrutiny. And we know and accept and believe that even upon scrutiny the Holy Quran is the only book on earth that can claim infallibility and holiness.

I won't waste my time refuting this cadet tarqiyyist, whose masters did not explain the concept of tarqiyyah adequately enough for him to engage. when you argue with shia, that is reasonable and a moderate there is a possibility of getting out the truth, but when you argue with a fanatical shia who has been brain washed and has probably forgotten the last time he told the truth, you not only go in circles but in fact continue to witness illogical thinking at the highest level, just as we have witness in every stage of the discussion, where someone asked the silly question in which no sensible can authoritatively give answer to, 'what killed Fatima', again the ashura festival marking the death of Ali's son, shows how paganism has overtook Islamic belief because of the illogical following of people's opinion, again the issue of Ali's failure to rectify the perceived injustice only goes to show how illogical the shias go to delude themselves and only shows that Ali r.a accepted Abubakars ruling, but to undertsand the illogical nature of lagoshia read below their tarqiyyah stratagem;

# Taqiyyah

Taqiyyah translates to “the act of deceiving.” An explanation of Taqiyyah was given by the Infallible Imam of the Shia as recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith: The Imam said that Taqiyyah is to say one thing outwardly but to believe another inwardly. There is another term for this: lying. It is indeed strange that the Shia faith not only allows for lying but commands it!

Grand Ayatollah On Cursing the Prophet’s Wives/Companions and Taqiyyah

The following fatwa is found on the Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Shahroudi. Please note how the Grand Ayatollah allows the cursing but it must be done in such a way as not to reveal the Taqiyyah that is being done in front of the Sunni masses. Perhaps this will wake up those Sunnis who are fooled by the Shia lies when they say that they do not curse the Prophet’s wives or Sahabah. This comes from the mouth of the Grand Ayatollah himself

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/ahlel-bayt/cursing-wives-and-sahabah.html

the fallacies of shiasm centres around the fact that their positions on every matter keeps changing as long as it does not support their misguided reasoning is not only pathetic but again shows that it is the path for the misguided.