• Myten om Ali, Abu Bakr och Umar…

    Ett av de inlägg jag skrev några veckor sedan men undvek att publicera. Islamisk historia är mörk. Många försöker undvika att studera den då de menar sig vilja undvika höra om sina hjältar, som kanske inte betedde sig på ett positivt sätt. Imam Ali tillfrågades om de muslimer som inte valde hans eller Muawiyas sida, då sa han de går raka vägen till helvetet. Vi som människor måste välja mellan gott och ont, mellan Allah och djävulen och mellan Ali och hans motståndare.

    Jag är shia, jag är en av Alis partisaner, jag är en av de som hyllar, älskar och vördar honom och jag är fiende till hans fiender. Jag anser att Abu Bakr, Umar och Uthman, tre första kaliferna, var hans motståndare. De svek Ahlul Bayt och Profeten. Bland shiiter går synen på dem isär. Vissa menar att dessa tre var alltid hycklare, andra menar att dessa förändrades på slutet.

    Shiiterna är en stor brokig skara. Många av dem är upplysta, många är okunniga, vissa förstår inte Ahlul Bayts status, vissa förstår inte vad de lärda sagt eller uttalat sig om. Så att bedöma min tro, min religion, min gren, genom att titta på någon som slår sig eller skadar sig, är ologiskt och befängt. Jag dömer inte alla sunniter, för vad en sufi eller en wahabi gör. Jag bedömer inte sufi utifrån vad jag sett hos en enstaka sufi, utan man måste gå till källan, till ursprunget och till orsaken. Detta inlägg ska belysa konflikten i historien och ofta hör man hos sunniterna att alla sahabas, alla vänner till Profeten, var bästa av vänner. Man glömmer bort hadither och Koranverser, som varnade för hycklarna bland muslimerna.

    Det måste klargöras att Imam Ali själv sa: ”Och var inga som är fula i mun mot våra fiender”. Så detta beteende att svära åt Abu Bakr och Umar och Uthman och Aisha, är inget som våra imamer eller våra lärda förespråkar eller hyllar. Jag och min familj menar att orätt begicks mot Ahlul Bayt, men vi följer deras exempel, vi svär inte åt deras fiender. En nära vän till mig, är shia men rätt okunnig, ändå tycker han att de saker han hört av vissa shiiter mot Abu Bakr och resten, vara under vår värdighet. Med de här sakerna sagda, låt oss titta på Ahlul Bayt och Abu Bakr, Umar och Uthman.

    Må Allah förbanna lögnaren, förtryckaren, våldsverkaren. Må Allah skydda oss från lögn och från att gå fel väg i livet.

    Det var länge sedan jag skrev något ”shiitiskt”, men idag kunde jag inte låta bli. Ett av de myter man hör bland sunniter är den om ”sahabas”, vännerna till Profeten Muhammed, vänner som var så enade, så förenade, så trevliga, så ärliga, så goda, så perfekta, att du kallas för otrogen, för kafir, ifall du ifrågasätter någon av dem.

    Jag hamnade på ett sunnitiskt forum i USA någon dag sedan, och där hade man samlat texter om den sjätte shiaimamen. Fina texter som belyser hur stor och kunnig han var. Man menade att denna Imam, denna Jafar al Sadiq, tog avstånd från shiamuslimerna och shiaislam. Så man nöjde sig inte med att hylla honom och låta det vara frid och fröjd, nej, man valde att sparka på shiamuslimerna, igen. Ett av haditherna som man tog upp, sade att Jafar en dag blev tillfrågad om Abu Bakr, och han sa ”Jag föddes två gånger av Abu Bakr”, eftersom Imamens mor, varit en ättling till två av Abu Bakrs barn, då Imam Jafar levde i mitten på 700-talet, så hade det alltså gått runt 100 år efter Abu Bakr.

    Mohammad Bin Faysal From Salem Ibn Abi Hafsah He said:

    i Asked Abu Ja’afar and his son Ja’afar about Abu Bakr and Umar And they said:O’ Salem Be their Tawalahuma(Be their friend, follower, Lover) and disassociate yourself from thier enemies For they were Imams of guidance Then Ja’afar said: O’Salem would a Man Insult his Grandfather? Abu Bakr is my grandfather and May the Intercession of Mohammad Not reach me on the day of judgement if I were to hate them and not disassociate myself from their enemies” (Al Sayr 6/258 & Tahtheeb el Kamal 5/80)

    Så enligt denna återberättade hadith om Jafar, som sunniter gång på gång menade var en av de ärligaste och mest kunniga personerna (flera av sunniislams största var hans lärlingar) av sin tid, visar att Jafar var positivt inställd till Abu Bakr.

    Låt oss titta på det här lite:

    ”O Salem, var deras vän, följare och älskare och ta avstånd from deras fiender”.

    Vilka var dessa fiender till Abu Bakr och Umar? Det var Jafars förfäder. Fatima och Ali, Profetens dotter och hennes älskade man Ali. Fatima slutade tala med Abu Bakr fram till sin död. Enligt historikern Tabari i sin bok Tarikh Tabari, så försökte Umar och hans vänner bränna ner huset över Fatima, för att tvinga Ali att ge dem sitt trohetslöfte.

    Hon tog så illa vid sig av den behandling hon fick genomgå, att hon beklagade sig i det öppna och sa åt Abu Bakr att hon kommer möta sin far snart och då kommer hon berätta för honom om de illdåd som begicks mot henne. När som Abu Bakr hälsade på henne, så gav hon honom den kalla skuldran och hon skrev i sitt testamente att ingen av dem, inte Abu Bakr, inte Umar och inte den tredje kalifen Uthman, skulle få närvara, hon skulle begravas under nattens mörker och hennes grav är än idag okänd. Är detta ett beteende hos någon som älskar dem, är deras vän och anhängare”? Så Jafar al Sadiq bad sina anhängare att hata Profetens älskade familj för de tog avstånd från Abu Bakr?

    Enligt Aisha, så var Fatimah ovän med Abu Bakr, fram till sin död. Hon blev aldrig vän med honom igen, hon vägrade hälsa på honom, hon vägrade tala med honom. Hon krävde att bli begraven på natten för att Abu Bakr, Umar och Uthman inte skulle närvara. Än idag vet vi inte vart hon är begraven.

    När personen som var lugn och skrev om Jafar, började få mothugg, blev han aggressiv och började tala om shiiter som ”vilsna”. Kanske så, men låt oss titta på Imam Alis egna ord. För er som inte förstår, Imam Ali var den viktigaste personen efter Profeten Muhammed. I hadith efter hadith så utnämndes han till efterträdare. Profeten sa att den som är fiende till Ali, är fiende till Profeten Muhammed. Denna Ali tog hand om Profetens döda kropp och tog hand om begravningsförberedelserna, när Abu Bakr och Umar red iväg till Saqifa och där satte man sig ner och bråkade med några hundratal andra maktgiriga män, om makten. Här dog Profeten Muhammed, älskad, vördad och hedrad, och istället för att gråta, istället för att be vid graven, istället för att sörja, så går man och tänker på hur man lättast kan få ta över makten.

    Man menar att Profeten inte hade valt någon efterträdare, ändå finns det så många sunni hadith, så många sunni lärda, som alla sade att Ali valdes till Wali, efterträdare och Kalif. Även Aisha, Profetens fru, skrev ett brev till den andre Kalifen Umar och skrev:.

    Do not leave the Islamic community without a chief. Nominate a Caliph for it and leave it not without an authority as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble.

    Hon uppmanade honom att inte låta Kalifatet vara utan ledare, utan efterträdare. Så om vi ska tro på en Profet, som är Allahs sändebud, hur kan vi ens tänka tanken att han inte valde någon efterträdare? Menar man verkligen att Profeten, som gav oss Koranen, där det står att man ska förbereda sina papper och sitt testamente, inte själv skulle lyssna på sitt eget råd? Skulle han låta folket göra vad de behagar?

    Imam Ali blev tillfrågad om vad han ansåg om frågan, texten är på engelska för den är alldeles för avancerad för att översätta snabbt, men man märker den smärta Imam Ali kände inför sveket, inför hur folk ”tog på sig maktens tröja”, inte att Allah eller Profeten eller folket gett dem denna tröja, utan de tog på sig den, de tog den av egen vilja.

    Al Shiqshaqiya

    I Nahj al Balagha, boken som innehåller Imam Alis tal, brev och uttalanden, så ser man att det tredje talet heter Al Shiqshaqiya, detta tal handlar om Imam Alis syn på Abu Bakr, Umar och Uthman, de tre ledare som vördas högt bland sunniter och som var de första tre Kaliferna. Dessa herrar tog makten, som inte var deras. Varför ska vi bry oss? För det var då islam splittrades, mellan dem som stödde och stödjer dessa tre och dem som stödde och stödjer Ali.

    Är makten verkligen så viktig? Absolut!

    Den som är Kalif, bestämmer över statens utformning, över lagar, regler. Hade Ali varit Kalif, såsom Profeten önskat, då hade vi inte haft de stora konflikter vi har idag, då hade vi inte sett Uthman slösa bort rikets pengar och använda sig av nepotism, och då hade han inte blivit mördad. Hade man lyssnat till Profetens utnämning, då hade inte Umar ändrat på bönen, på lagarna om Muta och på sin hårda syn på rätt och fel. Hade man hållit sig till sitt löfte att lyda Profetens val av Ali, då hade man inte sett Abu Bakr låta mörda Malik bin Nuwayr, för lite skattepengar eller sett Abu Bakr skapa en fejd med Fatima, Profetens dotter. Vi hade sett en annan historia…

    ———–

    Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)[2] dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

    Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

    (Then he quoted al-A`sha’s verse):

    My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.[3]

    It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

    Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group[4] and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this ”consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth[5] like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

    At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:

    That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones.

    (Qur’an, 28:83)

    Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

    Det sägs att när Imam Ali kom till denna del av predikan, så ställde sig en man från Irak upp och gav honom en skrift. Imam Ali började titta på det när Ibn Abbas, farbror till Profeten sade: ”Jag önskar att du återupptog din predikan där du avbröt den”. Då svarade Ali: ”Oh ibn Abbas det var som fradga från en kamel, som sprutade ut men nu bedarrat.” Ibn Abbas lär ha sagt att han aldrig känt så mycket sorg över ett uttalande som över detta, eftersom Imam Ali inte kunde fullfölja sitt uttalande som han önskade.

    Vi lever i mörka tider, då sidor efter sidor försöker svartmåla muslimerna. Vi lever i mörka tider, eftersom sidor efter sidor svartmålar shiiterna. Vi lever i mörka tider då man förvränger och förfalskar sanningen. Beläggen är många. Källorna är många. Muslimerna och sahabas var inte förenade. Det fanns en konflikt mellan tre grupper:

    1. Grupp var anhängare till Ali

    2. Grupp var anhängaer till Abu Bakr och Umar och Uthman.

    3. Gruppen som inte ville bli inblandad, enligt Imam Ali var även de fördömda.

    Imam Ali var ett offer i alla sammanhang. Först bestals han vid Profetens död. Sedan dog hans fru tidigt, på grund av de smärtor hon ådrog sig vid attacken mot sitt hus. Sedan kom Umar till makten och än en gång gick man förbi Ali. Sedan kom Uthman till makten. När Uthman mördades, så var Ali där för att försvara denna stackare, men det räckte inte. När Uthman mördades av Profetens sahaba, så gav man Ali skulden. Man menade han bar skulden för Uthmans död. Trevligt värre. Sedan startade en son till Hind och Abu Sufiyan, en viss Muawiya på den galanta idén att bekämpa Ali. När Ali några år senare mördades i Kufa, så lyckades denna Muawiya med att se till att man i runt 60-80 år, fördömde Ali vid bönen. Samme Ali, som Profeten sade om: ”Bara en hycklare hatar dig oh Ali och bara en troende älskar dig.” Andra gånger sa han, den som är fiende till Ali, är fiende till mig. Listan på de saker Profeten sagt om Ali är lång.

    Än idag har vi människor som försvarar Muawiya och därmed väljer sida mot Ali. Man kan inte älska Ali och Muawiya. Man kan inte vara på Abu Bakrs sida och på Alis i synen på vem som skulle bli Kalif.  Historien är rätt klar på alla punkter, det gäller dock för oss att sätta oss in i den och inte försöka ursäkta eller försvara det oförsvarbara. Profeten sa klart, den som sårar Fatima, sårar mig. Så hur kan man stödja Abu Bakr mot Fatima? En dotter som vägrade tala med den man som sårade henne till den dagen hon dog och begravdes i nattens mörker.


    Källor:

    (2) Amir al-mu’minin has referred to Abu Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common metaphor. Thus, when `Uthman was called to give up the Caliphate he replied, ”I shall not put off this shirt which Allah has put on me.” No doubt Amir al-mu’minin has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to Allah but to Abu Bakr himself because according to unanimous opinion his Caliphate was not from Allah but his own affair. That is why Amir al-mu’minin said that Abu Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate. He knew that this dress had been stitched for his own body and his position with relation to the Caliphate was that of the axis in the hand-mill which cannot retain its central position without it nor be of any use. Similarly, he held ”I was the central pivot of the Caliphate, were I not there, its entire system would have gone astray from the pivot. It was I who acted as a guard for its organisation and order and guided it through all difficulties. Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides. My position was high beyond imagination but lust of world seekers for government became a tumbling stone for me and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Blinding darkness prevailed all round and there was intense gloom everywhere. The young grew old and the old departed for the graves but this patience-breaking period would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own inheritance and saw the passing of Caliphate from one hand to the other but remained patient as I could not stop their high-handedness for lack of means.”

    (3) Hayyan ibn as-Samin al-Hanafi of Yamamah was the chief of the tribe Banu Hanifah and the master of fort and army. Jabir is the name of his younger brother while al-A`sha whose real name was Maymun ibn Qays ibn Jandal enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a decent happy life through his bounty. In this verse he has compared his current life with the previous one that is the days when he roamed about in search of livelihood and those when he led a happy life in Hayyan’s company. Generally Amir al-mu’minin’s quoting of this verse has been taken to compare this troubled period with the peaceful days passed under the care and protection of the Prophet when he was free from all sorts of troubles and enjoyed mental peace. But taking into account the occasion for making this comparison and the subject matter of the verse it would not be far fetched if it is taken to indicate the difference between the unimportant position of those in power during the Prophet’s life time and the authority and power enjoyed by them after him, that is, at one time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of `Ali’s personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.

    (4) When `Umar was wounded by Abu Lu’lu’ah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative committee and nominated for it `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Uthman ibn `Affan, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, az-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, and Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah and bound them that after three days of his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph while for those three days Suhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions some members of the committee requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd ar-Rahman was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but if displeased an unbeliever; Talhah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger while `Uthman did not see beyond his kinsmen. As regards `Ali he is enamoured of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on right lines. Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative Committee and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for `Uthman’s success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of them namely `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthman’s sister, next Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas besides bearing malice towards `Ali is a relation and kinsman of `Abd ar-Rahman. Neither of them can be taken to go against `Uthman. The third Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah about whom Prof. Muhammad `Abduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-balaghah:

    Talhah was inclined towards `Uthman and the reason for it was no less than that he was against `Ali, because he himself was at-Taymi and Abu Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Bani Taym and Banu Hashim.

    As regards az-Zubayr, even if he had voted for `Ali, what could his single vote achieve. According to at-Tabari’s statement Talhah was not present in Medina at that time but his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthman’s success. Rather even if he were present, as he did actually reach at the meeting (of the Committee), and he is taken to be `Ali’s supporter, still there could be no doubt in `Uthman’s success because `Umar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:

    If two agree about one and the other two about another then `Abdullah ibn `Umar should act as the arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept `Abdullah ibn `Umar’s verdict, support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2779-2780; Ibn al-Athir, vol.3, p.67).

    Here disagreement with the verdict of `Abdullah ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to support the group which included `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. He had ordered his son `Abdullah and Suhayb that:

    If the people differ, you should side with the majority, but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, you should side with the group including `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2725,2780; Ibn al-Athir, vol.3, pp.51,67).

    In this instruction the agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd ar-Rahman because the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on `Abd ar-Rahman’s behest. Amir al-mu’minin’s eye had fore-read it at that very moment that the Caliphate was going to `Uthman as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib:

    ”The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” al-`Abbas asked how could he know it. Then he replied, ”`Uthman has also been coupled with me and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd ar-Rahman who is of course the husband of `Uthman’s sister.” (ibid )

    However, after `Umar’s death this meeting took place in the room of `A’ishah and on its door stood Abu Talhah al-Ansari with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Talhah started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he gave his right of vote to `Uthman. This touched az-Zubayr’s sense of honour as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister of Prophet’s father. So he gave his right of vote to `Ali. Thereafter Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas made his right of vote to `Abd ar-Rahman. This left three members of the consultative committee out of whom `Abd ar-Rahman said that he was willing to give up his own right of vote if `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and `Uthman gave him the right to choose one of them or one of these two should acquire this right by withdrawing. This was a trap in which `Ali had been entangled from all sides namely that either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd ar-Rahman to do as he wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up his own right and elect `Uthman or `Abd ar-Rahman. So, he clung to his right, while `Abd ar-Rahman separating himself from it assumed this power and said to Amir al-mu’minin, ”I pay you allegiance on your following the Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, (Abu Bakr and `Umar). `Ali replied, ”Rather on following the Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and my own findings.” When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice he turned to `Uthman saying, ”Do you accept these conditions.” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was paid to him. When Amir al mu’minin saw his rights being thus trampled he said:

    ”This is not the first day when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Allah is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allah, you have not made `Uthman Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you.”

    After recording the events of ash-Shura (consultative committee), Ibn Abi’l-Hadid has written that when allegiance had been paid to `Uthman, `Ali addressed `Uthman and `Abd ar-Rahman saying, ”May Allah sow the seed of dissension among you,” and so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd ar-Rahman did not ever after speak to `Uthman till death. Even on death bed he turned his face on seeing him.

    On seeing these events the question arises whether ash-Shura (consultative committee) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only. Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for Caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd ar-Rahman between `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and the Caliphate, although the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for this condition here?

    However, Amir al-mu’minin had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favour and that he himself evaded the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.

    (5) About the reign of the third Caliph, Amir al-mu’minin says that soon on `Uthman’s coming to power Banu Umayyah got ground and began plundering the Bayt al-mal (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after drought trample it away, they recklessly fell upon Allah’s money and devoured it. At last this self-indulgence and nepotism brought him to the stage when people besieged his house, put him to sword and made him vomit all that he had swallowed.

    The maladministration that took place in this period was such that no Muslim can remain unmoved to see that Companions of high position were lying uncared for, they were stricken with poverty and surrounded by pennilessness while control over Bayt al-mal (public fund) was that of Banu Umayyah, government positions were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons, special Muslim properties were owned by them, meadows provided grazing but to their cattle, houses were built but by them, and orchards were but for them. If any compassionate person spoke about these excesses his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated this capitalism he was externed from the city. The uses to which zakat and charities which were meant for the poor and the wretched and the public fund which was the common property of the Muslims were put may be observed from the following few illustrations;

88 Responsesso far.

  1. Musa skriver:

    ”””The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.

    The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.””””

    Aba Othman, jag måste säga att din syn på Profeten Muhammed(saw) är nedvärderande. Så profeten(saw) ropade massa folk för att skälla ut Imam Ali(as) framför dom ? Det är skrattretande att du ens kan tro på en sån hadith, t.o.m jag vet att man inte ska bete sig på det sättet när man tillrättavisar någon. Sådana är många av era ahadith tyvärr som ni anser sahih, nedvärderande av Ahlulbayt(as).

    Kan du ge exakta källan till det positiva talet i Nahjul Balagha om Abubakr och Umar är du snäll?

    Saker och ting har inte varit helt perfekta och ifall du läser din egen historia som du anser vara sahih, men ändå så motstridig så inser du att något var fel. T.ex sahabin Ibn Nuwairah, som dödades under Abubakrs styre för att han vägrade betala zakat till Abubakr, och ansåg att Ali(as) skulle vara kalif.
    Ifall Fatima(as) krävde sitt arv så innebär det att hon har rätt att ärva och att Profeten(saw) lovat henne detta, sayyidat nisa2 al 3alameen vet nog bättre om kvinnors arvrätt än dig och mig, abubakr , umar osv. Händelsen har inträffat men däremot dina ahadith om att kvinnor inte får ärva är svaga och har ingen grund.
    Varför vägrade Bilal Al-Habashi göra athaan för den första kalifen, varför blev Abatharr al Ghiffari deporterad av Uthman som satte hela banu umayya i styret osv osv.
    Pga av det som hände i Saqeefa kunde folk som Yazid till slut hamna i styret, och Imam hussein(as) dödas. Men alhamdullilah Ahlulbayts(as) uppoffringar och tålamod räddade den sanna läran av Muhammad(saww).

  2. Musa skriver:

    Studera Shia Islam och de erkända böckerna hos oss och sedan skaffa dig en åsikt. Att bara kopiera och klistra in från massa sidor ger huvudverk bara.

    Kolla på dessa videon på 4 delar där den lärda visar upp boken och sidan från era största böcker,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WwVVK7VtTg

    Ge oss gärna ngt sådant, någon som visar upp citat från erkända shiamuslimska böcker och inte bara sprider gamla fördomar.

  3. Bahlool skriver:

    Om du glömt brottslingen Khaled bin Waleed så kommer här en påminnelse
    http://www.bahlool.se/2009/03/25/shia-sunnikonflikten-malik-ibn-nuwaira/

  4. Bahlool skriver:

    Musa så jävla bra film, den besvarar alla dessa nasibis anklagelser och tillintetgör deras dumma argument..som vanligt hittar du bra saker på nätet 😉

  5. Musa skriver:

    A den e bra, han sheikhen är mkt påläst..Se hans andra videon oxå han uppvisar alltid böckerna.

  6. Imam Mahdi skriver:

    Saba igen, nu gick du upp i taket och slog dig, andas lugnt och sansat så kanske hjärnfunktionerna fungerar igen.

  7. Ahlulbayts-efterföljare skriver:

    Bahlool, du behöver kontrollera din attityd. När man diskuterar teologi och religion bör man ha följande egenskaper:

    1) vishet
    2) tålamod
    3) respekt
    och många fler.

    du uppvisar ingen av dessa, utan du är enbart ignorant och vilseledd. Du använder smileys i dina texter som en 4a åring. Såna som du måste motbevisas så här. Du är ett skämt.

    du är väldigt duktig på att sprida lögner, jag säger bara en sak:

    la’anatullahi ala kadhiben! – allahs förbannelse över lögnarna.

  8. Bahlool skriver:

    Din wahabi, du talar om vishet, när du är född okunnig? Du talar om tålamod, när du i några få meningar visar motsatsen? Du talar om respekt, när du ränner runt och talar om folk att de är lögnare? Ja, må Allah förbanna de som sårade, bekämpade och hatade Ahlul Bayt, må Allah förbanna alla som ljög och som ljuger. Jag sprider inga lögner, sånt överlåter jag åt dina mästare 😉
    Vad har hänt, har wahabiterna haft ett möte om min blogg? Dina egna böcker talar emot dig och de dina och du framhärdar i din okunnighet, ja sannerligen ett skämt.
    Du borde också gå och göra världen en tjänst och sätta på ett bombbälte..Må Allah sätta dig med dina herrar på domedagen.
    Jag undrar vad det är för uppfostran ni får? Logiken har ni inte, intelligensen fattas och moralen är för länge sedan borta..suck

  9. Bahlool skriver:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsieVC8NhU4
    Här kommer en länk med sunnitiska källor, jag tror det besvarar dina dumheter om att ingen angrep Fatimas Hus. Så många källor, så mkt fakta men ändå är du så okunnig och så dum och fylld av hat, att du inte vill ta till dig.

    Det är mycket som nämns i sunnistska böcker med det behöver inte betyda att det är sant, det finns något som kallas sahih, hasn, da3if, batl, majhol mm och om du går in oc läser dome gällande den hadithen som du skickade så ser du klart och tydligt att det är en falsk hadith, upprepar ännu en gång att författaren till boken säger introduktionen att han för vidare alla majliga berättelser och när det kommer till denna berättelsen så är den fabrikerad…(Tareekh Al-Tabari, Introduction, p.13)

    När man läser klassiska sunnitiska lärdas analys, så menar de att många hadither är sanna, som okunniga män som Ibn Tammiyya och al Albani menar är falska. Vad som är falskt och vad som är sant är knappast upp till dig eller dina wahabitiska mästares analys. Denna händelse har återberättats i så många böcker, att du gärna får gorma och skrika, men hänt har hänt och inget kommer ändra på det.

    Du ifrågasätter al Shiqshaqiya talet, och vill veta hur sann den är, här kommer översättarens tolkning (lång text men du vill vara tråkig och klippa och klistra varför inte jag)
    This sermon is known as the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah, and is counted among the most famous sermons of Amir al-mu’minin. It was delivered at ar-Rahbah. Although some people have denied it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance and by attributing it to as-Sayyid ar-Radi (or ash-Sharif ar-Radi) have laid blame on his acknowledged integrity, yet truth-loving scholars have denied its veracity. Nor can there be any ground for this denial because `Ali’s (p.b.u.h.) difference of view in the matter of Caliphate is not a secret matter, so that such hints should be regarded as something alien. And the events which have been alluded to in this sermon are preserved in the annals of history which testifies them word by word and sentence by sentence. If the same events which are related by history are recounted by Amir al-mu’minin then what is the ground for denying them? If the memory of discouraging circumstances faced by him soon after the death of the Prophet appeared unpalatable to him it should not be surprising. No doubt this sermon hits at the prestige of certain personalities and gives a set back to the faith and belief in them but this cannot be sustained by denying the sermon to be Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance, unless the true events are analysed and truth unveiled; otherwise just denying it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance because it contains disparagement of certain individuals carries no weight, when similar criticism has been related by other historians as well. Thus (Abu `Uthman) `Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz has recorded the following words of a sermon of Amir al-mu’minin and they are not less weighty than the criticism in the ”Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah.”

    Those two passed away and the third one rose like the crow whose courage is confined to the belly. It would have been better if both his wings had been cut and his head severed.

    Consequently, the idea that it is the production of as-Sayyid ar-Radi is far from truth and a result of partisanship and partiality. Or else if it is the result of some research it should be brought out. Otherwise, remaining in such wishful illusion does not alter the truth, nor can the force of decisive arguments be curbed down by mere disagreement and displeasure.

    Now we set forth the evidence of those scholars and traditionists who have clearly held it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s production, so that its historical importance should become known. Among these scholars some are those before as-Sayyid ar-Radi’s period, some are his contemporaries and some are those who came after him but they all related it through their own chain of authority.

    1) Ibn Abi’l-Hadid al-Mu`tazili writes that his master Abu’l-Khayr Musaddiq ibn Shabib al-Wasiti (d. 605 A.H.) stated that he heard this sermon from ash-Shaykh Abu Muhammad `Abdullah ibn Ahmad al-Baghdadi (d. 567 A.H.) known as Ibn al-Khashshab and when he reached where Ibn `Abbas expressed sorrow for this sermon having remained incomplete Ibn al-Khashshab said to him that if he had heard the expression of sorrow from Ibn `Abbas he would have certainly asked him if there had remained with his cousin any further unsatisfied desire because excepting the Prophet he had already spared neither the predecessors nor followers and had uttered all that he wished to utter. Why should therefore be any sorrow that he could not say what he wished? Musaddiq says that Ibn al-Khashshab was a man of jolly heart and decent taste. I inquired from him whether he also regarded the sermon to be a fabrication when he replied ”By Allah, I believe it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s word as I believe you to be Musaddiq ibn Shabib.” I said that some people regard it to be as-Sayyid ar-Radi’s production when he replied: ”How can ar-Radi have such guts or such style of writing. I have seen as-Sayyid ar-Radi’s writings and know his style of composition. Nowhere does his writing match with this one and I have already seen it in books written two hundred years before the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Radi, and I have seen it in familiar writings about which I know by which scholars or men of letters they were compiled. At that time not only ar-Radi but even his father Abu Ahmad an-Naqib has not been born.”

    2) Thereafter Ibn Abi’l-Hadid writes that he saw this sermon in the

    compilations of his master Abu’l-Qasim (`Abdullah ibn Ahmad) al-Balkhi (d. 317 A.H.). He was the Imam of the Mu’tazilites in the reign of al-Muqtadir Billah while al-Muqtadir’s period was far earlier than the birth of as-Sayyid ar-Radi.

    3) He further writes that he saw this sermon in Abu Ja`far (Muhammad ibn `Abd ar-Rahman), Ibn Qibah’s book al-Insaf. He was the pupil of Abu’l-Qasim al-Balkhi and a theologian of Imamiyyah (Shi`ite) sect. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol.1, pp.205-206)

    4) Ibn Maytham al-Bahrani (d. 679 A.H.) writes in his commentary that he had seen one such copy of this sermon which bore writing of al-Muqtadir Billah’s minister Abu’l-Hasan `Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Furat (d. 312 A.H.). (Sharh al-balaghah, vol.1., pp. 252-253)

    5) al-`Allamah Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi has related the following chain of authority about this Sermon from ash-Shaykh Qutbu’d-Din ar-Rawandi’s compilation Minhaj al-bara`ah fi Sharh Nahj al-balaghah:

    ash-Shaykh Abu Nasr al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim informed me from al-Hajib Abu’l-Wafa’ Muhammad ibn Badi`, al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn Badi` and al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd ar-Rahman and they from al-Hafiz Abu Bakr (Ahmad ibn Musa) ibn Marduwayh al-Isbahani (d. 416 A.H.) and he from al-Hafiz Abu’l-Qasim Sulayman ibn Ahmad at-Tabarani (d. 360 A.H.) and he from Ahmad ibn `Ali al-Abbar and he from Is’haq ibn Sa`id Abu Salamah ad-Dimashqi and he from Khulayd ibn Da`laj and he from `Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (Bihar al-anwar, 1st ed. vol.8, pp.160-161)

    6) In the context al-`Allamah al-Majlisi has written that this sermon is also contained in the compilations of Abu `Ali (Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab) al-Jubba ‘i (d. 303 A.H.) .

    7) In connection with this very authenticity al-`Allamah al-Majlisi writes:

    al-Qadi `Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad al-Asad’abadi (d. 415A.H.) who was a strict Mu`tazilite explains some expressions of this sermon in his book al-Mughni and tries to prove that it does not strike against any preceding caliph but does not deny it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s composition. (ibid., p.161)

    8) Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali, Ibn Babawayh (d. 381 A.H.) writes:

    Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Is’haq at-Talaqani told us that `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Yahya al-Jaludi (d. 332 A.H.) told him that Abu `Abdillah Ahmad ibn `Ammar ibn Khalid told him that Yahya ibn `Abd al-Hamid al- Himmani (d. 228 A.H.) told him that `Isa ibn Rashid related this sermon from `Ali ibn Hudhayfah and he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (`Ilal ash-shara’i`,vol.1, chap. 122, p.144; Ma`ani al-akhbar, chap.22, pp.360-361)

    9) Then Ibn Babawayh records the following chain of authorities :-

    Muhammad ibn `Ali Majilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle Muhammad ibn Abi’l-Qasim and he from Ahmad ibn Abi `Abdillah (Muhammad ibn Khalid) al-Barqi and he from his father and he from (Muhammad) Ibn Abi `Umayr and he from Aban ibn `Uthman and he from Aban ibn Taghlib and he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (`Ilal ash-shara’i`, vol.1, chap.122, p.l46; Ma`ani al-akhbar, chap.22, p.361)

    10) Abu Ahmad al-Hasan ibn `Abdillah ibn Sa`id al-`Askari (d.382 A.H.) who counts among great scholars of the Sunnis has written commentary and explanation of this sermon that has been recorded by Ibn Babawayh in `Ilal ash-shara’i` and Ma`ani al-akhbar.

    11) as-Sayyid Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri writes:

    The author of Kitab al-gharat Abu Is’haq, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ath-Thaqafi al-Kufi (d. 283 A.H.) has related this sermon through his own chain of authorities. The date of completion of writing this book is Tuesday the 13th Shawwal 255 A.H. and in the same year, Murtada al-Musawi was born. He was older in age than his brother as-Sayyid ar-Radi. (Anwar an-Nu`maniyyah, p.37)

    12) as-Sayyid Radi ad-Din Abu’l-Qasim `Ali ibn Musa, Ibn Tawus al-Husayni al-Hulli (d. 664 A.H.) has related this sermon from Kitab al-gharat with the following chain of authorities:-

    This sermon was related to us by Muhammad ibn Yusuf who related it from al-Hasan ibn `Ali ibn `Abd al-Karim az-Za`farani and he from Muhammad ibn Zakariyyah al-Ghallabi and he from Ya`qub ibn Ja`far ibn Sulayman and he from his father and he from his grand-father and he from Ibn `Abbas. (Translation of at-Tara’if, p.202)

    13) Shaykh at-Ta’ifah, Muhammad ibn al- Hasan at-Tusi (d. 460 A.H.) writes:

    (Abu’l-Fath Hilal ibn Muhammad ibn Ja`far) al-Haffar related this sermon to us. He related it from Abu’l-Qasim (Isma`il ibn `Ali ibn `Ali) ad-Di`bili and he from his father and he from his brother Di`bil (ibn `Ali al-Kuza`i) and he from Muhammad ibn Salamah ash-Shami and he from Zurarah ibn A`yan and he from Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali and he from Ibn `Abbas. (al-Amali, p.237)

    14) ash-Shaykh al-Mufid (Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn an-Nu`man, d. 413 A.H.) who was the teacher of as-Sayyid ar-Radi writes about the chain of authorities of this sermon:

    A number of relaters of traditions have related this sermon from Ibn `Abbas through numerous chains. (al-Irshad, p.135)

    15) `Alam al-Huda (emblem of guidance) as-Sayyid al-Murtada who was the elder brother of as-Sayyid ar-Radi has recorded it on pp. 203,204 of his book ash-Shafi.

    16) Abu Mansur at-Tabarsi writes:

    A number of relaters have given an account of this sermon from Ibn `Abbas through various chains. Ibn `Abbas said that he was in the audience of Amir al-mu’minin at ar-Rahbah (a place in Kufah) when conversation turned to Caliphate and those who had preceded him as Caliphs, when Amir al-mu’minin breathed a sigh and delivered this sermon. (al-Ihtijaj, p. 101)

    17) Abu’l-Muzaffar Yusuf ibn `Abdillah and Sibt ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi (d. 654 A.H.) writes:

    Our ash-Shaykh Abu’l-Qasim an-Nafis al-Anbari related this sermon to us through his chain of authorities that ends with Ibn `Abbas, who said that after allegiance had been paid to Amir al-mu’minin as Caliph he was sitting on the pulpit when a man from the audience enquired why he had remained quiet till then whereupon Amir al-mu’minin delivered this sermon extempore. (Tadhkarat khawass al-ummah, p.73)

    18) al-Qadi Ahmad ibn Muhammad, ash-Shihab al-Khafaji (d. 1069 A.H.) writes with regard to its authenticity:

    It is stated in the utterances of Amir al-mu’minin `Ali (Allah may be pleased with him) that ”It is strange during life time he (Abu Bakr) wanted to give up the Caliphate but he strengthened its foundation for the other one after his death.” (Sharh durrat al-ghawwas, p.17)

    19) ash-Shaykh `Ala ad-Dawlah as-Simnani writes:

    Amir al-mu’minin Sayyid al-`Arifin `Ali (p.b.u.h.) has stated in one of his brilliant Sermons ”this is the Shiqshiqah that burst forth.” (al-`Urwah li ahl al-khalwah wa’l-jalwah, p3, manuscript in Nasiriah Library, Lucknow, India)

    20) Abu’l-Fadl Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Maydani (d. 518 A.H.) has written in connection with the word Shiqshiqah:

    One sermon of Amir al-mu’minin `Ali is known as Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah (the sermon of the Camel’s Foam). (Majma` al-amthal, vol.1, p.369)

    21) In fifteen places in an-Nihayah while explaining the words of this sermon Abu’s-Sa`adat Mubarak ibn Muhammad, Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (d. 606 A.H.) has acknowledged it to be Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance.

    22) Shaykh Muhammad Tahir Patni while explaining the same words in Majma` bihar al-anwar testifies this sermon to be Amir al-mu’minin’s by saying, ”`Ali says so.”

    23) Abu’l-Fadl ibn Manzur (d. 711 A.H.) has acknowledged it as Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance in Lisan al-`Arab, vol.12, p.54 by saying, ”In the sayings of `Ali in his sermon ‘It is the camel’s foam that burst forth then subsided.'”

    24) Majdu’d-Din al-Firuz’abadi (d. 816/817 A.H.) has recorded under the word ”Shiqshiqah” in his lexicon (al-Qamus, vol.3, p.251):

    Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah is by `Ali so named because when Ibn `Abbas asked him to resume it where he had left it, he said ”O’ Ibn `Abbas! it was the foam of a camel that burst forth then subsided.”

    25) The compiler of Muntaha al-adab writes:

    Khutbah ash-Shiqshiqiyyah of `Ali is attributed to `Ali (Allah may honour his face).

    26) ash-Shaykh Muhammad `Abduh, Mufti of Egypt, recognising it as Amir al-mu’minin’s utterance, has written its explanations.

    27) Muhammad Muhyi’d-Din `Abd al-Hamid, Professor in the Faculty of Arabic Language, al-Azhar University has written annotations on Nahj al-balaghah adding a foreword in the beginning wherein he recognises all such sermons which contain disparaging remarks to be the utterances of Amir al-mu’minin.

    In the face of these evidences and undeniable proofs is there any scope to hold that it is not Amir al-mu’minin’s production and that as-Sayyid ar-Radi prepared it himself?

    [2].Amir al-mu’minin has referred to Abu Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate metaphorically as having dressed himself with it. This was a common metaphor. Thus, when `Uthman was called to give up the Caliphate he replied, ”I shall not put off this shirt which Allah has put on me.” No doubt Amir al-mu’minin has not attributed this dressing of Caliphate to Allah but to Abu Bakr himself because according to unanimous opinion his Caliphate was not from Allah but his own affair. That is why Amir al-mu’minin said that Abu Bakr dressed himself with the Caliphate. He knew that this dress had been stitched for his own body and his position with relation to the Caliphate was that of the axis in the hand-mill which cannot retain its central position without it nor be of any use. Similarly, he held ”I was the central pivot of the Caliphate, were I not there, its entire system would have gone astray from the pivot. It was I who acted as a guard for its organisation and order and guided it through all difficulties. Currents of learning flowed from my bosom and watered it on all sides. My position was high beyond imagination but lust of world seekers for government became a tumbling stone for me and I had to confine myself to seclusion. Blinding darkness prevailed all round and there was intense gloom everywhere. The young grew old and the old departed for the graves but this patience-breaking period would not end. I kept watching with my eyes the plundering of my own inheritance and saw the passing of Caliphate from one hand to the other but remained patient as I could not stop their high-handedness for lack of means.”

    Need For The Prophet’s Caliph And The Mode Of His Appointment

    After the Prophet of Islam the presence of such a personality was inevitable who could stop the community from disintegration and guard the religious law against change, alteration and interference by those who wanted to twist it to suit their own desires. If this very need is denied then there is no sense in attaching so much importance to the succession of the Prophet that the assemblage in Saqifah of Banu Sa`idah should have been considered more important than the burial of the Prophet. If the need is recognised, the question is whether or not the Prophet too realised it. If it is held he could not attend to it and appreciate its need or absence of need it would be the biggest proof for regarding the Prophet’s mind to be blank for thinking of means to stop the evils of innovations and apostasy in spite of having given warnings about them. If it is said that he did realise it but had to live it unresolved on account of some advantage then instead of keeping it hidden the advantage should be clearly indicated otherwise silence without purpose would constitute delinquency in the discharge of the obligations of Prophethood. If there was some impediment, it should be disclosed otherwise we should agree that just as the Prophet did not leave any item of religion incomplete he did not leave this matter either and did propose such a course of action for it, that if it was acted upon religion would have remained safe against the interference of others.

    The question now is what was that course of action. If it is taken to be the consensus of opinion of the community then it cannot truly take place as in such consensus acquiescence of every individual is necessary; but taking into account the difference in human temperaments it seems impossible that they would agree on any single point. Nor is there any example where on such matters there has been no single voice of dissent. How then can such a fundamental need be made dependent on the occurrence of such an impossible event – need on which converges the future of Islam and the good of the Muslims. Therefore, the mind is not prepared to accept this criterion. Nor is tradition in harmony with it, as al-Qadi `Adud ad-Dinal-‘Iji has written in Sharh al-mawaqif:

    You should know that Caliphate cannot depend upon unanimity of election because no logical or traditional argument can be advanced for it.

    In fact when the advocates of unanimous election found that unanimity of all votes is difficult they adopted the agreement of the majority as a substitute for unanimity, ignoring the difference of the minority. In such a case also it often happens that the force of fair and foul or correct and incorrect ways turns the flow of the majority opinion in the direction where there is neither individual distinction nor personal merit as a result of which competent persons remain hidden while incompetent individuals stand forward. When capabilities remain so curbed and personal ends stand in the way as hurdles, how can there be expectation for the election of correct person. Even if it is assumed that all voters have an independent unbiased view, that none of them has his own objective and that none has any other consideration, it is not necessary that every verdict of the majority should be correct, and that it cannot go astray. Experience shows that after experiment the majority has held its own verdict to be wrong. If every verdict of the majority is correct then its first verdict should be wrong because the verdict which holds it wrong is also that of the majority. In this circumstances if the election of the Caliph goes wrong who would be responsible for the mistake, and who should face the blame for the ruination of the Islamic polity. Similarly on whom would be the liability for the bloodshed and slaughter following the turmoil and activity of the elections. When it has been seen that even those who sat in the audience of the Holy Prophet could not be free of mutual quarrel and strife how can others avoid it.

    If with a view to avoid mischief it is left to the people of authority to choose anyone they like then here too the same friction and conflict would prevail because here again convergence of human temperaments on one point is not necessary nor can they be assumed to rise above personal ends. In fact here the chances of conflict and collision would be stronger because if not all at least most of them would themselves be candidates for that position and would not spare any effort to defeat their opponent, creating impediments in his way as best as possible. Its inevitable consequence would be mutual struggle and mischief-mongering. Thus, it would not be possible to ward off the mischief for which this device was adopted, and instead of finding a proper individual the community would just become an instrument for the achievement of personal benefits of the others. Again, what would be the criterion for these people in authority? The same as has usually been, namely whoever collects a few supporters and is able to create commotion in any meeting by use of forceful words would count among the people of authority. Or would capabilities also be judged? If the mode of judging the capabilities is again this very common vote then the same complications and conflicts would arise here too, to avoid which this way was adopted. If there is some other standard, then instead of judging the capabilities of the voters by it why not judge the person who is considered suitable for the position in view. Further, how many persons in authority would be enough to give a verdict? Apparently a verdict once accepted would be precedent for good and the number that would give this verdict would become the criterion for future. al-Qadi `Adud ad-Din al-‘Iji writes:

    Rather the nomination of one or two individuals by the people in authority is enough because we know that the companions who were strict in religion deemed it enough as the nomination of Abu Bakr by `Umar and of `Uthman by `Abd ar-Rahman. (Sharh al-mawaqif, p.351 )

    This is the account of the ”unanimous election” in the Hall of Bani Sa`idah and the activity of the consultative assembly: that is, one man’s action has been given the name of unanimous election and one individual’s deed given the name of consultative assembly. Abu Bakr had well understood this reality that election means the vote of a person or two only which is to be attributed to common simple people. That is why he ignored the requirements of unanimous election, majority vote or method of choosing through electoral assembly and appointed `Umar by nomination. `A’ishah also considered that leaving the question of caliphate to the vote of a few particular individuals meant inviting mischief and trouble. She sent a word to `Umar on his death saying:

    Do not leave the Islamic community without a chief. Nominate a Caliph for it and leave it not without an authority as otherwise I apprehend mischief and trouble.

    When the election by those in authority proved futile it was given up and only ”might is right” became the criteria-namely whoever subdues others and binds them under his sway and control is accepted as the Caliph of the Prophet and his true successor. These are those self-adopted principles in the face of which all the Prophet’s sayings uttered in the ”Feast of the Relatives,” on the night of hijrah, at the battle of Tabuk, on the occasion of conveying the Qur’anic chapter ”al-Bara’ah” (at-Tawbah, chap.9) and at Ghadir (the spring of) Khumm. The strange thing is that when each of the first three caliphates is based on one individual’s choice how can this very right to choose be denied to the Prophet himself, particularly when this was the only way to end all the dissension, namely that the Prophet should have himself settled it and saved the community from future disturbances and spared it from leaving this decision in the hands of people who were themselves involved in personal aims and objects. This is the correct procedure which stands to reason and which has also the support of the Prophet’s definite sayings.

    [3].Hayyan ibn as-Samin al-Hanafi of Yamamah was the chief of the tribe Banu Hanifah and the master of fort and army. Jabir is the name of his younger brother while al-A`sha whose real name was Maymun ibn Qays ibn Jandal enjoyed the position of being his bosom friend and led a decent happy life through his bounty. In this verse he has compared his current life with the previous one that is the days when he roamed about in search of livelihood and those when he led a happy life in Hayyan’s company. Generally Amir al-mu’minin’s quoting of this verse has been taken to compare this troubled period with the peaceful days passed under the care and protection of the Prophet when he was free from all sorts of troubles and enjoyed mental peace. But taking into account the occasion for making this comparison and the subject matter of the verse it would not be far fetched if it is taken to indicate the difference between the unimportant position of those in power during the Prophet’s life time and the authority and power enjoyed by them after him, that is, at one time in the days of the Prophet no heed was paid to them because of `Ali’s personality but now the time had so changed that the same people were masters of the affairs of the Muslim world.

    [4].When `Umar was wounded by Abu Lu’lu’ah and he saw that it was difficult for him to survive because of the deep wound, he formed a consultative committee and nominated for it `Ali ibn Abi Talib, `Uthman ibn `Affan, `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, az-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, and Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah and bound them that after three days of his death they should select one of themselves as the Caliph while for those three days Suhayb should act as Caliph. On receipt of these instructions some members of the committee requested him to indicate what ideas he had about each of them to enable them to proceed further in their light. `Umar therefore disclosed his own view about each individual. He said that Sa`d was harsh-tempered and hot headed; `Abd ar-Rahman was the Pharaoh of the community; az-Zubayr was, if pleased, a true believer but if displeased an unbeliever; Talhah was the embodiment of pride and haughtiness, if he was made caliph he would put the ring of the caliphate on his wife’s finger while `Uthman did not see beyond his kinsmen. As regards `Ali he is enamoured of the Caliphate although I know that he alone can run it on right lines. Nevertheless, despite this admission, he thought it necessary to constitute the consultative Committee and in selecting its members and laying down the working procedure he made sure that the Caliphate would take the direction in which he wished to turn it. Thus, a man of ordinary prudence can draw the conclusion that all the factors for `Uthman’s success were present therein. If we look at its members we see that one of them namely `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf is the husband of `Uthman’s sister, next Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas besides bearing malice towards `Ali is a relation and kinsman of `Abd ar-Rahman. Neither of them can be taken to go against `Uthman. The third Talhah ibn `Ubaydillah about whom Prof. Muhammad `Abduh writes in his annotation on Nahj al-balaghah:

    Talhah was inclined towards `Uthman and the reason for it was no less than that he was against `Ali, because he himself was at-Taymi and Abu Bakr’s accession to the Caliphate had created bad blood between Bani Taym and Banu Hashim.

    As regards az-Zubayr, even if he had voted for `Ali, what could his single vote achieve. According to at-Tabari’s statement Talhah was not present in Medina at that time but his absence did not stand in the way of `Uthman’s success. Rather even if he were present, as he did actually reach at the meeting (of the Committee), and he is taken to be `Ali’s supporter, still there could be no doubt in `Uthman’s success because `Umar’s sagacious mind had set the working procedure that:

    If two agree about one and the other two about another then `Abdullah ibn `Umar should act as the arbitrator. The group whom he orders should choose the Caliph from among themselves. If they do not accept `Abdullah ibn `Umar’s verdict, support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf, but if the others do not agree they should be beheaded for opposing this verdict. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2779-2780; Ibn al-Athir, vol.3, p.67).

    Here disagreement with the verdict of `Abdullah ibn `Umar has no meaning since he was directed to support the group which included `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. He had ordered his son `Abdullah and Suhayb that:

    If the people differ, you should side with the majority, but if three of them are on one side and the other three on the other, you should side with the group including `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. (at-Tabari, vol.1, pp.2725,2780; Ibn al-Athir, vol.3, pp.51,67).

    In this instruction the agreement with the majority also means support of `Abd ar-Rahman because the majority could not be on any other side since fifty blood-thirsty swords had been put on the heads of the opposition group with orders to fall on their heads on `Abd ar-Rahman’s behest. Amir al-mu’minin’s eye had fore-read it at that very moment that the Caliphate was going to `Uthman as appears from his following words which he spoke to al-`Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib:

    ”The Caliphate has been turned away from us.” al-`Abbas asked how could he know it. Then he replied, ”`Uthman has also been coupled with me and it has been laid down that the majority should be supported; but if two agree on one and two on the other, then support should be given to the group which includes `Abd ar-Rahman ibn `Awf. Now Sa`d will support his cousin `Abd ar-Rahman who is of course the husband of `Uthman’s sister.” (ibid )

    However, after `Umar’s death this meeting took place in the room of `A’ishah and on its door stood Abu Talhah al-Ansari with fifty men having drawn swords in their hands. Talhah started the proceedings and inviting all others to be witness said that he gave his right of vote to `Uthman. This touched az-Zubayr’s sense of honour as his mother Safiyyah daughter of `Abd al-Muttalib was the sister of Prophet’s father. So he gave his right of vote to `Ali. Thereafter Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas made his right of vote to `Abd ar-Rahman. This left three members of the consultative committee out of whom `Abd ar-Rahman said that he was willing to give up his own right of vote if `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and `Uthman gave him the right to choose one of them or one of these two should acquire this right by withdrawing. This was a trap in which `Ali had been entangled from all sides namely that either he should abandon his own right or else allow `Abd ar-Rahman to do as he wished. The first case was not possible for him; that is, to give up his own right and elect `Uthman or `Abd ar-Rahman. So, he clung to his right, while `Abd ar-Rahman separating himself from it assumed this power and said to Amir al-mu’minin, ”I pay you allegiance on your following the Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of the two Shaykhs, (Abu Bakr and `Umar). `Ali replied, ”Rather on following the Book of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and my own findings.” When he got the same reply even after repeating the question thrice he turned to `Uthman saying, ”Do you accept these conditions.” He had no reason to refuse and so he agreed to the conditions and allegiance was paid to him. When Amir al mu’minin saw his rights being thus trampled he said:

    ”This is not the first day when you behaved against us. I have only to keep good patience. Allah is the Helper against whatever you say. By Allah, you have not made `Uthman Caliph but in the hope that he would give back the Caliphate to you.”

    After recording the events of ash-Shura (consultative committee), Ibn Abi’l-Hadid has written that when allegiance had been paid to `Uthman, `Ali addressed `Uthman and `Abd ar-Rahman saying, ”May Allah sow the seed of dissension among you,” and so it happened that each turned a bitter enemy of the other and `Abd ar-Rahman did not ever after speak to `Uthman till death. Even on death bed he turned his face on seeing him.

    On seeing these events the question arises whether ash-Shura (consultative committee) means confining the matter to six persons, thereafter to three and finally to one only. Also whether the condition of following the conduct of the two Shaykhs for Caliphate was put by `Umar or it was just a hurdle put by `Abd ar-Rahman between `Ali (p.b.u.h.) and the Caliphate, although the first Caliph did not put forth this condition at the time of nominating the second Caliph, namely that he should follow the former’s footsteps. What then was the occasion for this condition here?

    However, Amir al-mu’minin had agreed to participate in it in order to avoid mischief and to put an end to arguing so that others should be silenced and should not be able to claim that they would have voted in his favour and that he himself evaded the consultative committee and did not give them an opportunity of selecting him.

    [5] About the reign of the third Caliph, Amir al-mu’minin says that soon on `Uthman’s coming to power Banu Umayyah got ground and began plundering the Bayt al-mal (public fund), and just as cattle on seeing green grass after drought trample it away, they recklessly fell upon Allah’s money and devoured it. At last this self-indulgence and nepotism brought him to the stage when people besieged his house, put him to sword and made him vomit all that he had swallowed.

    The maladministration that took place in this period was such that no Muslim can remain unmoved to see that Companions of high position were lying uncared for, they were stricken with poverty and surrounded by pennilessness while control over Bayt al-mal (public fund) was that of Banu Umayyah, government positions were occupied by their young and inexperienced persons, special Muslim properties were owned by them, meadows provided grazing but to their cattle, houses were built but by them, and orchards were but for them. If any compassionate person spoke about these excesses his ribs were broken, and if someone agitated this capitalism he was externed from the city. The uses to which zakat and charities which were meant for the poor and the wretched and the public fund which was the common property of the Muslims were put may be observed from the following few illustrations;

    1) al-Hakam ibn Abi’l-`As who had been exiled from Medina by the Prophet was allowed back in the city not only against the Prophet’s sunnah but also against the conduct of the first two Caliphs and he was paid three hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (Ansab al-ashraf, vol.5, pp.27, 28, 125)

    2) al-Walid ibn `Uqbah who has been named hypocrite in the Qur’an was paid one hundred thousand Dirhams from the Muslim’s public fund. (al-`Iqd al-farid, vol.3, p.94)

    3) The Caliph married his own daughter Umm Aban to Marwan ibn al-Hakam and paid him one hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol.1, pp.198-199).

    4) He married his daughter `A’ishah to Harith ibn al-Hakam and granted him one hundred thousand Dirhams from the public fund. (ibid.)

    5) `Abdullah ibn Khalid was paid four hundred thousand Dirhams. (al-Ma`arif of Ibn Qutaybah, p.84)

    6) Allowed the khums (one fifth religious duty) from Africa (amounting to five hundred thousand Dinars) to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. (ibid)

    7) Fadak which was withheld from the angelic daughter of the Prophet on the ground of being general charity was given as a royal favour to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)

    8) Mahzur a place in the commercial area of Medina which had been declared a public trust by the Prophet was gifted to Harith ibn al-Hakam. (ibid.)

    9) In the meadows around Medina no camel except those of Banu Umayyah were allowed to graze. (Sharh of Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol.l, p.l99)

    10) After his death (`Uthman’s) one hundred and fifty thousand Dinars (gold coins) and one million Dirhams (silver coins) were found in his house. There was no limit to tax free lands; and the total value of the landed estate he owned in Wadi al-Qura and Hunayn was one hundred thousand Dinars. There were countless camels and horses. (Muruj adh-dhahab, vol.l, p.435)

    11) The Caliph’s relations ruled all the principal cities. Thus, at Kufah, al-Walid ibn `Uqbah was the governor but when in the state of intoxication of wine he led the morning prayer in four instead of two rak`ah and people agitated he was removed, but the Caliph put in his place a hypocrite like Sa`id ibn al-`As. In Egypt `Abdullah ibn Sa`d ibn Abi Sarh, in Syria Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and in Basrah, `Abdullah ibn `Amir were the governors appointed by him (ibid.)

  10. Bahlool skriver:

    Gällande arvet…så måste det ju vara konstigt att dessa hadither förs vidare av era lärda och räknas som sahih.

    Räknas som sahih? vart har du fått det ifrån att dessa hadither räknas som sahih? Källa tack och inte bara någon påhittad källa utan ge mig texten och källan tack. Koranen är rätt klar, profeter låter sina barn ärva dem, att plötsligt ränna runt och hävda att några obskyra hadither står över Koranen visar vilket förakt ni har för sannningen.

    Vad ska vi säga om dessa hadither? Är de falska? Det är ju trots allt Al Kafi…Dt är ju era pålitliga böcker som för vidare dessa hadither och de förs vidare från Ahlul Bayt och inte Abu Bakr, vem försöker du lura? ; )

    Det är inte al kafi som var grunden för Satansverserna, det är inte heller al Kafi som används av islamofoberna när de vill tala illa om islam..nej du, du borde inte tala om pålitliga böcker, du som gillar bukhari och muslim så mkt hehe..Vi anser inte att al Kafi är sahih, något ni hävdar om era böcker, böcker så fyllda av hat mot Ahlul Bayt, att det är makabert att vi ändå kan hitta lite sanning i dem.

    Du frågar när sa Aisha något om Uthman som var negativt, nej det är inte i någon dålig film, det är i en dålig historia, fylld av hat, svartmålning av Ahlul Bayt och beskydd av de sanna brottslingarna.

    ”Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”

    – History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
    – Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141
    – al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
    – Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

    Jag vet, det här är också ”svaga” hadither..lol?

    En annan sunnilärd (al Baladhuri)säger i sin bok, Ansaab al Ashraf, att när situationen blev hemsk, så befallde Uthman Marwan ibn al Hakam och Abdurrahman ibn Attab ibn Usayd att gå och försöka övertala Aisha att sluta föra en kampanj mot honom (Uthman). De gick till henne medan hon förberedde sig för att gå till vallfärden och de sa åt henne:

    ”We pray that you stay in Medina, and that Allah may save this man
    (Uthman) through you.” Aisha said: ”I have prepared my means of
    transportation and vowed to perform the pilgrimage. By God, I shall
    not honor your request… I wish he (Uthman) was in one of my sacks so
    that I could carry him. I would then through him into the sea.”

    Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, part 1, v4, p75

    Du får inte bara källan, min k’äre wahabi, du får även texten som klart och tydligt visar vad som hände och inte hände…

    Vi vet alla att Profeten aleyhi alslam sade: “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
    Men dina lärda säger på denna länk: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar43/a21.html…Att Ali gjorde Fatima arg då han skulle gifta sig med Bint Abu Jahl…
    ”It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.

    Lögnare och son till en lögnerska, länken funkade inte. Rätt märkligtg att enda gången du använder dig av en länk, så funkar inte den ens..mkt märkligt 😉

    Vi vet alla att Profeten aleyhi alslam sade: “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
    Men dina lärda säger på denna länk: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar43/a21.html…Att Ali gjorde Fatima arg då han skulle gifta sig med Bint Abu Jahl…
    ”It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.

    He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night time…she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.

    When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.

    The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his Majlis and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.

    The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.”

    (source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)
    Hadithen hittar vi också hos Al-Qummi, men även hos Al-Majlisi i Jala Al-Eoyo).
    Räknas Ali också under denna hadith: ”Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a piece of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her, disturbs me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah”???

    Bevisa till läsarna att något av dett du skrev är sant???

    Lögnare och son till lögnare, har ditt förakt för Ahlul Bayt svärtat ner det sista av förnuft och respekt? Du vågar tänka tanken att en dotter till den äcklige ibn Jahl, skulle ens komma i Imam Alis tankar? Du använder dig av samma logik som kuffar, som menar att Profeten styrdes av lägre tankar och drifter, skäms, även om det är svårt.
    Du avhöll dig även från att sätta in hela hadithen
    http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap11.php

    Den här delen glömde du..lol?

    Ali said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, yes’. The Prophet said: ‘Then why you did so?’ Ali said: ‘By the one who sent you as Prophet, what you heard about me is not true and I never thought about that.’ The Prophet said: ‘You have spoken the truth’. Then Fatima smiled until her smile was visible.

    Så nej, en av oss ljuger, men det är inte du käre wahabi. Ahlul Bayt är långt borta från ditt hjärta, så du låter dina hatkänslor för shiiterna styra dig och låter dig ljuga. Det hjälper inte att du hämtar fler idioter som ska stödja dig, bara för du har wahabiter med dig som ska stödja dig, kommer inte att hjälpa dig i din kamp mot Ali och Fatima.
    Må Allah förbanna den som sårade dem, bekämpade dem och som ljuger om dem.
    Ya Ali Madad 😉

  11. Bahlool skriver:

    Även imam Jafar al Sadiq sade om Imam Alis giftermål med dottern till kafiren Ibn Jahl
    Shaykh Seduq records in Amali, page 165:

    Imam Jafar al-Sadiq said: ‘….Didn’t they claim that the Master of the believers was seeking (worldly) life and government and he preferred fitna over peace, and he shed the blood of the Muslims without basis, and if he (Ali) was carrying benefit they would not ask Khalid bin al-Walid to assassinate him? Didn’t they claim that he (Ali) wanted to marry Abu Jahl’s daughter over Fatima and then Allah’s messenger complained of him to the Muslims on the pulpit and said: ‘Ali wants to marry the daughter of Allah’s enemy over the daughter of Allah’s Prophet, surely Fatima is part of me, whoever hurts her hurts me, whoever made her happy made me happy, whoever disturbs her disturbs me.’ (Imam Jafar continues) Oh Alqamah how strange are the claims of the people about Ali !’.

  12. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Bahlool, Mahbool och co ni får ställa er i kö pojkar så tar vi en i taget…
    Du får kalla din pappa eller mamma för mahbool, men använd inte sånt till andra än dem tack. /Admin

    ”Japp jag följer dem mina förfäder följde, du vet de 12 Imamerna och Profeten”? Ska vi ta ett titt på vad du följer:
    Imam Jafar said, when asked by a questioner about Abu-Bakr and Umar [ra], ”you are asking about two men who tasted from the fruits of paradise”.
    Imam Ja’afar Said ”I Was Born twice of abu Bakr then he named his daughter Aisha” [ Umdat el Talib fi Ansab Aal Abi Talib P195, Kashf el ghummah 2/372 & 2/161]
    Mohammad Bin Faysal From Salem Ibn Abi Hafsah He said:” i Asked Abu Ja’afar and his son Ja’afar about Abu Bakr and Umar And they said:O’ Salem Be their Tawalahuma(Be their friend, follower, Lover) and disassociate yourself from thier enemies For they were Imams of guidance Then Ja’afar said: O’Salem would a Man Insult his Grandfather? Abu Bakr is my grandfather and May the Intercession of Mohammad Not reach me on the day of judgement if I were to hate them and not disassociate myself from their enemies” (Al Sayr 6/258 & Tahtheeb el Kamal 5/80).
    Narrated Amr Bin Qays Al Mala’ee I heard Ja’afar bin Mohammad Say:” May Allah Disassociate himself from those who Disassociate themselves from abu Bakr and Umar.
    Al Thahabi Said:”This Hadith is Moutawatir From Ja’afar el Sadik and I swear to Allah he is honest in what he says And Not Doing Nifaq(Taqiyyah as shiites claim), May Allah increase the Rafidhah in ugliness.”
    Skulle Jafar Al Sadiq pratat gott om Sahaba om de skadat Ahlul Bayt? Ännu en gån från shia källor…¨

    ”Skillnaden mellan dig, wahabi, och mig är att jag inte älskar alla ”sahabas” vi shias skiljer på dem som var troende och dem som var hycklare, på dem som var ärliga och på dem som var lögnare. Vad är du för en dum varelse som hyllar hundratusentals och menar att de alla var ofelbara? Hur skrattretande är inte det att du sitter och hyllar hundratusentals för de hade sett profeten eller varit i hans närhet? Lol och dubbellol.
    Om Sahabas var så ärliga och sköna som du vill få dem att framstå, varför kallade de varandra för lögnare, bekämpade varandra, mördade varandra och svartmålade varandra? Menar du att vi som muslimer ska gilla alla dessa, hur falska de än må ha varit? Oh stackare..”

    Skillnaden mellan mig och en rafidah är att inte inte ens erkänner era egna lärda, det framgår klart och tydlig vad som sägs om Sahaba medans det ni säger är ju bara sjukt, som tex att alla sahaba lämnade islam efter Profetens aleyhi alsalam utan tre Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman: Läs hadithe ännu en gån från era pålitligaste källor:
    ”One of the leading scholars of the shia, al-Kashshi, reported that Abu Ja’far said: ”The people (including the sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, ”Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.'” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13).”

    Alltså så blev alla Sahaba kuffar enligt era lärda bortsätt från de tre nämnda ovan…Är det denna läran du följer eller?

    Länkarna du tog upp har inget med vår diskussion att göra, din lögnaktiga tölp, du sa själv vi ska hålla oss till ämnet. /Admin

    Du kommer säkerligen att förneka detta nu men innan du gör det så vill jag fråg dig, är detta som förs vidare från era lärda sant eller falskt+ Och om det nu är falskt vad ska vi läsa för att ta reda på den sanna läran av Ahlul Bayt??

  13. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Så det jag förstår från ditt svar Musa är att ni tar avstånd från denna hadith??
    Sheikh Saduq’s Elal-al-Sharae pp 185-6 and Allamah Majlisi’s Bihar Al-Anwar 43/pp201-2
    Kolla up den…

    Sedan vill jag bara ställa er en fråga, hur kan Ahlul Bayt tala gott om dessa otrogna, lögnare och sedan kalla sina barn efeter dem…lägg märke till att anuu en gån så är det från era källor:

    The Names Omar, Abu Bakr and Uthman were pretty famous names thus The AhlulBayt picked them specifically… As lame as this argument might sound it contradicts one of their ”Hadiths” or a more scientific word would be ”Lies” such as the one written below in Usool el Kafi:

    عن يعقوب السراج قال: دخلت على أبي عبدالله(عليه السلام) وهو واقف على رأس أبي الحسن موسى وهو في المهد، فجعل يسارّه طويلا، فجلست حتى فرغ، فقمت إليه فقال لي: «ادن من مولاك فسلّم، فدنوت فسلمت عليه فردّ عليّ السلام بلسان فصيح، ثم قال لي: اذهب فغيّر اسم ابنتك التي سميتها أمس، فانه اسم يبغضه الله، وكان ولِدت لي ابنة سمّيتهابالحميراء. فقال أبو عبدالله: انته الى أمره ترشد، فغيّرت اسمها اُصول الكافي : 1 / 310، ح 11

    brief translation: ”Ya’aqoob el Siraj Sai: I entered on Abu abdAllah PBUH and he was standing near Abi al Hassan Mousa who was a baby, Then He(Abu AbdAllah) Told Me: Give Salams To Your Mawla So I did Then he Returned the Salam To me in an eloquent tongue Then he told me: Go and change your daughter’s name Which you have named yesterday for it is a name which Allah Hates. I Had a daughter which I called Humeira’a So Abu AbdAllah Said: Follow what he says & you’ll be guided, So I changed her name” [Usool el Kafi 1/310, H#11].

    Now forget about the fact that the baby talked, Basically this is a narration in Usool el Kafi meaning the most important of the Kafi books that the twelvers take their Usool from, ”Humeira’a” is the name which Rassul Allah PBUH used to call Aisha RAA with (And they hate her) So According to them Musa el Kathim RAA Didn’t like it and he said that Allah didn’t like it.

    Now that this is out of the way I’ll mention a few things That I know of regarding the AhlulBayt and what names they gave to their children:

    Abu Bakr:

    Abu Bakr Bin Ali Bin Abi Talib:
    Died with Hussein RAA in Karbala, his mother is Layla Bint Masood Al Nahshaliyah. Mentionned by Al Mufid in Al Irshad P 248 – 186, Also in ”Tareekh el Ya’aqoobi Fi Awlad Ali”, Muntaha el Amal for Abbas el Qummi 261/1 He mentions that his name is Mohammad and his surname is Abu Bakr ”محمد يكنى بأبي بكر” p 544/1 and bihar el anwar for Majlisi 120/42.

    Abu Bakr Bin Al Hassan Bin Ali Bin Abi Talib:
    died with his uncle Hussein in Karbala, Mentioned by Sheikh Al Mufid in Al Irshad under ”Deaths In Karbala” ” قتلى كربلاء ” P 248 and ”Tareekh al Ya’aqoobi Fi awlad el Hassan” and Muntaha el Amal for Abbas el Qummi 544/1 under ”Martyrdom of the Bani Hashim Youths in Karbala” ”استشهاد فتيان بني هاشم في كربلاء”.

    Abu Bakr Ali Zain’ul Abedeen:
    The Nickname for Ali Zain’ul Abedeen RAA was Abu bakr and this was mentioned in many locations Specially in ”Al Anwar el Nu’umaniyah” for Ni’imatu’llah Al Jaza’eree ”الأنوار النعمانية للجزائري”.

    Abu Bakr Ali Bin Musa el Kathim Bin Ja’afar el Sadik:
    Ali Al Redah RAA was nicknamed Abu Bakr and this is mentioned in Noori al Tabrasi’s Book ”Al Noor Al Thakib fi Alqab wa Asma’a Al Hujjah al Gha’eb”:

    14- أبو بكر وهي إحدى كُنى الإمام الرضا كما ذكرها أبو الفرج الأصفهاني في مقاتل الطالبيين.

    ”Abu Bakr is a nickname of Imam al Redah as Abu AlFaraj al Asfahani Mentioned in his book ”مقاتل الطالبيين”.

    Abu Bakr Mohammad al Mahdi al Mountazar ibn Al Hassan Al Askari:
    Noori el Tabrasi said The Nickname of Al Mahdi Al Mountazar(Born before 1250 yrs according to twelvers) is Abu Bakr and this is mentioned in the exact same source as above.

    Abu Bakr Ibn Abdullah Ibn Ja’afar ibn Abi Talib:
    mentioned by The writer of ”Ansab el Ashraf” ”أنساب الأشراف ” P68: ”Sons of AbduLLah Ibn Ja’afar…And Abu Bakr died with Hussein and thier mother Al Khawsa’a from Rabiah…”

    ولد عبد الله بن جعفر. . . وأبا بكر قُتِلَ مع الحسين وأمهم الخوصاء من ربيعة. . .
    And he was mentioned by Khalifah bin Khiyat In His History book P240 In ”Naming Those who died from bani Hashim in The Day of Hurrah” ”تسمية من قُتِلَ يوم الحرة من بني هاشم”.

    Umar:

    Umar Bin Al Atraf Bin Ali Ibn Abi Talib:
    His Mother is Umm Habib AlSahba’a al Taghlubiyah Min Sabi AlRida ”أم حبيب الصهباء التغلبية من سبي الردة”. from ”Al Silsilah al Alawiyah” for Abi al Nasr al bukhari Al Shi’i P123 under ”Nasab Umar el Atraf” ”نسب عمر الأطرف” Also in ”Mountaha el Amal” for Abbas el Qummi 261/1 who said ”عمر ورقية الكبرى التوأمان ” ”Umar and The Elder Ruqayyah were twins” and in Bihar el Anwar 120/42.

    Umar Bin al Hassan bin Ali ibn Abi Talib:
    His Mother is Umm Walad he died with his uncle Hussein in Karbala, mentioned in ”Umdat el Talib” for Ibn Anabah P116 and Tareekh el Ya’aqoobi P228 under the children of Hassan.
    Al Ya’aqoobi Said: ”Al Hassan had 8 Male children and they are…And Zaid…and Umar and Al Qassim and Abu Bakr and Abdul Rahman fro other wives and Talha and Abdullah…”

    وكان للحسن ثمانية ذكور وهم. . . وزيد. . . وعمر والقاسم وأبو بكر وعبد الرحمن لأمهاتٍ شتى وطلحة وعبد الله

    Umar al Ashraf Bin Ali Zain el Abedeen Bin al Hussein:
    His Mother is umm walad and he is called ”Al Ashraf” because he comes from a Husseini(Father) and a Hassaniyah(Mother) as opposed to Umar Al Atraf who only comes from Ali ibn Abi Talib thus the word ”Atraf” which means ”One Side”, Mentionned in Al irshad for Al mufid 261 and Umdat el Talib for Ibn Anabah P223. He is also mentioned in Many Zaidi Shiite Narrations.

    Umar Bin Yahya bin al hussein Bin Zaid Bin Ali Bin Hussein bin Ali Bin Abi Talib:
    mentioned by Mohammad Al A’alami al Ha’iri ”محمد الأعلمي الحائري ” in ”Tarajim A’alam el Nisa’a” Under the name of Bint Al Hassan Bin Ubayd Allah Bin Ja’afar al Tayyar P359.

    Umar Bin Musa el Kathim Bin Ja’afar el Sadik:
    mentioned by Ibn Al Khashab in The Children of Musa el Kathim.
    Al Khashab said:” 20 Sons With Umar and Aqil and 18 daughters ”

    عشرون ابناً زاد فيهم عمراً وعقيلاً وثماني عشرةَ بنتاً

    This is mentioned in ”Tawarikh el Nabi wal Aal” ”تواريخ النبي والآل لمحمد تقي التستري” For Mohammad Taki el Tastari.

    Uthman:

    Uthman bin Ali ibn abi talib:
    ”قُتِلَ مع الحسين في كربلاء وأمة أم البنين بنت حزام الوحيدية ثم الكلابية” Died with Hussein In Karbala and his Mother is Umm el Banin Bint Hizam al Wahidiyah, mentioned in Al Irshad for Mufid P186- 428 also in ”A’ayan el nisa’a” ”أعيان النساء” for Mohammad Redah Al Hakimi P51, In Tareekh el Ya’aqoobi under Children of Ali, Mountaha el Amal 544/1, Al Tastari in ”Tawarikh el Nabi wal Aal” P115 under ”Awlad Ameer’ul moumineen”.

    Uthman bin Aqil bin Abi Talib:
    ”ذكره البلاذري في أنساب الأشراف ” mentionned bu Balathi in Ansab el Ashraf P70 He said:”Sons of Aqil Musliman…Uthman” ” ولد عقيل مسلماً… وعثمان”.

    Aisha:

    Aisha Bint Musa el Kathim Ibn Ja’afar el Sadik:
    mentioned by many shiite scholars headed by Al Mufid in his ”Irshad” P303 and in Umdat el Talib P266 and Al Anwar el nu’umaniyah for Ni’imatullah el Jaza’eree ”والأنوار النعمانية لنعمة الله الجزائري” P 380/1.

    A Proof for their love of Aisha RAA is that Musa el Kathim had 37 Sons and one daughter which he named Aisha, mentioned in Al Anwar el Nu’umaniyah 380/1 That:”As for his children he had 37 sons and 1 daughter, Imam Ali al Redah And..and..and..and..and…and Aisha”.
    Although other scholars say the number is different, Abu Nasr al bukhari el Shi’i Said ”Sons of Musa are 18 Boys and 22 Girls” in ”Sir el Silsilah el alawiyah” ”سر السلسلة العلوية ” P53.
    Al Tastari mentioned 17 girls in ”Tawareekh el Nabi wal Aal” he said ”Elder Fatimah and young Fatimah and Ruqayyah and young ruqayyah and Hakimah and Umm Abiha and umm Kulthoom and umm Salamah and Umm Ja’afar and Labbanah and Aliyah and aminah and Hassanah and Burayhah and AISHA and Zeinab and Khadeejah” P125-126.

    Aisha bin Ja’afar bin Musa el Kathim bin Ja’afar el Sadik:

    قال العمري في المجدي: (( ولد جعفر بن موسى الكاظم بن جعفر الصادق يقال له الخواري، وهو لأم ولد ثماني نسوة وهي: حسنة وعباسة و عائشة وفاطمة الكبرى وفاطمة ( أي الصغرى ) وأسماء وزينب وأم جعفر… )) سر السلسلة العلوية, الهامش الذي كتبه المحقق
    Al Umari said in Al Majdee” …For Umm Walad 8 girls: Hassanah and Abbasah and Aisha and Fatimah and Young Fatimah and Asma’a and Zeinab and Umm Ja’afar” [Sir el Silsilah el Alawiyah P63].

    Aisha Bint Ali el redah bin Musa el Kathim:
    mentioned by ibn Khashab in his book ”Mawalid ahlulbayt”, he said:” Al redah had five sons and one daughter and they are Mohammad el Qani’i and Hassan and Ja’afar and Ibrahim and hussein and the girl was called Aisha” [Tawarikh el Nabi wal Aal P128].

    Aisha bint ali al Hadi bin Mohammad el Jawad bin Ali el redah:
    mentioned by Sheikh Mufid in al Irshad P334 ”وخلف من الولد أبا محمد الحسن ابنه هو الإمام من بعده والحسين ومحمد وجعفر وابنته عائشة” ”Abu Mohammad had his Son Al Hassan the Imam after him and hussein and mohammad and Ja’afar and his daughter Aisha”.

    Talha:

    Talha bin el hassan bin Ali Bin Abi Talib:
    mentioned in Tareekh el Ya’aqoobi under Sons of Hassan P228 and by Testeri in Tawarikh el nabi wal Aal P120.

    Muawiyah:

    Muawiyah bin Abdullah bin ja’afar bin Abi Talib:
    one of the sons of Abdullah he called him Muawiyah, mentionned in Ansab el ashraf P60-68 and Umdat el Talib P56.

  14. Musa skriver:

    Aba Uthman jag tyckte att du uppvisade god moral i början trots påhopp men det varade inte länge. Inbilla dig vad du vill, Shia anser att de Sahaba som gick emot Ahlulbayt(as) och var deras fiender var hycklare. Tyvärr fanns det sådana sahaba och detta går inte att förneka. Profeten(saw) själv sade att vissa sahaba inte kommer att komma till Paradiset. Ifall du tänker efter är det omöjligt att tusentals Sahaba är felfria och om du läser historia kommer du se klara bevis på grova misstag som många sahaba begick. Orättfärdiga ledare styrde muslimerna så länge och fabricerade så mkt ahadith. Den med imam al sadiq(as) är löjlig, man ska vara lojal till ahlulbayt(as) och dissociera från deras fiender, Abubakr och Umar är obetydliga för islam. Fatima Al Zahraa(as) är Sayyidat Nisa2 al 3alameen, och hon tyckte varken om abubakr eller umar och dog när hon var arg på dom, och de fick inte gå på hennes begravning, Skulle imam al sadiq(as) mena att hon begick fel?

    Jag fick intrycket av att du är anhängare av Ibn Taymiya, säg till annars om jag har fel. Ibn Taymiyya tyckte att mordet på Umar ibn Saab, Hussayins(as) mördare och förtryckare var värre än mordet på HUssayn(as). Han tyckte att Fatima(as) betedde sig som munafiqeen när hon krävde fadak av Abubakr. Han ansåg även att versen, gå inte till bön när ni är berusade, sändes ner angående Imam Ali(as)….
    Är detta kärlek för ahlulbayt?

  15. Aba Uthman skriver:

    ” Länken fungerar inte” Men läs boken Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202. Inte konstigt då deras sida blivit avständ. sök själv på al-shia.com Account Suspended. Men kolla upp boken så ser du att den finns där, du har ju säkert Al Bihar hemma. Detta förs vidare av Al-Majlisi, Al-Tusi, Al-Erbali.

    Musa, varför svarar du inte??? ¨

    Du skriver även: ”själv sade att vissa sahaba inte kommer att komma till Paradiset” Sade han det om de personer som enlight er är kuffar(Abu Bakr och Umar)? Profen aleyhi alsalam sade: “No doubt, I am indebted to Abu Bakr more than to anybody else regarding both his companionship and his wealth. And if I had to take a Khaleel (friend) from my followers, I would certainly have taken Abu Bakr, but the fraternity of Islam is sufficient. Let no door of the Mosque remain open, except the door of Abu Bakr.”
    Och du säger:”Abubakr och Umar är obetydliga för islam”

    Fatima dog när hon var arg på dom??? “When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)

    ”Ibn Taymiyya tyckte att mordet på Umar ibn Saab, Hussayins(as) mördare och förtryckare var värre än mordet på HUssayn(as). Han tyckte att Fatima(as) betedde sig som munafiqeen när hon krävde fadak av Abubakr. Han ansåg även att versen, gå inte till bön när ni är berusade, sändes ner angående Imam Ali(as)….
    Är detta kärlek för ahlulbayt?” Kan du visa mig vart detta sägs???

    Sedan vill jag fortfarande att du svarar på det jag förde vidar från era källor, är det sanat eller falskt???

    Må Allah förbanna dem som för vidare lögner om Ahlul Bayt, de som ändrar deras lära och de som döljer sanningen om dem…

    Höll på att glömma en sak som ni inte svarade på, det så kallade övergreppet på Fatima, var befann sig Ali under händelsen och varför försvarade han inte sin fru???

  16. Aba Uthman skriver:

    ”Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever.”

    Varför försöker du ens???

    Hoppas du nöjer dig med de tre första narrationerna..

    (1) Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid

    Ibn Abi al-Hadid was not a Sunni at all, but rather a Mutazzalite/Shia. In “Al-Kunna wal Al-Alqab” (vol.1, p.185), the Shia scholar al-Qummi outlines the staunch and fanatical Shia background of Ibn Abi Al-Hadid in al-Madain. As such, his book is not a proof for us Sunnis. It is extremely deceitful of the Shia to provide this non-Sunni pro-Shia book in a list entitled “Sunni references.” The Shia books are full of lies against Aisha, some even accusing her of poisoning the Prophet himself. Therefore, bringing up a Shia book does not prove anything in a debate.

    If we are going to accept everything the Shia attribute to Aisha in their books, then we would have to accept many other so-called “facts” such as the idea that the sixth of the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for Aisha (as stated in Bihar al-Anwar [vol.4, p.378] and Tafseer al-Ayyashi [vol.2, p.243]). We would have to accept the idea that Aisha was a hypocrite who apostatized after the Prophet’s death. We would even have to accept the idea that Aisha was guilty of adultery (as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir [vol.2, p.377], Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan [vol.4, p.358] and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir [p.338]). And yet we know that accusing Aisha of adultery is Kufr and the one who says such a thing becomes an apostate due to the fact that Allah Himself declared Aisha innocent of this in the Quran.

    In fact, the proper title of the book is Sharh Nahjul Balagha–not the Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid–which is perhaps one of the reasons that the Shia propagandists do not like to take the entire name of the book, as this would unveil their deception quite readily. The Nahjul Balagha is one of the Shia’s most revered books, and the Sharh Nahjul Balagha is the most famous commentary of it. The Sunnis, of course, reject the Nahjul Balagha altogether as nothing but a pack of lies and forgeries. This book, Sharh Nahjul Balagha, is a useless commentary on a worthless book; Ibn Abi al-Hadid’s book is worthy of being used as toilet paper. We would like the Shia to think about how they are bringing forth a book as proof that we would consider worthy of being used as toilet paper and nothing else.

    (2) Iqd al-Fareed

    Once again, the Shia attempt to pass off an insignificant and useless source as being an “authentic Sunni text.” Iqd al-Fareed is not a history book at all, but rather it is a literary novel that contains elements of fiction in it. Perhaps tomorrow the Shia will quote from a few Nancy Drew novels or maybe Sidney Sheldon’s thrillers and claim that these are authentic history books. Furthermore, and this point cannot be stressed enough, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was Ibn Abd Rabuh who was well known for his pro-Shia inclinations.

    Ibn Abu Rabuh’s book, Iqd al-Fareed, is a chain-less literary piece in which his inclusion criteria is only that the text be eloquent Arabic; the text in his book was chosen not for its historical accuracy or authenticity, but rather his book was a compilation of any text that was eloquent in nature. As such, the author of Iqd al-Fareed included texts from Shia sources so long as they were eloquently written. The Shia are well-known for their dedication to poetry so it is not at all strange that Ibn Abd Rabuh would include their texts. To give an example, Nahjul Balagha means “the Peak of Eloquence”; to the Sunni historian, the book is a piece of garbage due to its flagrant inaccuracies and Shia exaggerations. However, to the literary lover (be he Sunni or otherwise), the Nahjul Balagha is actually very eloquent in its original Arabic, and it can be appreciated for that aspect. One can, for example, appreciate the eloquence of the Bible or even the Bhagavad Gita; the Bible might contain an eloquent quote from Jesus but this does not at all mean that it is accurate, no matter how beautifully worded!

    The Shia spent excessive amounts of time writing poetry about Kerbala and in fact there are beautiful poems written by the Shia on this incident; however, they lack in historical accuracy and are rather things of legends and myths. Likewise, the Shia spent much time crafting poetry in the name of Ali and forging supposed counter-responses by his so-called opponents such as Muawiyyah and Aisha. The author of Iqd al-Fareed included these texts due to their literary value, but the truth is that no matter how beautifully worded these texts are, they cannot at all be considered authentic.

    Furthermore, the author of Iqd al-Fareed was known for his Shia inclinations; he was a big fan of the eloquent nature of Shia texts. Today, there are many so-called liberal and progressive “Sunnis” who preach unity with Shia and even with homosexuals. Irshad Menji the lesbian could be considered a Sunni; if she wrote a literary novel, could this be used as an authentic Sunni text? Could we take her views on homosexuality as indicative of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah? Not every word written by a “Sunni” can be construed as being “authoritative” or indicative of the Sunni position on matters.

    (3) Lisan al-Arab

    Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary! Does this Shia not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavor to establish historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an anthology of poetry. Lisan al-Arab is once again chain-less and unauthenticated; as such, it is yet another garbage source.

    We read from Lisan al-Arab:

    “Na’thal is one who has a long beard and Ayesha said kill this Na’thal, by Na’thal she was referring to Uthman.”

    (source: Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Mansur, Vol.11, Chapter “Lughuth Na’thal”, p.670)

    So we see that the dictionary Lisan al-Arab was defining the word “Na’thal” and gave that sentence as an example of its usage. Many of the sample sentences in dictionaries are completely fictitious in nature, and one can simply grab any dictionary to confirm this. There is even an Arabic dictionary in which the sample sentence with regards to the word “Na’thal” refers to an elf; could we then use this as a proof that elves exist? Not a single person on earth would use a dictionary’s sample sentences as a historical resource! In fact, the way in which the Shia do this just shows how utterly desperate (and deceptive) the Shia propagandist is, and how he will stoop to any low in order to fool the Sunni layperson.

    The sentence “kill this old fool (Na’thal)” has actually become famous due to the fact that the Shia have repeated this statement over and over throughout the ages. As such, it is not at all surprising that the first sentence that comes to mind when the word “Na’thal” is heard would be this sentence, falsely attributed to Aisha by the Shia. Therefore, it is not a shock that this sentence was used as the sample sentence in the Arabic dictionary. Similarly, for example, the sample sentence for the word “trinity”–even in many dictionaries written by Muslims–revolves around the Christian doctrine. This does not at all mean that the Muslim author of the dictionary feels that the sentence is true. If we asked a Sunni student at an Islamic university about the word “Na’thal”, the first thing that would come to his mind would be the sentence “kill this old fool (Na’thal)”, simply because it is a common sentence discussed in debate. In fact, thanks to the Shia propaganda machine, the first thing anyone thinks about when the word “Na’thal” is said is that fabricated saying falsely attributed to Aisha. As such, it is no surprise that this sample sentence was given in the Arabic dictionary.

    It should also be noted that Lisan al-Arab is a dictionary used by Sunnis, Shia, and non-Muslims. Dictionaries are not religious texts, and Lisan al-Arab cannot therefore be used as a “Sunni source”, let alone an “authoritative” one, a word that the Shia propagandist loves to use in order to beguile the layperson.

    [29:68] Och vem är orättfärdigare än den som sätter ihop lögner om Gud eller förnekar sanningen när den når honom? Är inte helvetet ett [lämpligt] tillhåll för [dessa] förnekare

  17. Bahlool skriver:

    Fatima dog när hon var arg på dom??? “When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi)

    suck..något inlägg sedan skrev du att Sahih Bukhari gick över alla andra hadithsamlingar, och i Dina sahihsamilngar säger självaste Aisha, um el Mumineen, att Fatima dog när hon var sur på Abu Bakr, nu tar du upp en obskyr hadith? Bestäm dig, vem ska vi tro på? Sunan al Bayahaqi eller Sahihsamilngarna? Ska vi tro på Aisha eller inte?

  18. Bahlool skriver:

    Hahah..så ibland passar shiiternas hadither er..ibland inte..mer bisarra än ni nasibis har jag verkligen inte mött 😉
    Aisha var oskyldig..hon startade inte krig mot Ali, hon skapade inte kaos i Profetens hushåll och hon sa inte nedvärderande saker om Uthman..nej du har rätt 😉

  19. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Svarar endast på det ni svarar…
    The fact of the matter is that in order for narrated information to be regarded as a valid basis for making claims that affect one’s belief system, or influence the way one views personalities, the information HAS to be authenticated. Leave aside reports of history; even the ahadith of Rasulullah sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam have to be authenticated by rigorous criteria before store can be set by it.

    What does authentication entail? Does it amount to providing a mere reference to a source or two such as what the questioner has given? Anyone who regards this as authentication hasn’t got the vaguest idea of what authentication is or what it entails. The questioner and other like him would be well advised to equip himself with some knowledge of the discipline before venturing boldly into making claims that may well affect their destiny in the hereafter.

    Coming now to the issue under discussion: The questioner provides the following four references for his claim that history records Sayyidah A’ishah as saying about Sayyiduna Uthman, ”Kill this old fool (Na’thal), for he is unbeliever”:

    1. History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206
    2. Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141,
    3. al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290
    4. Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223

    LISAN AL-‘ARAB
    The book ”Lisan al-‘Arab” by Ibn Manzur is a not a work on history, but a lexicon of the Arabic language. Does the questioner not see the utter ridiculousness of his endeavour to establish historical truth by quoting a dictionary? His attempt is comparable to quoting scientific material from an anthology of poetry.

    SHARH IBN ABIL HADID
    Ibn Abil Hadid was an extremist Shi’i whose beliefs would be repugnant even to the ”moderate” Shi’ah themselves. His views of the near-divinity of Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib are reflected in his poetry, some of which is reproduced in the editor’s introduction to his commentary on ”Nahj al-Balaghah”. As an extremist Shi’i, his being cited on a matter concerning the Sahabah cannot be free from prejudice, and must therefore be called into question seriously.

    If we are going to accept everything the Shi’ah say about the Sahabah, we will eventually end up having to accept that beyond inciting the murder of Uthman, Sayyidah A’ishah was also guilty of adultery, [as recorded by Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir (vol. 2 p. 377), Hashim al-Bahrani in al-Burhan (vol. 4 p. 358) and Abdullah Shubbar in his Tafsir (p. 338)]; that the sixth of the seven doorways of Hell will be exclusively for her [as stated in Bihar al-Anwar vol. 4 p. 378; and Tafsir al-‘Ayyashi vol. 2 p. 243]; and that she was a hypocrite who, along with the vast bulk of the Sahabah turned apostate openly after the demise of the Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.

    AL-‘IQD AL-FARID
    Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’s book ”al-‘Iqd al-Farid” is a literary book about which the author states in his introduction, ”I have written this book, and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select gemstones of literature.” He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and authentic. Again, the absolute inappropriateness of establishing historical truth from a source as unsuited for this purpose as a literary omnibus seems to escape the notice of the questioner.

    IBN AL-ATHIR’S HISTORY
    The fact that the questioner names this work as the ” History of Ibn Athir” appears to reveal that he himself is unfamiliar with the book, and happens to be citing it from second or third hand sources. For his information, the book’s proper title is ”al-Kamil”. Had the questioner been familiar with this book he would have been aware of the fact that this book is directly based upon Ibn Jarir at-Tabari’s work; and had he been familiar with Tabari’s work he would have known that Tabari has recorded the material in his book complete with chains of narrations. He would also have known that Tabari himself, in a disclaimer at the end of his introduction (vol. 1 p. 24) declares that in terms of authenticity the material in his book is only as good as the chains of narration through which it has come down to him.

    In light of the above, let us now proceed to evaluate the authenticity of the statement which the questioner has so boldlessly and recklessly (and also – mind you – ignorantly) ascribed to Sayyidah A’ishah.

    This statement is to be found on page 226 of the 5th volume of the edition of Tarikh at-Tabari published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut in 1418/1998. It is recorded by Tabari on the authority of the following chain of narration:

    Tabari narrates from ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-‘Ijli, who narrates from Husayn ibn Nasr al-‘Attar, who narrates from his father Nasr ibn Muzahim al-‘Attar…

    Up to this point the following flaws present itself in the chain:

    1. Of Tabari’s immediate source, ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan al-‘Ijli, no trace can be found in the biographical works of narrators. He is thus an unknown person.

    2. The next person in the chain is Husayn ibn Nasr ibn Muzahim. Of him too, no trace is to be found in the biographical literature ¯ hence another unknown person. The only thing that is known about him is the fact that he is the son of Nasr ibn Muzahim.

    3. Nasr ibn Muzahim presents a major problem. He was known in his lifetime as a forger of historical material, and was condemned for it by, amongst others, the hadith expert Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb. His general unreliability as a narrator of historical material is echoed by al-‘Uqayli, Abu Hatim ar-Razi, ad-Daraqutni, al-‘Ijli, al-Khalili and Ibn ‘Adi. He is described by a number of these experts as a hardcore extremist Shi’i. (See Lisan al-Mizan vol. 7 p. 187) Even a non-muhaddith such as the literary biographer Yaqut al-Hamawi describes him as an extremist Shi’i who stands accused of forgery and is generally unreliable. (Mu’jam al-Udaba vol. 19 p. 225)

    As may be expected, Shi’i hadith critics are generally more affable towards Nasr ibn Muzahim. However, even they have located a problem with the historical material which he transmits. The Shi’i hadith critic Abul ‘Abbas an-Najashi, for example, remarks about him that while he himself was a person of righteous conduct, his problem was that he transmitted material on the authority of unreliable sources. (Rijal an-Najashi vol. 2 p. 384) This statement of an-Najashi is corroborated by al-‘Allamah al-Hilli in al-Khulasah. (Jami’ ar-Ruwat vol. 2 p. 291)

    With this background on Nasr ibn Muzahim, let us now proceed to investigate the sources on whose authority Nasr ibn Muzahim has ascribed this alleged statement to Sayyidah A’ishah.

    Nasr produces two separate chains of narrators through which he claims to have received this information. They look as follows:

    1. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from Sayf ibn ‘Umar, who narrates from Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A’lam.

    2. Nasr ibn Muzahim narrates from ‘Umar ibn Sa’d, who narrates from Asad ibn ‘Abdullah, who narrates from some learned men whom he met.

    The first chain of narration shows glaring defects. Sayf ibn ‘Umar is that historian whose total unreliability has been a matter of much discussion, especially in Shi’i circles. The contemporary Shi’i scholar, Murtada al-‘Askari has written an interesting book in which he has pointed a finger of accusation at this very same Sayf ibn ‘Umar. The charge which he levels against Sayf ibn ‘Umar is that he is responsible for inventing of the personality of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba. Despite the flaws in al-‘Askaris’ research (upon which some light has been cast in an article that may be read at) this book has been highly acclaimed in Shi’i circles, and everyone climbed on the bandwagon of labeling Sayf ibn ‘Umar as a shameless liar and forger. But suddenly, when the material which Sayf transmits is not about Ibn Saba, but disparages Sayyidah A’ishah, his unreliability is conveniently forgotten, and an-Najashi! ‘s complaint of Nasr ibn Muzahim narrating from unreliable sources is cast to the wind. Such ”objectivity” leaves one in complete amazement.

    Furthermore, Sayf ibn ‘Umar’s two sources, Muhammad ibn Nuwayrah and Talhah ibn al-A’lam, are completely unknown entities.

    Nasr ibn Muzahim’s second chain of narration suffers once again from the same defect. His immediate source, ‘Umar ibn Sa’d is unknown, as is ‘Umar ibn Sa’d’s source Asad ibn ‘Abdullah. The person or persons from whom Asad ibn ‘Abdullah allegedly received the information are not even named at all.

    In summary it may therefore be said that not a single person in the entire chain of narration, from Tabari up the final sources, may be relied upon at all. Is it on the basis of such worthless historical material that the questioner wishes us to believe that Sayyidah A’shah advocated the killing of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman?

    If the questioner can bring himself to accept such worthless material, it creates a question in the mind as to why he would do so. It cannot be because of the intrinsic value of the report itself, for it has been adequately demonstrated here that the report has no value at all. The only reason for his acceptance of such narrations will have to be his own sectarian prejudices. He himself will have to answer to Allah for accepting and believing information provided by such worthless and unreliable sources.

    As for the rest of us, we abide by the instruction of Allah Most High: ”O you who believe, when an evil-doer comes unto you with news, then ascertain the truth, lest you harm people unwittingly, and afterwards regret what you have done.” (49:6)

    And since Sayyidah A’ishah was of the Muhajirin, it may be of interest to the questioner to note what attitude Allah has instructed those who come after the Muhajirin and the Ansar to adopt towards them: ”And those who come after them, they say: Our Lord, forgive us and [forgive] our brethren who preceded us in faith. And do not put in our hearts rancour towards the Believers. Our Lord, You are Most Kind, Most Merciful.” (59:10)

  20. Bahlool skriver:

    mkt kopiera och mkt klistra in..vill jag läsa dravel så kan jag gå till vilken wahabi/nasibi sida som helst, papegojor som dig har jag mött många gånger senaste 15 åren..orka 😉

  21. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Förlåt det jag tänkte skriva var att jag svarar endast på det sättet ni svarar på, men ni har ännu inte svarat på mina frågor.
    När du fick frågan om ni tar avstånd från de som förbannar sahaba så sa du att du varken stödjer eller avstår från dom, hur menar du???
    Skickade tidagre hadither från era böcker som säger att ALLA Sahaba lämnade islam utan tre…Vad säger du om dessa hadither?

    Det jag märker är att du snabbt ändrar ämne för att slippa svara på mina frågor…Hatet som nå bär på påstår ni komma från händelsen då Umar slog Fatima men du svarar inte på Alis reaktion när detta hände, eller de andra sahabas reaktioner som befann sig i huset.

    I samma bok så talas det gott om Abu Bakr och Umar i era böcker och senare säger man: Abu Ja’far said: ”The people (including the sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, ”Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13).”
    ATT ALLA LÄMNADE ISLAM, DE BLEV KUFFAR…borsätt från Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman…
    Kan du förklara till oss läsare vad vi ska tro på???

    Du läser men förnekar, och det har du inte bara gjort de senaste 15 åren utan under hela ditt liv…
    Klistra in är något ni Rawafidh är kända för, klistra in utan att ens läsa…Det som skrivs på answering-ansar.com är vad ni tycker och känner. Hjärntvättade

  22. Bahlool skriver:

    Lol..patetisk 😉 Vad hände med Ammar bin Yassir? Vad hände med de många sahabas som stod på Alis sida och dog på Alis sida? lol…hela din logik är befängd. Jag njuter av ditt hat, din fruktan och jag gillar att du försöker övertyga dig själv om att du har rätt..Må Allah förbanna alla de som attackerade, sårade eller bekämpade Ahlul Bayt 😉
    gå nu och förbered dig för att spränga upp några stackars vallfärdande i irak eller nåt sånt 😉

  23. Musa skriver:

    Det är meningslöst att läsa långa copy paste inlägg,
    Shia Uleema är överens om vissa händelser från de erkända shiamuslimska böckerna, ifall du tar ngt som inte överensstämmer med den generella åsikten så accepteras det inte. Ifall en hadith går emot Fatimas(as) agerande stämmer den inte. Ifall en hadith går emot quranen stämmer den inte. Detta är skillnaden mellan er och oss, ni klassar mkt bisarrt som sahih.
    Vadå ahadith från våra böcker om att alla blev kuffar utan 3? ,Detta är inte shias åsikt, skillnaden mellan oss är att när vi använder era ahadith, från era största böcker, så anser ni dessa ahadith vara sahih.
    Det där om Ibn taymiyya kan du kolla upp, gå in på länken jag postade innan så visar samma sheikh upp boken, sidan och det zoomas in. Jag är inte säker om det är just i den videon men på sidan kan man välja. Så ta mitt ord på att det är sant o kolla upp det själv. Det är sanningen om Ibn taymiyya och hans kärlek för Ahlulbayt(as).

    Hadithen om att alla dörrar stängs utan abubakrs handlar om Ali(as), och detta erkänner många Sunnis, Subhanallah hur ahadith i Alis(as) ära har fabricerats.

    Du gav mig aldrig källan till det du skrev om Abubakr och Umar i nahjulbalagha eller så kanske jag missat?

  24. Aba Uthman skriver:

    ”Vad hände med Ammar bin Yassir? Vad hände med de många sahabas som stod på Alis sida och dog på Alis sida?”

    Det undrar jag med…Så säg mig är detta sant eller ljuger Al Kishi? Varför för han vidare den här hadithen…
    Abu Ja’far said: ”The people (including the sahaba) all became apostates after the Prophet’s death except for three.” When asked who they were, he replied, ”Al-Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dharr, and Salman as mentioned in the verse, ‘If he (Muhammad) dies or is killed, will you then turn on your heels.’” (Rijal al-Kashshi pp12-13).”

    ”Gå och bomba upp några stackars vallfärdande i irak eller nåt sånt” Ta ett titt på denna videon så får du se vem som spränger vallfärdande:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxKc6tfXkbg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7KIu9Q5zM&feature=related

    Subhan Allah

  25. Bahlool skriver:

    Men Aba, du vet väl om att de demonstranterna som demonstrerade inte är att jämföra med de salafiterna som mördar shias och sunnis i Irak? Du vet väl om att de iranska demonstranterna som demonstrerade mot Israel och USA mördades för att de skrek död åt Israel och död åt USA? De hade inga vapen med sig eller bomber..det är makabert hur du vill skydda wahabismens herrar som sålt dig och din religion.

  26. Musa skriver:

    Al Kishi? Vem är det ens? Du har fastnat på att alla blev kuffar utan 3 stycken men förstår du inte att det inte stämmer, vare sig enligt shia eller logiken?

    Det enda man kan säga är detta, kolla på detta och sen förstå varför det du klistrar in och tar upp är irrelevant.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzYEYITzams&playnext_from=TL&videos=q35u5CeJRyA

    Kan du ge exakta källan från nahjul balagha?

  27. Bahlool skriver:

    hahaha han är så jävla bra alltså…bra film som vanligt musa

  28. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Den här är ifrån Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays al-Khilali.

    Det står ”Ali sade: Sannerligen så är alla människor avfällingar efter profeten förutom 4 av dem.”

    Det är också av Shia’s tro att den som tror eller tvivlar på att Profetens kompanjoner inte hade lämnat Islam efter hans död är själv en icke-troende!
    Al-Kulaynî, Usul Al-Kâfî, 2: 245; Al-Majlisî, Hayâtul-Qulûb, 2: 640; also Al-`Ayashî’s

    Det tar inte stopp här men Shia lärda går så långt och påstår att Umar var född utanför ett äktenskap till en kvinna vid namnet Sihak och till Abdul-Muttalib
    Ibn Tâwûs, At-Tarâ’if fî Ma`rifât At-Tawâ’if, 401; Ni`matul-Lâh Ibn Muhammad Al-
    Jazâ’irî, Al-Anwâr Al-Nu`mâniyyah fî Bayân Ma`rifat An-Nash’ah Al-Insâniyyah, 1:61;

    Usul Al Kafi och co känner ni väl till

  29. Bahlool skriver:

    Lol och än en gång..vi har talat om för dig att vi inte ser al kafi som sahih, som du ser dina sahih 6…Många ”sahbas” var hycklare, utan tvekan, men 4? lol…vad bestod Alis arme av egentligen? Tusentals av dessa mördades av din kära Aisha i slaget vid Kamelen, när hon emot Profetens ord gick och startade krig istället för att sitta hemma och bete sig som hon borde ha gjort..hennes brott ledde till tusentals sahabas död, på båda sidor..var de också bland hycklarna? Du tar lite obskyra hadither och tror dig kunna få omkull logik och intelligens? Meskin..

  30. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Aha nu förstår jag, så dessa haditherna är falska eller är det tuqian som träder fram nu?
    Jag förstår inte riktigt, när det är något som gynnar er så är det hadither som är sahih, men när det går emot er så blir det obskyra hadither. Ni plockar det som passar er och när någon frågar så använder ni tuqian för att försvara er.

  31. Bahlool skriver:

    haha..skulle jag använda mig av taqqiya? Ser jag ut att vara en som är rädd för dig grabben? Jag är inte rädd för dig och behöver inte använda mig av taqqiya, men om du finner tillfredställelse i att tro att folk räds dig, visst 😉 Ilm al Rijal, och hadithkunskaperna är rätt klara, det du säger går emot allt vi tror på all logik. Vi har inga hadither som är trovärdiga och säger att enbart 4 män förblev muslimer lol..

  32. Musa skriver:

    Aba uthman kolla på videon jag postade och förstå vad som menas. , Referera till ahadith som vi klassar sahih eller hasan osv, och ta åsikter från det översta skiktet av våra ulemaa, och sedan kom och ha en diskussion. Detta är vad vi gör och alhamdullilah har vi våra argument och bevis i era böcker och de klassas som sahih hos er, av era högsta skikt av ulemaa.
    Du har fortfarande inte angett källan till det du skrev från nahjul Balagha, så jag antar att du inte hittar ngn källa. Eller så har du missat det, kan du vara snäll och ge mig källan?

  33. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Musa, sök upp dessa källorna och svara sedan:

    Al Kashany, Tafsir Al Safi v.4 sid 1:” De flesta sahaba var kuffar men visade inte det för Profeten”

    Al Jazairyi, Al Anwar Al Nu3manyiah v. 2 sid 278/279:” Vi shiiter kommer aldrig att enas med dom (sunniter), vi kommer aldrig att enas samma en Gud eller om samma Profeten eller om samma Imam, enas kommer vi aldrig att göra för att de sunniter tror på en Gud vars Profets första khalifa var Abu Bakr och vi shiiter tror inte på den Guden vars eller Profeten som hade Abu Bakr som första khalifa”.

    Al Khomeyni, Kash Al Asrar sid 137:” Omar handlingar var kufr”.

  34. Musa skriver:

    Aba othman,
    1. Jag fick inte källan till det ur Nahjul Balagha
    2. Jag lovar att ifall vi ska söka ahadith som inte representerar sunnimuslimers syn, dvs de högsta skiktet av era lärdas syn, från era böcker, som dessutom har oklara källor och ingen isnad angiven, så skulle vi hitta hur mkt som helst . Detta leder ingenstans. Läs det jag skrev förut.

    Våra högsta Ulemaa har alltid förespråkat enhet det är t.o.m löjligt att diskutera detta. Khomeini var en av ledarna i det området.

  35. Aba Uthman skriver:

    Musa, det du menar är att Khomeyni inte är pålitlig när han säger:” Umars handlingar var kufr” Kash Al Asrar sid 137 ???

  36. Aliyah Hussain skriver:

    Åååååh Bahlool — bara ÄLSKAR dina kommentarer!!! You ruuuule dude!!

    Lol den där abdullah ibn saba kommer fram överallt….LMAO!!!!

    Abdullah ibn saba lagade en kult som heter Ghulluws som inte har NÅGOT med shia islam att göra….
    Den består av 6 grupper/sekter.En av dom hävdar att Ali a.s är Allah swt….en annan grupp menar att Ali a.s var rätta profeten men att Jibril a.s gick vilse och gav profetskapet till Muhammed saws vid misstag….
    Att säga att det har med shia islam att göra är som att säga att ahmadiyya har med salafism att göra…..Tyyyyyypisk hjärntvätt att säga att abdullah ibn saba har med shia att göra….
    Muhammed saws själv kallade anhängarna till Ali a.s för shia….även enligt sunni hadiths….Att vara shia är att följa Allah swt,Muhammed saws och ahle al bayt…att se Ali a.s som efterföljare till Muhammed saws.

    Following are the reports of the event of Gadeer as reported above in sunni narrations:

    Prophet said: ”O Allah! You also may witness.” Then he said: ‘O my people! Allah is my Mawla and I am mawla of the faithful and I have superior right on and control over their lives. And this Ali is the mawla of all those of whom I am mawla. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him.”

    Sunni Traditionists who mentioned the Tradition of Ghadir Khum above
    Mohammed Ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (Imam al-Shafi’i, d. 204) per ”al-Nihayah” by Ibn al-Athir
    Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (Imam al-Hanbali, d. 241), in ”Masnad” and ”al-Manaqib”
    Ibn Majah (d. 273), in ”Sunan Ibn Majah”
    al-Tirmidhi (d. 279), in ”Sahih al-Tirmidhi”
    al-Nisa’i (d. 303), in ”al-Khasa’is”
    Abu-Ya’la al-Mousilli (d. 307), in ”al-Masnad”
    al-Baghawi (d. 317), in ”al-Sunan”
    al-Doolabi (d. 320), in ”al-Kuna wal Asmaa”
    al-Tahawi (d. 321), in ”Mushkil al-Athar”
    al-Hakim (d. 405), in ”al-Mustadrak”
    Ibn al-Maghazili al-Shafi’i (d. 483), in ”al-Manaqib”
    Muhammad al-Ghazzali (d. 505), in ”Sirrul `Alamayn”
    Ibn Mindah al-Asbahani (d. 512), in his book
    al-Khatib al-Khawarizmi (d. 568), in ”al-Manaqib” and ”Maqtal al-Imam al-Sibt”
    Abul Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597), in ”Manaqib”
    al-Ganji al-Shafi’i (d. 658), in ”Kifayat al-Talib”
    Muhib al-Din al-Tabari (d. 694), in ”al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah” and ”Dhakha’ir al-‘Aqabi”
    al-Hamawainy (d. 722), in ”Fara’id al-Samdtin”
    al-Dhahabi (d. 748), in ”al-Talkhis”
    al-Khatib al-Tabrizi (d. 8th century), in ”Mishkat al-Masabih”
    al-Haythami (d. 807), in ”Majma’ al-Zawa’id”
    al-Jazri (d. 830), in ”Asna al-Matalib”
    Abul Abbas al-Qastalani (d. 923), in ”al-Mawahib al-Ladaniya”
    al-Muttaqi al-Hindi (d. 975), in ”Kanz al-Ummal”
    Abdul Haqq al-Dihlawi, in ”Sharh al-Mishkat”
    al-Hurawi al-Qari (d. 1014), in ”al-Muraqat fi Sharh al-Mishkat”
    al-Shaikhani al-Qadiri, in ”al-Siratul Sawi fi Manaqib Aal al-Nabi”
    Ba Kathir al-Makki (d. 1047), in ”Wasilatul Amal fi Manaqib al-Aal”
    Abu-Abdullah al-Zarqani al-Maliki (d. 1122), in ”Sharh al-Mawahib”
    Ibn Hamzah al-Dimashqi al-Hanafi, in ”al-Bayan wal Taarif

    ”Whoever obeys ‘Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ‘Ali, disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah”
    [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

    This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to Hadhrath ‘Ali (as) is unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt). Hence any disobedience to him, IS RELIGIOUS because it is deemed disobedience to Allah (swt).

    Rasulullah (s) said:

    ”‘Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with ‘Ali, the two shall not separate until they meet me at the Fountain of Kauthar”
    [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32912].

    ”‘Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with ‘Ali”
    [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 33018].

    Zaid bin Arqam narrates:

    ”Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war” (Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81; Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350; al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149)

    Rasulullah (s) said:

    ”Ali is the door of forgiveness, whoever enters it is a momin, whoever leaves it is a kaafir” [Kanz ul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi al Hind hadith number 32910]

    ”Those who believe and do righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him” (Qur’an 98:7)”.

    Muhammad bin Ali narrates in Tafsir ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) that the Prophet (s) said ”The best of creations are you Ali and your Shi’as.”

    Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 – 911 AH) is one of the highest ranked Sunni scholars of all time. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 asnad (chains) of narrators, that the Prophet (s) told his companions that the verse referred to Ali and his Shi’a:

    ”I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi’a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection”.
    (Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)

    The 3 Sahaba who narrated this hadith are (1) Ali (as) himself (2) Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (ra) (3) Abdullah ibne Abbas (ra). The majority school acknowledges them as truthful narrators of hadith. Had this been in a Shi’a book, you would have deemed it a forgery, but it’s presence in your has really confused your Ulema.

    There are no hadith in which the Prophet (s) guaranteed paradise for a specific Sahaba and his followers, with the sole exception of Ali (as) and his Shi’a.

    Ahmad ibn Hajr al Makki quotes from Imam Dar Qatany in his al Sawaiqh al Muhrriqa page 159 (Cairo edition) ”O Abul Hasan, you and you Shi’a will attain paradise”.

    Ibn Hajr al Makki in his anti Shia book, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, records this tradition from Imam Tabarani:

    ”O Ali four people will enter heaven first of all. Me, You, Hasan, and Hussain, your descendants will follow us and our wives will follow our descendants and our Shi’a will be to the left and right of us”.

    Hadhrath Ali narrates in Tafsir Durre Mansur, Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition) that Rasulullah (s) said to him:

    ”Have you not heard this verse ”Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there forever”? This verse refers to you and you Shi’a, I promise you that I will be meet you at the Fountain of Kawthur”.

    The classical Shafii scholar al Maghazli records a tradition from Anas bin Malik that he heard the Prophet (s) say:

    ”Seventy thousand people will go to heaven without questions, the Prophet then turned to Ali and said ‘they will be from among your Shi’a and you will be their Imam”
    Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by al Maghazli al Shafii

    Abu Bakr/umar/uthman/Muawiya/yazeed etc etc var inte bland hans(a.s)shia…..Snarare tvärtom,..

    Förresten….Vill wahabis kalla Fatimah a.s a kafir/rafida också…..Hon tog ju Ali a.s sida mot abu bakr….Hon blev arg på Abu bakr pga Fadak…..som faktisk INTE var arv men gåva från Muhammed saws till henne medan han fortfarande levde….Men abu bakr ljög och sa det var arv….Muhammed saws fruar ärvde….Wahabis älskade Ibn Taymiya anklagade Fatimah a.s att vara hycklare…Audobillah…Hon är ju ledare av alla troende kvinnor i Paradiset….Aisha är det INTE…Fatimah a.s är del av Ahle al bayt….aisha är det INTE….Wahabis påstår att fruarna är del av ahle al bayt,men aisha och andra fruar har visat i era hadith at det är dom inte…..

    Det visar följande hadith:

    A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel’s hair that there came Hasan b. ‘Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came ‘Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)
    Sahih-e-Muslim – Book 031, Number 5955

    Var är aisha och hafsa….umm salama(ra)….och dom andra(ra) nämnd här….

    Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren’t the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
    Sahih muslim Book 031, Number 5923

    När Umm Salama frågade Muhammed saws om hon var del av ahle al bayt så nekade han(saws)det…Men sa hon hade en bra framtid….Ingen av fruarna var heller med vid Mubahila.Hade dom varit i ahle al bayt så hade dom varit med där….och dom hade inte konspirerad mot Muhammed saws som aisha och hafsa gjorde…..När wahabis pratar om sahabas så är det om Abu bakr,umar,uthman,abu huraira och muawiya…om fruarna så är det bara om aisha och hafsa….som om Muhammed saws inte hade fler sahaba eller fruar än dom….

    Wahabis säger RA efter Muawiya’s namn….SKÄMS!!!! Muawiya fördömde Ali a.s i många många år pga hat mot honom…

    Muhammed saws said : Whoever curses (or verbally abuses)Ali he has in fact cursed me,and whoever has cursed me ,he has cursed Allah,and whoever has cursed Allah then allah will throw him into hellfire

    Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal vol 6, page 33

    Ibn Kathir in al bidaya records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Muawiyah was that he and his governors would curse hadhrat Ali during the friday sermon from the imam’s position.This took to such an extreme that this practice even took place in the mosque of the Prophet ,in front of the grave of the Prophet the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place,in the precence of Hadhrat Ali’s family who would hear this abuse with their own ears.

    Tabari vol 4,page 188
    ibn Kathir ,vol 3,page 234
    al bidayah vol 8,page 259 and vol 9 page 80.

    LMAO….Wahabis säger RA om en person som har förbannat Allah swt och Muhammed saws genom att förbanna Ali a.s.Lovprisar en hycklare.

    The Messenger of Allah said: Loving Ali is the sign of belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrisy.
    Sahih Tirmidhi, volume 5, page 643
    Sunan Ibn Majah, volume 1, page 142
    Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal volume 1, pages 84,95,128
    Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 1, p202

    Hur kan wahabis säga RA till en som hatade Ali a.s…Det är ju bidaaah….Muhammed saws sa alldrig RA om Muawiya….Faktisk sa han tvärt om……

    The Messenger of Allah said:

    ”Verily Muaweyah shall be in the deepest part of Hell from
    where he shall shout ‘Ya Hanan, Ya Manan’ verily I have
    sinned and spread fitnah throughout the earth”.

    Sunni reference: Lisan al Mizan Volume 1 page 284

    The Messenger of Allah said:

    ”Muaweyah has a coffin in the deepest part of Hell, one that
    has a lock on it”.

    Sunni reference: Ansab al Ashraf Volume 5 page 132

    Rasulullah (s) said that `Ali and his people (qawm) are the sign of paradise while Muaweyah and his people are the sign of the Fire”

    Sunni references:

    al-Haythami, Majma` al-Zawa’id, 9:406

    Kanz al-`ummal, 7:63 (Haydarabad)

    =====

    ”The aqeedah in Ahl’ul Sunnah is that the first baghi in Islam was Muaweyah”

    Sunni Reference: Sharh al Maqasid page 306

    ”Muaweyah and his companions are baghis without a doubt and they are Qasitoon, Allah says Qasithoon are in deepest part of Hell”.

    Sunni Reference: al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 22

    .
    Ang Aisha;..Hon hatade Ali a.s djupt och gick till krig mot honom och var därmed olydig mot Allah swt som säger i Koranen:
    ”And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;….” Al-Quran 33:33
    ….Som sagt så konspirerade hon även med Hafsa att gå emot Muhammed saws.Så Allah swt fördömde dom i Koranen(sura tahrim).

    Allah (swt) has condemned Aisha in the Qur’an

    Whilst Allah (swt) refers to Rasulullah’s wives in different guises, Aisha and Hafsa are two wives who have been specifically admonished by Allah (swt) on account of their behaviour.

    ”O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts” (Surah Tahreem verse 1, Yusuf Ali’s translation).

    Detta kan vi läsa i Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434:

    ”Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him. ”It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir,” (We did so) and he replied. ”No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it”.

    Så Aisha erkände,hon och Hafsa ingick i hemlig konspiration för att hålla Ummul momineen Zainab borta från Muhammed saws,….För att uppnå detta så¨ljög dom för Muhammed saws….Står det inte i Koranen ” May Allah’s curse be upon the liars”….

    Allah (swt) exposed the two wives in this verse, so much so that in Surah Tahreem verse 4, He (swt) says:

    ”If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels – will back (him) up”.

    Here is just a handful of Ahl’ul Sunnah texts that confirm Surah Tahreem descended following the planning by Aisha and Hafsa:

    Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6 hadith number 437
    Sunan Nasai Volume 6 page 152
    Musnad Ibn Hanbal Volume 1 page 252
    Tafheemul Qur’an commentary of Surah Tahreem

    Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 437:

    ”Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask ‘Umar about those two ladies who back each other against ‘Allah’s Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we were in Zahran, ‘Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, ”O chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?” Before I could complete my question, he replied, ”They were ‘Aisha and Hafsa.”

    Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he indicated the house where Aishah was living, then said, ”There is the trouble … there is the trouble … there is the trouble … from where the devil’s horns come out …”

    Sahih Bukhari, vol 2 p 128

    Al-Bukhari wrote many strange things in his book about Aishah and her bad manners towards the Prophet to the extent that her father had to beat her until she bled. He also wrote about her pretention towards the Prophet until Allah threatened her with divorce…

    Om hon hade varit en bra fru så hade inte Allah swt hotat med skilsmässa.

    Muhammed saws själv varnar om wahabismens komma

    Sunni Reference: Sahih Bukhari

    Volume 9, Book 88, Number 214:

    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:
    The Prophet said, ”O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The People said, ”And also on our Najd.” He said, ”O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen.” The people said, ”O Allah’s Apostle! And also on our Najd.” I think the third time the Prophet said, ”There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan.”

    Decide Yourself: Wahabi = Shaitan (Satan)

    Kunde skrivit massa mer men då hade det nog blivit mer än wahabis kan svälja.Så detta var lite av varje från abdullah ibn saba till aisha via muawiya och vem som är i ahle al bayt…

Kommentera

E-postadressen publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *

Scroll Up