tbaba1234: ^ The hadiths have been reconciled; even with a shia source that shows that Fatima had reconciled with abu bakr.......of course you conveniently ignored that... What incident did i deny took place exactly??

Initially your first post attempted to portray an "all is well" past and a past where there was no disagreement before the murder of usthman.now you're forced to present ridiculous sunni explanations about the very events the Shia in all truthfulness cite while the sunni either conceal or deny if they're not slapped with the evidence from their books.then they will try to present laughable explanations and outright lies and denial of what is in their books.

Abu bakr's attempt at reconciliation doesn't at all mean Sayyida Fatima (as) was not angry with him as up to her death.authentic sunni and shia hadiths show she was buried at night and abu bakr was prevented from attending her funeral by concealing both the event and her burial place.why honestly ignore that? You went to bring me a fabrication that abu bakr led the funeral prayer.seriously you're wiser than this to believe such nonsense.I am still lost: did abu bakr attend the funeral of Fatima (as) or not according to sunnis? After denying an authentic hadith by Aisha in "sahih bukhari" that abu bakr was kept in the dark and did not attend by presenting a fabrication in sunan bayhaqi that abu bakr led the funeral prayer,the article you earlier presented still sort to present possible reasons why abu bakr could not have attended the funeral! as in common,why the confusion and contradictions? the evidence is right there in bukhari by Aisha confirming Sayyida Fatima (as) died in a state of disagreement and anger with her father,abu bakr.and you want me to believe Aisha was lying or ignorant by acknowledging her father didn't attend the funeral prayer because of that anger? Let me go a step further and assume for argument sake there was a "reconciliation".does that still right abu bakr's wrong to confiscate what didn't belong to him and what belonged to an orphan,the Prophet's (sa) daughter? I don't think so.Allah will still punish him as it is stated in the Quran about those who tamper with what belong to orphans would be punished.all this your beating around the bush is to establish what really? That abu bakr didn't usurp the caliphate? That there wasn't anything wrong with saqifa? That Lady Fatima (as) wasn't angry at abu bakr? You ended up admitting all these disagreements and you went a step further to present explanations that everything is still " well" by telling us about a "reconciliation" contradicted in your hadiths.we are told Lady Fatima (as) was buried at night without the knowledge of abu bakr.you're free to believe whatever report you like to patch the past and salvage the image of your heros.but any sane mind would definitely see that had abu bakr being aware of the funeral,there would be no conflicting reports to the extent of Aisha in "sahih bukhari" supporting the Shia view that abu bakr was snubbed.you can have your story and made up "truth".but facts are facts.patching the past will not erase what was done.

Now let us examine the "reconciliation" proof you brought!I am going to use it against you to show there was in fact no "reconciliation" for six months based on fabricated sunni account.

Here is the sunni account:

"When Fatimah was ill, Abu Bakr visited her and sought her permission (to see her). So Ali called out, "O Fatimah, Abu Bakr here seeks your permission (to see you)." Fatimah asked, "Would you like that I permit him?" Ali replied, "Yes." Thus, she permitted him and he entered seeking her contentment saying, "By Allah I have not left home, wealth, family and kin other than in pursuit of the pleasure of Allah, the pleasure of His Messenger, and the pleasure of you all, the Ahl al-Bayt. So he continued trying to make her happy until she was well pleased.
[Sunan al-Baihaqi, Hadith 12515]

Note the following points according to the fabrication of "reconciliation" in sunan bayhaqi:

1. Abu bakr came to cry and beg for forgiveness.

2. Sayyida Fatima (as) was on her deathbed and still had to consult Imam Ali (as) simply to allow him presence.what happens to the almost six months that had elapsed? State of anger.it further shows that Sayyida Fatima (as) was still angry and was not convinced by abu bakr's false testimony that prophets done leave inheritance which is a testimony contradicting the Quran too.furthermore abu bakr confiscated fadak,reconciliation or not.

3. None of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) related any hadith Sayyida Fatima (as) became pleased.why? Ofcouse who would be proud to justify abu bakr's treatment of the Prophet's daughter and her anger with him till death? Not even sunnis! So in order to save abu bakr's image fabricating a sentence or two to counter the Shia is "good" business!

4. Imam Ali (as) is reported in Sunni text to have given bayya after Sayyida Zahra 's (as) death.why? And why was her funeral secret?

5. Why did Aisha of all people unaware her father reconciled with the Prophet's daughter? Aisha narrated that Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry till her death and was buried secretly because of her father,abu bakr. Other accounts (note quoted) also relate umar's fury when he discovered Imam Ali (as) buried his wife secretly.

[size=14pt]SCANDAL: the alleged Shia hadith sunnis ignorantly use to claim reconciliation does not exist![/size]

"The book Hujjaajus Saalikeen is unknown in the Shi’a world"

"The stupid Ahlelbayt.com (an anti-Shia website by Sunnis) team obsession with cutting and pasting whatever they can without substantiating it first has caught up with them! To describe Hujjaajus Saalikeen a Shi'a source was a lie that was first perpetuated by Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi in his book Tauhfa Ithna Ashari. Amazingly he was never able to actually produce the book, page, and publisher details as evidence. Sadly naive Sunnis have ever since kept copying the same text, without even trying to prove the existence of the book! Ahlelbayt.com has yet again done the same. It is indeed unfortunate that in their efforts to exonerate Abu Bakr, they even fabricate the existence of books, this is indeed taking the notion of ‘by any means necessary’ to its most extreme level."

Courtesy:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap10.php

Many of your references are unverifiable, built on quick sand... Your assumption that Fatima's (RA) must have known about the inheritance holds no weight...

You should answer,who was the THIEF:

1. Sayyida Fatima (as),the daughter of the Prophet (sa) who refused to accept abu bakr's testimony up till her death that prophets leave no inheritance because the Quran cites prophets leaving inheritance.she is the among the four best women in creation as described by the Prophet (sa).the land of fadak was even given to her by her father (sa) before his death.

OR:

2. Abu bakr who invented a testimony that contradicts the Quran and based on hadiths notable sahaba admit they never heard of that from the Prophet (sa).and a testimony the Prophet's (sa) daughter who wanted her inheritance her father (the Prophet) left her never heard from her father.is it possible I would leave inheritance without letting my child be aware he/she cannot inherit from me? If the Prophet (sa) according to abu bakr and sunnis didn't educate his daughter on such a basic rule,then who is deceiving who?

Who is the THIEF?!!!

Mr. Tbaba,don't be a proud dweller in ignorance thinking you're smart.those you're copying are arab fanatics with the raging blood of quraysh jahiliyyah under the label of "sunni islam".

Your attempt at a rebuttal is poor to say the least, I think the evidence does not support the shia position at all... This can be done for all of the shia claims.

I pray you change your mind because I believe you're smarter than adopting stubbornness as your path.the facts are in sunni books and the sunni positions and lies are quick sand.

Imagine fabricating a book to claim a shia hadith say abu bakr reconciled with Sayyida Fatima (as).initially I never thought of verifying the existence of the so called "hujjajus salikeen" claimed to be a "shia book".I have never myself heard of such a book.when I did,you saw the result in the above stated.perhaps this lie should trigger a nerve in tbaba to do his homework well and not take all the sunni crap and brainwashing for "truth" blindly.

sorry cos ive been away
@lagosshia, what is imamate and what makes it a fundamental in islam
2, did Ali (ra) use' words' for his predicessors
3, Everyman is fallable. i never heard of umar not being fallable even if it is said, i dont believe that. the Quran is clear on that. so what is the basis of "infallability" in shai belief.
4.. do shai see sunni as being astray or just havin wrong info that makes them support those is wrong besides which "all muslims are same"
5, also as in the other tread, what is it about "the last imam (shia) comming back before Jesus.

6. If Allah (swt) mentions protecting the Quran, the hadith is very vulnerable. not all should be trusted. so the past is hard to be validated. except there is an authentic hadith that says Alli accused Abubakr... its is safe to let those issues be afterall it does not add to my faith nor reduce it but can only promote hatred. In islam, we stand against injustice so Alli must have said something. We share love so if all is true as you said, Fatima/Alli will be willing to forgive like the prophet all his life-it is about the unity of muslims....

ghazzal: sorry cos ive been away
@lagosshia, what is imamate and what makes it a fundamental in islam
2, did Ali (ra) use' words' for his predicessors
3, Everyman is fallable. i never heard of umar not being fallable even if it is said, i dont believe that. the Quran is clear on that. so what is the basis of "infallability" in shai belief.
4.. do shai see sunni as being astray or just havin wrong info that makes them support those is wrong besides which "all muslims are same"
5, also as in the other tread, what is it about "the last imam (shia) comming back before Jesus.

6. If Allah (swt) mentions protecting the Quran, the hadith is very vulnerable. not all should be trusted. so the past is hard to be validated. except there is an authentic hadith that says Alli accused Abubakr... its is safe to let those issues be afterall it does not add to my faith nor reduce it but can only promote hatred. In islam, we stand against injustice so Alli must have said something. We share love so if all is true as you said, Fatima/Alli will be willing to forgive like the prophet all his life-it is about the unity of muslims....

Brother,each of the points/questions you raised can be answered satisfactorily by me or any Shia with the needed or little knowledge.however it would take me much time because your questions are unrelated and diverse subjects.if it is okay for me to provide you with materials you can read to answer your questions on the subjects you raised,let me know.if you insist I answer them let me know too and that would take some time for me to respond to every point with the needed evidence hopefully to your satisfaction.

LagosShia:

[Holy Quran 9:101]
"Among the Arabs around you, there are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, but we know them. We will double the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution".

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

LagosShia, that’s all very well but my question relates to a specific group.

the “ arabs around you” and “companions” (who you know by the time the Prophet (SAW) died numbered in the thousands) is too general. that is why I used the phrase “core group”. people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (r.a) i.e the very people upon whom the responsibility of the carrying on the message will IMMEDIATELY fall upon when the Prophet (SAW) is no more.

F00028:


LagosShia, that’s all very well but my question relates to a specific group.

the “ arabs around you” and “companions” (who you know by the time the Prophet (SAW) died numbered in the thousands) is too general. that is why I used the phrase “core group”. people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (r.a) i.e the very people upon whom the responsibility of the carrying on the message will IMMEDIATELY fall upon when the Prophet (SAW) is no more.

Sorry I didn't get your point or rather the point you're trying to make.please clarify.

Also the responsibility on who is to carry on the message after the Prophet (sa) is specifically stated in Hadith ath-Thaqalain and the companions even though would have a role to play are not the ones tasked to lead that mission.the companions themselves have who they should look up to.and we saw that exemplified by major and righteous companions of the Prophet (sa) who were the pioneer Shia like Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Ammar Ibn Yassir,al-Miqdad Ibn Aswad,Salman al-Farisi,Bilal al-Habashi,Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari,Hujr Ibn Adi,Zuhair Ibn Qain (ra) etc.so please check Hadith ath-Thaqalain.

@lagosshia, you can give the material also answer the questions.

ghazzal: @lagosshia, you can give the material also answer the questions.

Ok.no problem.

ghazzal: sorry cos ive been away
@lagosshia, what is imamate and what makes it a fundamental in islam

Based on the Quran,when Allah (swt) created man,is to function as His calipha (representative) on this earth.we are all the representatives or ambassadors of Allah (swt) on earth.

Among men,Allah (swt) have chosen a select group of pious men who are His messengers and prophets to guide mankind.the first covenant Allah (swt) made with Adam (as) when the latter was sent to earth is that Allah (swt) will provide mankind with guidance to follow.these select group of men from Adam to Noah to Ibrahim to Musa to Issa to Muhammad (as) are the direct representatives of Allah (swt) that mankind is to look for guidance.not only,when Allah's chosen servant is among us,then we must also obey that man as our leader.we saw in the Quran a clear evidence of imamate (divine leadership) in the case of Prophet Ibrahim (as).he was already a prophet and when he was successfully tried by Allah (swt),Allah (swt) informed him that He is elevating Prophet Ibrahim (as) to the station of divine imamate for the whole of mankind.in that sense you even read in the bible that every household would be blessed through Abraham (as).in reality Islam,christianity and judaism all hold Prophet Ibrahim (as) as the/a central figure.if Prophet Ibrahim (as) is to be alive,all adherents of the three faiths have to follow his leadership and guidance.

Now we come to Prophet Muhammad (sa).we read in the Quran that Allah (swt) have chosen Adam and the family of Noah,Imran and Abraham over mankind;offspring one after the other.note the emphasis of how Allah (swt) have chosen and purified a line of prophets and messengers from Adam (as) to Noah to Ibrahim to Isaac and Ishmael to Musa and Issa and to Muhammad (sa).

Now after Muhammad (sa),what happens? Muhammad (sa) is the last prophet of Allah (swt) and after whom no new revelation shall be revealed.the deen is completed and perfected.Prophet Muhammad (sa) established the ummah and led it for a period of 23 years as political,military,religious and spiritual leader chosen by Allah (swt) and of which we must accept and have no choice therein if we are true followers of Muhammad (sa) and believers of Islam.the question comes : after Muhammad (sa) who takes the mantle of divine leadership? Who does Allah (swt) chose to continue this line of divine leadership to guide mankind? The religion is complete and perfect but is mankind's understanding and need for a guide complete and no need for someone chosen by Allah (swt) to continue the path of Muhammad (sa) needless? Did Allah (swt) choose and did Muhammad (swt) nominate a success who would be both a spiritual and worldly guide? From all indication both in the Quran and authentic hadiths,Prophet Muhammad (sa) with divine instruction did nominate a successor and identified those we should look up to.it is inconceivable that a complete and perfect religion of Islam have no system or method of succession in leadership and the Prophet (sa) would die without guiding or teaching the muslims of what to do aftert him or who to look up to.when we examine the sunni caliphate starting with abu bakr to umar and usthman,we see confusion in leadership and crisis in government of the muslim nation.the excuse of shura (consultation) falls flat on its face when from the start you examine how abu bakr came to power in saqifa-there was no majority and no consultation.that is an analysis on its own.so I'd concentrate on the belief in Imamate as a fundamental belief in Islam.I would present you with needed materials on the subject of imamate to clarify all that you may want to know.

"The Quran and Imamate"
http://www.followislam.net/quran/quran-imamate.htm

"Quran Verses and the Imamate of Imam Ali (as)"
http://shiasisters.net/articles_submissions/quran_verses_about_imam_alis_imamate.html

Imamate: Divine Guide in Islam
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/imamate/en/index.php

2, did Ali (ra) use' words' for his predicessors

why Imam Ali (as) not protest with the prophetic traditions in his favor as successor that his contemporaries knew and testified to against the usurpation of his right?

http://en.rafed.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5870:why-did-he-not-protest-with-the-prophets-traditions&catid=77:beliefs&Itemid=842

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam01_ali/a_victim_lost_in_saqifah/30.htm

instances and occassions Imam Ali (as) reminded people of his right to the caliphate usurped by abu bakr and also protests by other members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as)

http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/narrations.htm

3, Everyman is fallable. i never heard of umar not being fallable even if it is said, i dont believe that. the Quran is clear on that. so what is the basis of "infallability" in shai belief.

"Infallibility of the Prophets (Part I)"

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/2.html

"Infallibility of the Prophets (Part II)"
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/3.html

"Leadership and Infallibility (Part 1 of 2)"
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/5.html

"Leadership and Infallibility (Part 2 of 2)"
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter1b/6.html

4.. do shai see sunni as being astray or just havin wrong info that makes them support those is wrong besides which "all muslims are same"

it depends.

Sunnis are not astray in the sense of describing non-muslims.the Sunnis are misguided on certain issues.the reason for this is in two forms:

1. Sunnis who can be see as unfortunate and victims of a distorted history.

2.Sunnis who are opposed to the truth even after knowledge have come unto them.

The second form is worse and can therefore not use ignorance or lack of knowledge as excuse to save themselves.

In all cases,as muslims we propagate the truth.the Quran makes it clear that guidance is from God and Allah (swt) knows who have gone astray and those who are rightly guided.so we shouldn't be concerned on branding people or identifying who is astray and who is rightly guided.Allah (swt) knows best.however we should strive to identify the truth ourselves and propagate it.as Imam Ali (as) said:"know the truth and you will know those who follow it".

5, also as in the other tread, what is it about "the last imam (shia) comming back before Jesus.

The last Imam or the 12th Imam from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) is the "mahdi" to the Shia.he has beinh born and is in concealment just as Prophet Khidr (as) and Jesus (as) are.he will return to restore justice and truth on earth alongside Prophet Issa (as).

Muslims,Sunni and Shia are unanimous in the belief on the coming of Imam Mahdi (as) alongside Jesus (as).however Sunnis who do not believe in imamate as a result or a consequence of what happened in saqifa banu saeda and the usurpation of the caliphate from the first imam,Imam Ali (as),do not believe the 12th Imam of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and from the progeny of Imam Ali (as) is the "mahdi".Sunnis believe he hasn't yet being born and would be born in future just before the return of Jesus (as).ironically,Sunnis too believe the mahdi who "hasn't being born yet" according to them was foretold by the Prophet (sa) to be a descendant of Imam Ali (as) and his wife,Sayyida Fatima (as),daughter of Prophet Muhammad (sa).

6. If Allah (swt) mentions protecting the Quran, the hadith is very vulnerable. not all should be trusted. so the past is hard to be validated. except there is an authentic hadith that says Alli accused Abubakr... its is safe to let those issues be afterall it does not add to my faith nor reduce it but can only promote hatred. In islam, we stand against injustice so Alli must have said something. We share love so if all is true as you said, Fatima/Alli will be willing to forgive like the prophet all his life-it is about the unity of muslims....

Firstly,all the hadiths used to validate these issues are authentic based on the science of hadith,and have survived the test of time and attempts to either distort them,conceal or confuse them.secondly,the hadiths are found in both Shia and Sunni sources.take for instance Hadith Ghadir Khumm.in both Shia and Sunni sources,the hadith is "mutawatir".take also Hadith al-Manzila.this hadith is also agreed and accepted by both Shia and Sunni alike.you can google all these hadiths and names I'm making reference to.in hadith al-manzila,the Prophet Muhammad (sa) is reported to have said Imam Ali (as) is to him what Prophet Harun (as) was to Prophet Musa (as) except there is no prophet after him (i.e. Prophet Muhammad).now this is not hard to identify what Harun (as) was to Musa (as) because the Quran makes it clear what Harun (as) was to Musa (as).reading further on Hadith al-Manzila should give you more details.

As for unity,caliphate is a worldly aspect of imamate.divine imamate encompasses both the spiritual and the worldly aspects of leadership.caliphate on the other hand deals only with political or worldly leadership/rulership.with or without caliphate a divine imam chosen by Allah (swt) is an imam.likewise whether or not people reject a prophet like the jews reject both Jesus (as) and Muhammad (sa) and Jesus (as) never held political leadership,they're still prophets of Allah (swt).whether christians believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (sa) or not,he is still a mercy unto mankind because he accomplished what he was sent for and followed the will of Allah (swt).likewise in imamate,the 12 Holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) acted as divine guides for the muslim ummah,propagating the true teachings of Islam and the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (sa).even though the caliphate was usurped,the 12 Imams (as) never refused to offer guidance and knowledge to the muslims.we see this exemplified by Imam Ali (as) during the reign of abu bakr and umar.Imam Ali (as) would offer guidance for the benefit of the ummah of Muhammad (sa) and that should not be seen as approval of the caliphates of abu bakr and umar.also,a reason why the Imams did not raise the sword to fight for the caliphate is for two main reasons:

1. For them not to instigate civil war among the muslims and be seen as responsible for shedding the blood of muslims and dividing the ummah.

2. Imamate is bestowed upon them by Allah (swt).so whether people believe or disbelieve as in the case of prophethood that will not change anything.Allah (swt) has given humans the freedom to believe or disbelieve and the Quran states "let him who wills believe and let him who wills disbelieve".

LagosShia:

so please check Hadith ath-Thaqalain.

do you have a link I can check?

F00028:

do you have a link I can check?

Sure!

http://www.al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM

https://www.nairaland.com/365402/hadith-thaqalayn

You can also watch this:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=468H9X7VDsY

Salam,

I just saw this, You write a lot but convey very little, No one denied any authentic hadith, Aisha's (RA) narration is based on her understanding of the situation, there are other authentic narrations that show other parts of the story which are also important to arrive at a full picture. You can't take one and deny another. Authenticity means it has been accurately reported from the speaker.... The speaker in this case is Aisha(RA).

Also, The major conflicts in the ummah occured after the death of Uthman, i do not think any of what has been discussed negates this, you have to put fatima's (RA) anger in the correct context. Abu bakr (RA) reconciled with her according to authentic narrations so i can't throw that away either....

Secret burial?? I do not think this indicates a rift plus there is some doubt about this... There is a narration from Ibn Abbas:

sahi bukhari 2.339:
Narrated Ibn `Abbas. A person died and Allah's Apostle used to visit him. He died at night and (the people) buried him at night. In the morning they informed the Prophet (about his death). He said, "What prevented you from informing me?" They replied, "It was night and it was a dark night and so we disliked to trouble you." The Prophet went to his grave and offered the (funeral) prayer.

Fatima (RA) died at night and it is possible that Ali (RA) did not want to trouble Abu bakr (RA) and buried her alone. It is true that Hadrat Fatima binte Rasool Allah (saws) was buried at night; but it is absolutely a false notion that she was buried at night so as to avert a confrontation with Hadrat Abu Bakr (r.a.) and/or Hadrat Umar (r.a.)!!!

There are other narrations that suggest that ASma (RA) (wife of Abu bakr was Aisha's nurse and that Abu bakr held the Salat Janazah....

"Then Hz. Ali [ra] said to Asma Bint Umais[ra] (After Hz. Jaffar[ra] died she married Ammerul Momineen Hz. Abu Bakr [ra] and was in his nikah at this time) To give bath to the body of hz. Fatima[ra] and to put scent on her body and covered her body in the shroud, then prayed her Salah-e-Janaza and buried her in Janat ul Baqi." Ibn Babuia say that this a truth that she was buried in her house and Banu Umaiyah extended the mosque the house became the part of Masjid.
Kashf ul Gama Page #149
Almost the same is recorded in Alaam alwari page#159 through Kashf Al Asrar page # 26.


Hammad narrate from Ibrahim Nakhi that Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] lead salah-e-Janaza of Bibi Fatima Bint Muhammad[ra] with four Takbeers [ Tabqaat(Ibn Saad) Vol 8, Page 16] [Sahah Abdul Aziz in his book Toohfa Isna Ashri Page 445]

Hz. Fatima[ra] when she died, she was buried that very night, Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] was brought forward.[Behikey Al Jawahar Al Naki Vol 4 page 29]

When Hz. Fatima[ra] died Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] and Hz. Umar[ra] came, Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] asked Hz. Ali[ra] to lead prayer, Hz.Ali[ra] declined and said in presence of Khalifa of RasoolAllah[saw] how can I. [ Ali Mutaqi Al Nahdi author of Kanzal Amaal Vol 6 page 318, narrated through Khatib from Baqir]

Abu bakr could have led the janazah after she was already buried plus the narrations suggest that Asma (RA), the wife of Abu bakr was the one who washed the body ...

And Allah knows best!

to your other points...

i. Reconciliation does not indicate crying and begging

ii. ALi (RA) was Fatima's(RA) husband so seeking permission from him is not unsual, is it??

iii. Fatima (RA) anger must be put in its proper context and not exaggerated..

iv. Aish (RA) not knowing about a reconciliation in Fatima's house is hardly suprising, is it??

Also, Ali became Khilafah and did not take fadak.... What does that show?? He was entitled to it if you are correct, since it belonged to his wife, right

MORE SHIA SOURCES:
Shia records also confirm that Hadrat Fatima (radhiallahu anha) became pleased with Hadrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

Ibn-i-Mitham writes in the context of interpreting Nahj-ul-Balaga: “Abu Bakr said to Fatima: Whatever belonged to your father, belongs to you as well. The Messenger of Allah kept something apart out of his personal share (fadak) and distributed the rest of it in the name of Allah. By Allah, I’ll do with you what he used to do with you. Fatima was pleased to hear these words, a confirmation of the Prophetic practice” { Ibn-i-Mitham al-Buhrani, Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaga, Vol.5, P. 107,109 , Tehran }

” إن أبا بكر قال لها : إن لك ما لأبيك ، كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يأخذ من فدك قوتكم ، ويقسم الباقي ويحمل منه في سبيل الله ، ولك على الله أن أصنع بها كما كان يصنع ، فرضيت بذلك وأخذت العهد عليه به

The Imaamiyyah Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘ Oh daughter of Rasulullah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said:’ Do with it as my father, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done.’ Abu Bakr said:’ I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘ O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them ( Fatima and others of the Ahl-e-Bait) expenses there from and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

Dude, all these unneccessary anger towards Abu bakr (RA) is unwarranted since fatima (RA) reconciled with him...

Q.E.D

@ghazzal @ F008

I would suggest that you brothers become a bit knowledgeable in the history from our perspective before looking at shia sources so that you do not get deceived and confused by the some of these propaganda hadiths and unauthenticated stories thrown around by the shia....

@lagosshia

You and I can not agree on these issues, we will keep going around in circles....

tbaba1234: @ghazzal @ F008

I would suggest that you brothers become a bit knowledgeable in the history...

will do.

tbaba1234: @ghazzal @ F008

I would suggest that you brothers become a bit knowledgeable in the history from our perspective before looking at shia sources so that you do not get deceived and confused by the some of these propaganda hadiths and unauthenticated stories thrown around by the shia....

@lagosshia

You and I can not agree on these issues, we will keep going around in circles....

Obviously you're now bent on going in circles.but be very sure that when you're debating any Shia with the least know in his beliefs,you'd have only yourself going in circles.you won't take me along because you're only harming your case.

tbaba1234: Salam,
I just saw this, You write a lot but convey very little, No one denied any authentic hadith, Aisha's (RA) narration is based on her understanding of the situation, there are other authentic narrations that show other parts of the story which are also important to arrive at a full picture. You can't take one and deny another. Authenticity means it has been accurately reported from the speaker.... The speaker in this case is Aisha(RA).

I'm really suprised you can go down such ridiculous path.

Aisha made it clear her own father didn't attend the funeral after your alleged reconciliation.she also said Sayyeda Fatima (as) was angry till she died.and she was buried at night because of her anger not wanting abu bakr to be present.

Was Aisha hallucinating or making up these stories? You're just trying to keep dragging the issues clinching at straws.

It is very funny you accuse me of making little sense while conveying much.yet with all your posts,your exact Sunni approach is aimed at presenting contradictory ideas and reports to paint a confused story where you can easily end up withdrawing from the debate and say we cannot arrive at a convincing conclusion.such tactic is childish and not befitting for people who claim Islam,the complete and perfect religion,to thread.it is embarassing.

Also, The major conflicts in the ummah occured after the death of Uthman, i do not think any of what has been discussed negates this, you have to put fatima's (RA) anger in the correct context. Abu bakr (RA) reconciled with her according to authentic narrations so i can't throw that away either....

And abu bakr didn't reconcile; also according to another authentic narration in bukhari.so which is true? Ofcourse the one reported in sunan bayhaqi is fabrication and not authentic as earlier explained.other reports too clearly confirm the report by Aisha in "sahih bukhari".

Lol @ "anger in correct" context!

You have to make up your mind.reconciliation or no reconciliation?

And if you must answer that,then throw away the report by Aisha in bukhari.and for the sake of further clarification,you can check this website on the subject of fadak to review more narrations showing no reconciliation:

www.abubakr.org

Secret burial?? I do not think this indicates a rift plus there is some doubt about this... There is a narration from Ibn Abbas:

Oh,yet again this confused Sunni patching history is denying what is found in mighty "sahih bukhari" reported by Aisha.

Hmmm...well Sunnis are good in hallucination and they may have learnt that from Aisha perhaps.I'm saying this and talking like this because tbaba is purposely shunning reasoning.perhaps mockery is the only way to make him wake up.he doesn't want to admit that the narration by Aisha is wrong because it is authentic,yet he wants to convince us all was well.no it wasn't because the report by Aisha proves that.you don't accept two contradictory reports and tell us Aisha was seeing things her own way.who's lying?

sahi bukhari 2.339:
Narrated Ibn `Abbas. A person died and Allah's Apostle used to visit him. He died at night and (the people) buried him at night. In the morning they informed the Prophet (about his death). He said, "What prevented you from informing me?" They replied, "It was night and it was a dark night and so we disliked to trouble you." The Prophet went to his grave and offered the (funeral) prayer.

Fatima (RA) died at night and it is possible that Ali (RA) did not want to trouble Abu bakr (RA) and buried her alone. It is true that Hadrat Fatima binte Rasool Allah (saws) was buried at night; but it is absolutely a false notion that she was buried at night so as to avert a confrontation with Hadrat Abu Bakr (r.a.) and/or Hadrat Umar (r.a.)!!!

Where did you read she died at night?

The daughter of the Prophet (sa) died and was buried at night and the "successor of the Prophet" didn't attend the funeral.

Perhaps to clear our confusion,which is the tactic of doubt you're using to make sure we derive at no conclusion,you can do us a favor and bring us something by someone quoting the reason why Imam Ali (as) decided to bury her at night.burying at night isn't a common practice.

There are other narrations that suggest that ASma (RA) (wife of Abu bakr was Aisha's nurse and that Abu bakr held the Salat Janazah....

"Then Hz. Ali [ra] said to Asma Bint Umais[ra] (After Hz. Jaffar[ra] died she married Ammerul Momineen Hz. Abu Bakr [ra] and was in his nikah at this time) To give bath to the body of hz. Fatima[ra] and to put scent on her body and covered her body in the shroud, then prayed her Salah-e-Janaza and buried her in Janat ul Baqi." Ibn Babuia say that this a truth that she was buried in her house and Banu Umaiyah extended the mosque the house became the part of Masjid.
Kashf ul Gama Page #149
Almost the same is recorded in Alaam alwari page#159 through Kashf Al Asrar page # 26.


Hammad narrate from Ibrahim Nakhi that Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] lead salah-e-Janaza of Bibi Fatima Bint Muhammad[ra] with four Takbeers [ Tabqaat(Ibn Saad) Vol 8, Page 16] [Sahah Abdul Aziz in his book Toohfa Isna Ashri Page 445]

Hz. Fatima[ra] when she died, she was buried that very night, Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] was brought forward.[Behikey Al Jawahar Al Naki Vol 4 page 29]

When Hz. Fatima[ra] died Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] and Hz. Umar[ra] came, Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] asked Hz. Ali[ra] to lead prayer, Hz.Ali[ra] declined and said in presence of Khalifa of RasoolAllah[saw] how can I. [ Ali Mutaqi Al Nahdi author of Kanzal Amaal Vol 6 page 318, narrated through Khatib from Baqir]

Abu bakr could have led the janazah after she was already buried plus the narrations suggest that Asma (RA), the wife of Abu bakr was the one who washed the body ...

And Allah knows best!

Asma Bint Umais (ra) was also the wife of Imam Ali's (as) brother who was martyred.so her closeness with Imam Ali (as) and his wife have nothing to do with abu bakr.in fact the son of abu bakr,Muhammad (ra) was a Shia of Imam Ali (ad) who was opposed to his father and supported Imam Ali (as)

Oh yeah,we surely know Allah (swt) knows best.but can't you tell us :did abu bakr lead her funeral prayer or not? Yes or no? Abu bakr could have led the funeral prayer? Could? Why "could" when report in bukhari deny that? The sunni tactic is very clear: cast as much doubt as possible using the confused sunni mind aimed at salvaging the image of their heros to hide the truth even if that means denying authentic hadiths and "authenticating" unauthentic hadith and looking foolish!

And this is the same person accusing me of making little sense and using many words.I will summarize how many points he has purposefully avoided to answer while obviously seeking aid with copy/paste.

His post and beating around the bush reflect a defeated soul,suffocating to avoid the obvious truth using confusion he is deliberately creating to escape and avoid the clear and absolute truth.

to your other points...

i. Reconciliation does not indicate crying and begging

Even with the crying and begging of abu bakr in the fabrication of sunan al bayhaqi,it is still a lie.crying and begging wouldn't help your case either.the point is irrelevant.

ii. ALi (RA) was Fatima's(RA) husband so seeking permission from him is not unsual, is it??

If everything was well,she wouldn't have made the statement she made on permitting abu bakr to enter.I noted that point because even according to the fabrication in al bayhaqi,it still clearly reveals that to the moment Sayyida Fatima (as) was on her deathbed that was when abu bakr allegedly came begging.so what happens to about 6 months that elapsed?anger!

iii. Fatima (RA) anger must be put in its proper context and not exaggerated..

Anger in context! That should be the title of a sunni movie!

iv. Aish (RA) not knowing about a reconciliation in Fatima's house is hardly suprising, is it??

It is impossible because if a reconciliation had taken place she would have heard.she was living in medina for God sake.she wasn't in mars.and she still went ahead to report the contrary of what you're claiming and she wasn't ever told about reconciliation? Then who reported the fabrication in sunan al bayhaqi? That should shed light the al bayhaqi report is false.it is either one of the three people present that must have reported the event of the alleged reconciliation for the story alleging reconciliation to be given a thought. When a sunni cannot deny or conceal historical events,he tries ti play with words or details.the same thing in Hadith of the Pond of Khumm on the word "mawla".and he further ignore the Hadith al-Manzila.

It is suprising how Aisha even knew that her father didn't attend the funeral and Sayyida Fatima (as) was buried at night because to avoid her father's presence,yet she wasn't aware there was reconciliation.how did she know those information that her father didn't attend and there was night burial,still after the alleged reconciliation?who's dreamming here?!and let me also remind of the fact that Sayyida Fatima (as) up to this day has three spots as her possible burial place because of this incident with abu bakr and the secret burial that resulted.

Also, Ali became Khilafah and did not take fadak.... What does that show?? He was entitled to it if you are correct, since it belonged to his wife, right

You should spare us the deliberate ignorance you're deceiving yourself with.answer us who is the THIEF regarding fadak and all this argument is over!

Imam Ali (as) during his reign as khalifa did not reverse many wrong policies of the previous caliphs (abu bakr,umar and usthman) because of the political upheaval caused by those following the legacy of saqifa and abu bakr.Aisha,the daughter of the same abu bakr,fought the battle of jamal against Imam Ali (as) under the false pretext of avenging usthman's murder.muawiya waged the battle of siffeen.then there was the battle of nahrwan.Imam Ali (as) was opposed when he wanted to stop Umar's bid'ah of taraweeh.and you want him to return fadak?

But wait a minute!didn't you just say there was "reconciliation"? And abu bakr gave to Sayyida Fatima (as) benefit from fadak and everything was ok? So what's the use of your question?

MORE SHIA SOURCES:
Shia records also confirm that Hadrat Fatima (radhiallahu anha) became pleased with Hadrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu).

Ibn-i-Mitham writes in the context of interpreting Nahj-ul-Balaga: “Abu Bakr said to Fatima: Whatever belonged to your father, belongs to you as well. The Messenger of Allah kept something apart out of his personal share (fadak) and distributed the rest of it in the name of Allah. By Allah, I’ll do with you what he used to do with you. Fatima was pleased to hear these words, a confirmation of the Prophetic practice” { Ibn-i-Mitham al-Buhrani, Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaga, Vol.5, P. 107,109 , Tehran }

” إن أبا بكر قال لها : إن لك ما لأبيك ، كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يأخذ من فدك قوتكم ، ويقسم الباقي ويحمل منه في سبيل الله ، ولك على الله أن أصنع بها كما كان يصنع ، فرضيت بذلك وأخذت العهد عليه به

The Imaamiyyah Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states:

“Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘ Oh daughter of Rasulullah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said:’ Do with it as my father, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had done.’ Abu Bakr said:’ I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘ O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them ( Fatima and others of the Ahl-e-Bait) expenses there from and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

I am now forced to say it as it is: you're lying.

I have earlier proved the so called Shia book of "hujjajus salikeen" doesn't exist.why are you still referring to it? Where was this book published and written by who?

You're referring to an interpretation of Ibn Mitham in explaning nahjul balagha as Shia "hadith"? As in seriously tbaba you can be this dishonest? I can go to bukhari,bring out a hadith,interpret it and then call my own interpretation a "sunni hadith"? Who was Ibn Mitham? Was he Shia? No sir,he wasn't !therefore his interpretation is his opinion and not "shia hadith".respect yourself.

Dude, all these unneccessary anger towards Abu bakr (RA) is unwarranted since fatima (RA) reconciled with him...

Q.E.D

Answer the folowing:

1. Was Sayyida Fatima (as) angry with abu bakr or not?

2. Did abu bakr lead her funeral prayer or not?

3. Was there reconciliation or not?

4. Who was the THIEF regarding ownership of fadak?

5. Is Aisha's hadith in bukhari authentic or not?

6.If I may add a sixth question,you speculated that Aisha may not have heard of the alleged reconciliation.don't you think it is more logical to conclude in the light of thew facts Aisha revealed to have taken place after the alleged reconciliation to say that after the alleged reconciliation,Sayyida Fatima (as) still didn't feel happy and the alleged reconciliation was futile in the end of it all because she insisted on burial at night,secret burial place and excluding abu bakr from taking part based on Aisha's words.so why didn't you make such speculation? My point is deal with the facts at hand and stop playing the gaming of speculation to suit your sunni imaginations.if you want to depend on speculation,I can also speculate.you either deal with facts or you spare us your corrupt mindset.

Confusion galore by tbaba!

[size=14pt]Please Watch-Very Important[/size]

"More pathetic lies and cover ups from the so called 'ahlus sunnah' of Iran. Bakris normally come up with new excuses every month to try and refute the narrations which destroy the character of their beloved abu bakr. When reading these narrations which are sahih in their books, we find abu bakr to be an unjust usurper, or in other words a THIEF."

"Exposing Iranian bakris - Fatima (s.a) was furious at abu bakr and died in this state - ENG SUBS":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=A8dx3gvgOsE&fulldescription=1


Abu bakr vs Fatema Al-Zahra (a.s),Examining the Facts from Sunni Narrations - ENG SUBS":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=I4ar2AphvVk

Zhul-Fiqar.:
[size=14pt]Please Watch-Very Important[/size]

"More pathetic lies and cover ups from the so called 'ahlus sunnah' of Iran. Bakris normally come up with new excuses every month to try and refute the narrations which destroy the character of their beloved abu bakr. When reading these narrations which are sahih in their books, we find abu bakr to be an unjust usurper, or in other words a THIEF."

"Exposing Iranian bakris - Fatima (s.a) was furious at abu bakr and died in this state - ENG SUBS":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=A8dx3gvgOsE&fulldescription=1


Abu bakr vs Fatema Al-Zahra (a.s),Examining the Facts from Sunni Narrations - ENG SUBS":

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=I4ar2AphvVk

For the uninformed,the term "BAKRI" means "follower of abu bakr-another word referring to "Sunnis".

@lagosshia i was trying to reply but has upload limit. i have reservations so i will reply soon without coating

Sometimes it bothers one when repititions becomes the only card people have to play.

First, fatima specifically ask for a private burial not because she had a qurrel with anybody but because of her shy nature in due time I will find the narration covering how she was even concerned about who will give her the ritual birth after she died. What continue to bother one is that this people look at actions of other people and then read their own meaning into why they behaved as such, this sort of behavior reminds one of the what atheist do, whenever they want to ridicule Islam. Now these shias would quickly ignore their own hadiths which specifically states the position of Abubakr with regards to fadak that prophet leave no inheritance this is further compounded by their hadiths that states women do no inherit landed property.


1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:

    “The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)


This issue of Fatima and Abubakr may Allah be pleased with them was trashed out here

www.nairaland.com/661419/matyrdom-lady-fatimadaughter-prophet-muhammad/1

ghazzal: @lagosshia i was trying to reply but has upload limit. i have reservations so i will reply soon without coating

Im of no group but to be among the only 1 of 72 groups that is truely guided, one must be informed.

"History" is the only thing that has mislead the pple of the book. The information you can never tell the truth of it, a scheme perfectly played in the past is "HISTORY". i hate history so i dont refer to it except in this case, with reference to Quran/Hadith. We believe the Quran is God`s word cos of the Miracle in it(information no man can have knowledge of(it even debunked HISTORY), We believe Hadith cos it conforms with the Quran of its logical with reference to Quranic teachings else, Im sorry!

1a: Imamate is a prove to the Christians that Muhammed is a Prophet because the Promise of God will always come to past. If Imamate is true, and no one can outwit Gods plan,and leadership is not only spiritual, then the only logic is to conclude that Abubakr/Umar/Uthman also have their root from Abraham. else, how can man scheme and outwit Gods promise, that is not possible-non islamic idea.

that their leadership has issues could be a test from God. it is not a reason to conclude that they are not meant to be Leaders. History Im sorry can not be taken hook-line-sinker its dangerous. If the act/Word is not of Muhammed, its definately history, and the truth can nt be verified.

Also the verse for the ones that pray and give Sakat, maybe it was revealed cos of Ali(RA) was it only for Ali, Its applicable for all Muslims i suppose. Thats why if we want to pray Jammah, we seek for the best among us!.

1b. The last link is under construction. The Quran teaches that Truth must be told even if it is against oneselve, also Muslims are meant to stand against opression in the Land. Based on the two above, i think that Ali`s fear for not to change what the prophet said is not good enough a reason. If its true, he aught to have exposed them-that is Islam and worst is they will kill him and im sure he will like to be a matyr. Again most of these are history. also if he is scared that the Ummah will divide (though they all at a time were under his command) those who started this division in Islam have not respected that Fear of his or followed his leadership example.

3: Last that i know, only God is perfect. he created the angels to ONLY obey his command/instruction so i may want to say angels are infallable. The Quran says... if we had sent angels to you, we would not have given you respite even for a day (not exact Quotation) From the verses, if realy Muhammed(saw) were perfect(infallible) like an angel, would man have been given respite?, Why does MUhammed have to be forgiven (past/future sins-must be minor) and he was grateful and he still will not make heaven but with God`s grace/mercy- If God is truely just and Muhammed is infallible, God will not forgive him for God does not decieve and Muhammed does not need grace to make heaven cos God is JUST. Also, there are places in the Quran that God corrected Muhammed(saw) this shows he is man but guided -The best of mankind does not equal "only perfect of mankind".... im not convinced: May MOST HIGH GOD in his mercy guide us aright.

I sincerely have not read in the Quran or seen/heard of any Sunah that mentions "mahdi" i wist to know about it, very similar to Ahmadiyya belief. What i think is: the concept of "MAhdi" is a similar prophecy like Jesus and should be evident in islam (Quran and Sunnah) not just History. Pls give an Hadith cos Islam is not about History

but validating Quran/Sunnah with History.

Like I stated before and you also stated, Sunnishave fake hadiths...so! If an Hadith is against Quranic teachings, it is void(my best hadith) so you first need to make known how the Quran supports the Hadith for relevance.( i remember the popular hadith of a hadith-narrator who was deciving a donkey/horse with food, and the hadith collector saw the act, this i believe is only 1 of many that God made muslims see how about those that were not seen and the hadith was collected and recorded: Shaitan has been working for long)

in hadith al-manzila,the Prophet Muhammad (sa) is reported to have said Imam Ali (as) is to him what Prophet Harun (as) was to Prophet Musa (as) except there is no prophet after him (i.e. Prophet Muhammad).now this is not hard to identify what Harun (as) was to Musa (as) because the Quran makes it clear what Harun (as) was to Musa (as).... Does that make the others less pious?

"As for unity,caliphate is a worldly aspect of imamate.divine imamate encompasses both the spiritual and the worldly aspects of leadership.caliphate on the other hand deals only with political or worldly leadership/rulership.with or without caliphate a divine imam chosen by Allah (swt) is an imam.likewise whether or not people reject a prophet like the jews reject both Jesus (as) and Muhammad (sa) and Jesus (as) never held political leadership,they're still prophets of Allah (swt).whether christians believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (sa) or not,he is still a mercy unto mankind because he accomplished what he was sent for and followed the will of Allah (swt).likewise in imamate,the 12 Holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) acted as divine guides for the muslim ummah,propagating the true teachings of Islam and the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (sa).even though the caliphate was usurped,the 12 Imams (as) never refused to offer guidance and knowledge to the muslims.we see this exemplified by Imam Ali (as) during the reign of abu bakr and umar.Imam Ali (as) would offer guidance for the benefit of the ummah of Muhammad (sa) and that should not be seen as approval of the caliphates of abu bakr and umar.also,a reason why the Imams did not raise the sword to fight for the caliphate is for two main reasons:

1. For them not to instigate civil war among the muslims and be seen as responsible for shedding the blood of muslims and dividing the ummah.

2. Imamate is bestowed upon them by Allah (swt).so whether people believe or disbelieve as in the case of prophethood that will not change anything.Allah (swt) has given humans the freedom to believe or disbelieve and the Quran states "let him who wills believe and let him who wills disbelieve".[/quote]

"

Who then divided the Ummah as the Imams have tried to avoid it. Again, if claim of Imamate is the Promise to Abraham as claimed, why are aerlier caliphs not related to Muhammed. cos they could be distant relatives similar to Jesus/Muhammed(RA)....... all im saying is there is no valid claim, Abubakr`s plot can not null Gods promise. So if there is a promise of Imamate, Abubakr is related to Rasul and they both dont know afterall, God knows all, if there is no promise, then they need not be related.

MAY GOD IN HIS MERCY GUIDE US TO THE RIGHT PATH. AMEN

vedaxcool: Sometimes it bothers one when repititions becomes the only card people have to play.

First, fatima specifically ask for a private burial not because she had a qurrel with anybody but because of her shy nature in due time I will find the narration covering how she was even concerned about who will give her the ritual birth after she died. What continue to bother one is that this people look at actions of other people and then read their own meaning into why they behaved as such, this sort of behavior reminds one of the what atheist do, whenever they want to ridicule Islam.

This excuse is very ridiculous.tbaba has earlier copied and pasted it telling of the "shy nature" of Saayida Fatima (as) regarding her funeral bath.how does her shyness and funeral bath have to do with the "caliph" not attending the funeral at all and the burial? In Islam I am sure you would agree with me,it is forbidden for an unrelated male that is mature to see the na.kedness of a woman.abu bakr's presence in the funeral is not related in anyway to funeral bath and who is to administered it.the funeral bath is administered to a muslim woman by fellow women or males closely related to her by blood or marriage if women are no present or able to do it by themselves.

Now these shias would quickly ignore their own hadiths which specifically states the position of Abubakr with regards to fadak that prophet leave no inheritance this is further compounded by their hadiths that states women do no inherit landed property.


1. There is a Sahih Hadith in Al-Kafi, the Shia book of Hadith:

    “The Prophets did not leave dinars and dirhams as inheritance, but they left knowledge.” (al-Kafi, vol. 1 p. 42)


This issue of Fatima and Abubakr may Allah be pleased with them was trashed out here

www.nairaland.com/661419/matyrdom-lady-fatimadaughter-prophet-muhammad/1

For any hadith any where,whether in shia or sunni sources to be acceptable,the hadith must not contradict the Quran in any way.if it does,then the hadith is absolutely rejected.the Quran explicitly cites prophets inheriting prophets.read Surat Maryam about Prophet Zakariya (as).also the case of Prophet Dawud and Prophet Sulaiman (as).

We can contest hadiths and talk about authenticity and compare one hadith with another,only if the main condition is passed-no contradiction of the Quran.Imam Ja'far as-Sadeq (as) made it very clear that any hadith that contradicts the Holy Quran is unacceptable and therefore neither from the Prophet (sa) or the 12 holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Another major point that makes no hadith found in any Shia book incumbent upon the Shia to accept,is the fact that in Shia Islam there is no book of hadith or any book written by anyone that is called "sahih" (authentic) as a whole.on the other hand,Sunnis have "sihah al-sittah" (the six "sahih" books).each book I called a "sahih",so therefore whatever is found therein is acceptable to Sunnis.the Shia only regard the Holy Quran "sahih" as a book.any other book is examined word for word to take what is acceptable therein and reject what is false therein.

ghazzal:
1a: Imamate is a prove to the Christians that Muhammed is a Prophet because the Promise of God will always come to past. If Imamate is true, and no one can outwit Gods plan,and leadership is not only spiritual, then the only logic is to conclude that Abubakr/Umar/Uthman also have their root from Abraham. else, how can man scheme and outwit Gods promise, that is not possible-non islamic idea.

that their leadership has issues could be a test from God. it is not a reason to conclude that they are not meant to be Leaders. History Im sorry can not be taken hook-line-sinker its dangerous. If the act/Word is not of Muhammed, its definately history, and the truth can nt be verified.

I'm not sure you read all the links on imamate I presented.first you're mixing divine leadership referred to as "imamate" with worldly leadership.the two can come in conflict if the worldly tries to replace or usurp the choice of God.also divine leadership or imamate as is prophethood is choice that belongs to Allah (swt) of who represents Him to mankind.being a descendant also of Abraham (as) is not the absolute condition for imamate.we can see Allah's (swt) choice in action and the system in place in these two verses (pay attention to the highlighted):



"And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands and he fulfilled them. Then He said: Lo! I appoint you an Imam for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be Imam)? He said: My covenant does not reach the wrong-doers (among them)." (Quran 2:124).

"GOD has chosen Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Amram (as messengers) to the people.offspring one after the other. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient".(Quran 3:33-34)

Now there is divine leadership chosen by Allah (swt) and worldly leadership chosen by man.the latter have no merit or precedence over the former.Pharoah who was drowned was an imam (leader) too but not by Allah (swt).

Also the verse for the ones that pray and give Sakat, maybe it was revealed cos of Ali(RA) was it only for Ali, Its applicable for all Muslims i suppose. Thats why if we want to pray Jammah, we seek for the best among us!.

There is nothing applicable for all muslims in that particular verse other than emulating the action that was performed by Imam Ali (as).we as muslims do not "give zakat while in prostration".have you ever done that or commanded to do?

1b. The last link is under construction. The Quran teaches that Truth must be told even if it is against oneselve, also Muslims are meant to stand against opression in the Land. Based on the two above, i think that Ali`s fear for not to change what the prophet said is not good enough a reason. If its true, he aught to have exposed them-that is Islam and worst is they will kill him and im sure he will like to be a matyr. Again most of these are history. also if he is scared that the Ummah will divide (though they all at a time were under his command) those who started this division in Islam have not respected that Fear of his or followed his leadership example.

You cannot expose what the people already know.in this case it becomes agitating for a fight.also,the culmination of oppresssion against the Ahlul-Bayt (as) came at Karbala.if any massacre against the Ahlul-Bayt (as) would have come earlier on before Karbala,at the wrong place and time,the event would have litlle significance in Islam.the location and timing of the tragedy of Karbala and the beheading of Imam Hussain (as),grandson of Prophet Muhammad (sa) came at the right time and place.therefore the memory of the event lives on.our presence and survival as Shia enjoining good,forbidding evil,revealing truth and exposing falsehood and evil,and the very existence of Islam,are products of Imam Ali's (as) wisdom and perseverance through oppression.otherwise the tragedy of Karbala would have come earlier in medina and Imam Ali (as) would have replaced Imam Hussain (as).then people subsequently loyal to the path of Islam of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) would have perished too and the event would have had no significance.even non-muslim would see it as a struggle for power,unlike the philosophy,legacy and tradition the tragedy of Karbala and the beheading of Imam Hussain (as) left to this day as an event epitomizing good against evil and justice against tyranny and oppression.

3: Last that i know, only God is perfect. he created the angels to ONLY obey his command/instruction so i may want to say angels are infallable. The Quran says... if we had sent angels to you, we would not have given you respite even for a day (not exact Quotation) From the verses, if realy Muhammed(saw) were perfect(infallible) like an angel, would man have been given respite?, Why does MUhammed have to be forgiven (past/future sins-must be minor) and he was grateful and he still will not make heaven but with God`s grace/mercy- If God is truely just and Muhammed is infallible, God will not forgive him for God does not decieve and Muhammed does not need grace to make heaven cos God is JUST. Also, there are places in the Quran that God corrected Muhammed(saw) this shows he is man but guided -The best of mankind does not equal "only perfect of mankind".... im not convinced: May MOST HIGH GOD in his mercy guide us aright.

Brother the verses you mentioned when properly understood in the light of tafsir doesn't say the Prophet (sa) was sinful.those verses have implicit meanings that doesn't refer to the Prophet (sa) as sinful.also the words used in arabic in those verses often mistranslated doesn't talk of sin.if you got time,I could recommend lectures from youtube on the infallibility of the prophets and imams.

As for God not sending angels to warn mankind,that is because we are not angels.the fuction of angels and of prophets is different.in the case of Prophet Lot (as),you see what happened when the angels were almost assaulted.prophets are humans are they are also tried and they act as role models.humans have free will while angels do not have free will as humans do.so prophets can be disobeyed and even killed.they still are taken as source of inspiration for humanity.now imagine,if prophets or in particular Prophet Lot (as) was no better than his people God destroyed,and God destroyed the people of Lot (as) people while He preserved Lot (as).is that just/fair?so we can say Allah (swt) have chosen the best of creatures as His prophets and messengers who by their own will do no go against the commands of Allah (swt).we further see this confirmation of purity from sin for the Ahlul-Bayt (as) where Allah (swt) said:

"Allah wishes to remove all sins away from you Ahlul-Bayt,and purify you thoroughly" (33:33).

Any verse that is mistranslated to indicate sin of any prophet,please look deeper for explanations.you can find a good tafsir on that,that can clarify your doubts on those verses you think the Prophet (sa) sinned here:

http://quran.al-islam.org/

(Input the verse no. and chapter and tick the tafsir of Ayatollah Agha Mehdi Pooya).

There are verses I sincerely have not read in the Quran or seen/heard of any Sunah that mentions "mahdi" i wist to know about it, very similar to Ahmadiyya belief. What i think is: the concept of "MAhdi" is a similar prophecy like Jesus and should be evident in islam (Quran and Sunnah) not just History. Pls give an Hadith cos Islam is not about History

but validating Quran/Sunnah with History.

Actually the ahmadiyya believe that their fake prophet,Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the "mahdi" and also the "christ".they use the same verses Sunni and Shia use in the Quran referring to the Mahdi.the belief in the Mahdi as a person to come agreed by both Sunni and Shia;even though the details differ surrounding the personality of the Mahdi.

Please refer to these for evidence on Imam Mahdi (ajtfs) in the Quran and hadiths:

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter2/3.html

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter2/2.html

Like I stated before and you also stated, Sunnishave fake hadiths...so! If an Hadith is against Quranic teachings, it is void(my best hadith) so you first need to make known how the Quran supports the Hadith for relevance.( i remember the popular hadith of a hadith-narrator who was deciving a donkey/horse with food, and the hadith collector saw the act, this i believe is only 1 of many that God made muslims see how about those that were not seen and the hadith was collected and recorded: Shaitan has been working for long)

I think I touched on the issue of fake hadith in my reply to Vedaxcool earlier.please refer to the explanation I gave there.

Who then divided the Ummah as the Imams have tried to avoid it.

The enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as),their opponents and those envious of them starting with the Saqifa,to the assault on the house of Lady Fatima (as),to the battle of jamal,to the battle of siffeen,to the tragedy of Karbala.and now by those like Tbaba and co. who unashamedly would follow the legacy of saqifa and they openly try to conceal the truth,confuse it with falsehood and even oppose it.you can refer to this thread I started a while back on those who have divided the ummah and made a sect out of themselves and who is to blame:

https://www.nairaland.com/1001212/why-it-bidah-forbidden-sinful

Again, if claim of Imamate is the Promise to Abraham as claimed, why are aerlier caliphs not related to Muhammed. cos they could be distant relatives similar to Jesus/Muhammed(RA)....... all im saying is there is no valid claim, Abubakr`s plot can not null Gods promise. So if there is a promise of Imamate, Abubakr is related to Rasul and they both dont know afterall, God knows all, if there is no promise, then they need not be related.

Please refer to the explanation I earlier gave in this very post on the above point quoting verses 2:124 and 125 and verse 3:33.

MAY GOD IN HIS MERCY GUIDE US TO THE RIGHT PATH. AMEN

Ameen!

LagosShia:

This excuse is very ridiculous.tbaba has earlier copied and pasted it telling of the "shy nature" of Saayida Fatima (as) regarding her funeral bath.how does her shyness and funeral bath have to do with the "caliph" not attending the funeral at all and the burial? In Islam I am sure you would agree with me,it is forbidden for an unrelated male that is mature to see the na.kedness of a woman.abu bakr's presence in the funeral is not related in anyway to funeral bath and who is to administered it.the funeral bath is administered to a muslim woman by fellow women or males closely related to her by blood or marriage if women are no present or able to do it by themselves.

I think what is more ridiculous is that till now you have brought no evidence to show fatima explicitly forbade Abubakar from attending her Funeral, she ask for a private funeral, which many people often do it is by choice, Abubakr attending her funeral does not mean anything, sir, it means nothing. You are typically clutching on straw expecting some how to prove that Fatima r.a was unhappy with Abubakr.

LagosShia:
For any hadith any where,whether in shia or sunni sources to be acceptable,the hadith must not contradict the Quran in any way.if it does,then the hadith is absolutely rejected.the Quran explicitly cites prophets inheriting prophets.read Surat Maryam about Prophet Zakariya (as).also the case of Prophet Dawud and Prophet Sulaiman (as).

We can contest hadiths and talk about authenticity and compare one hadith with another,only if the main condition is passed-no contradiction of the Quran.Imam Ja'far as-Sadeq (as) made it very clear that any hadith that contradicts the Holy Quran is unacceptable and therefore neither from the Prophet (sa) or the 12 holy Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Another major point that makes no hadith found in any Shia book incumbent upon the Shia to accept,is the fact that in Shia Islam there is no book of hadith or any book written by anyone that is called "sahih" (authentic) as a whole.on the other hand,Sunnis have "sihah al-sittah" (the six "sahih" books).each book I called a "sahih",so therefore whatever is found therein is acceptable to Sunnis.the Shia only regard the Holy Quran "sahih" as a book.any other book is examined word for word to take what is acceptable therein and reject what is false therein.

And after denying evidence that contradict your position somehow you want us to continue, Well I actually stated it to show the inherent contradiction of the shia position. sorry nowhere in the Qur'an do we find the position of the shia that prophet leave behind inheritance. You can mis-inteprete the position of the Qur'an. But the fact remains our position is supported by the shia hadiths who now have to reject their own sayings to make their position acceptable. The funny thing is, rather than face the important issue of whether Abubakr ruling was right, you prefer talking of Fatima r.a disagreement with the ruling, in your wildest dream did you ever think Allah would punish or send one to hell because of Fatima's r.a anger? Please let always face what is important and compounding the shia position is that Ali r.a did not even revert the ruling, we clearly remember Umar returned some properties back to Abbass r.a. yet Ali r.a did not rectify what supposedly made Fatima r.a angry with Abubakr r.a. The facts and history is there for all to read and see who really have to resort to bending logic just to keep being right.

LagosShia:
you popped from no where to display the Sunni art of concealing the truth.

I understand your point. This is what you are trying to say
How dare a sunni attempt to conceal the truth? Is it not the pillar of the Shia sect's beliefs. It is sacrilege for a Shia not to conceal truth! Why would a Sunni try to adopt that practice. What will Shias be left with?

Anyway, I apologise on his behalf. He is not concealing the truth. He is telling the truth

LagosShia:
you popped from no where to display the Sunni art of concealing the truth.

Now let us try this test?
You guys have been asserting that Umar (RA), the 2nd rightly-guided caliph, annoyed the Prophet (PBUH) at the event of hudaibiyah. So what happened to Umar (PBUH)? Did the Prophet (PBUH) forgive him? If yes, how come you shias have not forgiven him? Or do you intend to appeal that forgiveness?

Did Ali (RA), the 4th rightly-guided caliph annoy the Prophet (PBUH) at any time? If yes, did the Prophet (PBUH) forgive him? If yes, why do you not keep hammering on this matter that has been forgiven?

Is there no double standard here?

Does that also not show that Ali (RA), was a human being, given to error, which mercifully, and as a source of hope to sinful generation with little eeman like ours, Allah forgave?

Zhul-fiqar:


To counter the lies of the Nasibi we present the comments of two of our Imams (peace be upon them) that sets out their views on the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s):

Who is a Nasibi? Is he the one who treats Ali (RA) as one of the rightly guided caliphs? If a man has 4 sons and he names them Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA), is he still a Nasibi

I see a similarity between the Christian position and Shia position here
To a christian, a Muslim who regards Jesus (AS) as a prophet insults Jesus (AS) because the Christian wants a prophet elevated above his peers to the position of God
Similarly to a Shia, a Muslim who regards Ali (RA) as one of the rightly-guided caliphs insults Ali (RA) because the Shia wants a sahaba elevated above his peers to the position of an infallible being

Zhul-fiqar:
Did the vast bulk of the Sahaba apostatize after the death of Rasulullah (s)?

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

So how do we link this with some specific sahabas that you have singled out for cursing? The hadith did not mention anyone's name. We can only find out for certain on the day of Qiyama. Be patient, that day will come

And should you not be very concerned about how you will look on that day? THat you can influence. You cannot change the deeds of some people who died hundreds of years ago. Allahuma gifril lil mumini wal muminaat, al ahayahi wal amuwaat

This hadith has put paid to your habit of praying to the Prophet (PBUH) and all those dead "saints". Is the Prophet dead (PBUH) and does not know that his sahabas has committed some innovations, or is he alive answering your dua

BetaThings:
Who is a Nasibi? Is he the one who treats Ali (RA) as one of the rightly guided caliphs? If a man has 4 sons and he names them Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA), is he still a Nasibi

I see a similarity between the Christian position and Shia position here
To a christian, a Muslim who regards Jesus (AS) as a prophet insults Jesus (AS) because the Christian wants a prophet elevated above his peers to the position of God
Similarly to a Shia, a Muslim who regards Ali (RA) as one of the rightly-guided caliphs insults Ali (RA) because the Shia wants a sahaba elevated above his peers to the position of an infallible being

exactly, maybe its true/false... but the reasons are not convincing i`d state.

vedaxcool:
I think what is more ridiculous is that till now you have brought no evidence to show fatima explicitly forbade Abubakar from attending her Funeral, she ask for a private funeral, which many people often do it is by choice, Abubakr attending her funeral does not mean anything, sir, it means nothing. You are typically clutching on straw expecting some how to prove that Fatima r.a was unhappy with Abubakr.

1.) Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 14 records that:

"Fatima said 'When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr 'By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat".

2.)Sahih Ibn Hibban:

"Fatima (ra) approached Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance from what Allah (swt) bestowed upon his Prophet (s) and Fatima (ra) sought the alms of Rasulullah (s) in Madinah and also Fadak and remaining khums of Khaibar. Ayesha narrates that Abu Bakr said: ‘The family of Muhammad (s) can only eat from this money nothing else and I shall not divert an iota from the practice of the Porphet (s)’.....Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima any of it so Fatima was angry and disappointed with Abu Bakr and she never spoke to him until she died. Fatima (ra) survived the Prophet (s) by six months, when she died Ali (ra) buried her at night forbade Abu Bakr from attending her burial, When Fatima (ra) passed away people's views altered about Ali (ra) that disappointed him he hence sought to heal the rift with Abu Bakr and pay allegiance to him and he had not paying allegiance during these months… ."


3.)Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

… Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle.

The English translator of this edition of Tabari Ismail Poonawalla in the footnote of this narration cites three other Sunni sources wherein these facts can be found.


A.Tabaqat of Ibn Saad, vol VIII p 29,

B.Yaqubi History, vol II p 117,

C.Masudi in his Tanbih, p 250


4.)Tabari, vol IX p 196 [The Events of the Year 11, English version:

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


5.)In Wafa al Wafa page 94 the author states that Abu Bakr was aware of the death of Fatima:

"…But he desired that the reasons behind 'Ali hiding the matter be fulfilled".

And after denying evidence that contradict your position somehow you want us to continue, Well I actually stated it to show the inherent contradiction of the shia position. sorry nowhere in the Qur'an do we find the position of the shia that prophet leave behind inheritance. You can mis-inteprete the position of the Qur'an. But the fact remains our position is supported by the shia hadiths who now have to reject their own sayings to make their position acceptable.

"He (Zakariya) said, "My Lord, the bones have turned brittle in my body, and my hair is aflame with gray. As I implore You, my Lord, I never despair.[/b]"I worry about my near ones after me, and my wife has been sterile. Grant me, from You, a child who will inherit me.Let him be the one to inherit me and the heir of Jacob's clan,[/b] and make him, my Lord, acceptable." (Holy Quran 19:4-6)

And Solomon inherited David. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)"
Al-Qur'an, Surah 27, Ayah 16,

The funny thing is, rather than face the important issue of whether Abubakr ruling was right, you prefer talking of Fatima r.a disagreement with the ruling, in your wildest dream did you ever think Allah would punish or send one to hell because of Fatima's r.a anger? Please let always face what is important and compounding the shia position is that Ali r.a did not even revert the ruling, we clearly remember Umar returned some properties back to Abbass r.a. yet Ali r.a did not rectify what supposedly made Fatima r.a angry with Abubakr r.a. The facts and history is there for all to read and see who really have to resort to bending logic just to keep being right.

I think I don't have to explaining the same thing over again as to the allegation why Imam Ali (as) didn't "rectify" what abu bakr did;simply because blindness have set in and repetitions are made because the ears are sealed.

Moreover we read in the one of the Sahih books of Sunnis that the Prophet (sa) said "one who angers Fatima (as) angers has angered me and one who angers me has angered Allah".

Whether abu bakr goes to hell or not isn't my business but as it is the tradition of Allah (swt) in the Quran to send la'nat on the wrongdoers,we send la'nat on abu bakr.we will inshaAllah continue to do that till the Day of Qiyama.

Furthermore:

We read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4555:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim)

We also read in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4562:

…..One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya.

There is a similar narration in Sahih Muslim Book 020, Number 4560.

This tradition can also be found in the Sunni and Shi'a texts with the words "one who doesn't recognize the Imam…"
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhall, Karachi

The term ‘recognize’ is used as it is not physically possible for each and every believer on the earth to approach the Imam of his time and give bayah, women are prohibited from doing so. The meaning of bayah is same in both sects. Here bayah is not just the limited to the formal procedure of placing one’s hand into the hand of the Khalifa but it calls for the complete obedience and submission to the Imam and any opposition to the Imam will make all the deeds done by the person void to the extent that s/he will die the death of Jahilyah. Of relevance is this Hadeeth:

...Allah's Apostle said, "There will be three types of people whom Allah will neither speak to them on the Day of Resurrection nor will purify them from sins, and they will have a painful punishment2) a man who gives a pledge of allegiance to an Imam (ruler) and gives it only for worldly benefits, if the Imam gives him what he wants, he abides by his pledge, otherwise he does not fulfill his pledge
Sahih Bukhari 9:319

We have already proven that Sayyida Fatima (as) didn't accept the decision of Abu Bakr (the Imam of her time according to Ahl'ul Sunnah).Not only this, but she died angry with him and Abu Bakr was not allowed to attend her funeral prayers.

Now the Nawasib have two options.

Option One: Fatima (as) died the death of Jahilyah (naudobillah).
Option Two: Fatima (as) didn't consider Abu Bakr the legitimate Imam of that time.

If the answer Option Two, then who was her Imam? And why do Nasabis apply the term 'Deviated Sect' to those that reject the caliphate of their Rightly Guided Khalifas?

BetaThings:
I understand your point. This is what you are trying to say
How dare a sunni attempt to conceal the truth? Is it not the pillar of the Shia sect's beliefs. It is sacrilege for a Shia not to conceal truth! Why would a Sunni try to adopt that practice. What will Shias be left with?

Anyway, I apologise on his behalf. He is not concealing the truth. He is telling the truth

This is an example of a verse on what Sunnis do concealing the truth:

"And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)".(2:242)

And this (Taqiyyah or "expedient dissimulation",when one's life is endagered permitted by Allah ) is an example of what the Shia do in the centuries of Sunni persecution against the Shia, to suppress the truth:

[Holy Quran 16:106] Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

[Holy Quran 3:28] Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Read more on Taqiyyah in Islam:

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/taqiyyah/en/chap5.php

BetaThings:
Now let us try this test?
You guys have been asserting that Umar (RA), the 2nd rightly-guided caliph, annoyed the Prophet (PBUH) at the event of hudaibiyah. So what happened to Umar (PBUH)? Did the Prophet (PBUH) forgive him? If yes, how come you shias have not forgiven him? Or do you intend to appeal that forgiveness?

The incident of hudaibiyya is one among the other incidents (incident of pen and paper,apostacy of umar in uhud cited and condemned in the Quran,refusing to join Usama's army etc).it is cited to break the Sunni capsule which gives Umar angelic or prophetic status.it is merely cited as one of the examples to establish the fact that Umar's behaviour and that of abu bakr after the Prophet's (sa) demise came as no suprise.they're not the people or angels sunnis want us to believe they were.often when the Shia cite the attrocities committed by these individuals,the Sunni response is shock and disbelief of how these "sunni angels" could have "suddenly" changed attitude after the Prophet's (sa) death.the incidents cited both before and after the Prophet's (sa) demise of ill-actions by these individuals is only meant to diffuse the sunni "shock" which often is shrouded hypocrisy to cover their fallen heros whose cover are blown open for all to see.

It is not my duty to forgive the sins of anyone.however examining the facts as they happened and refuting the sunni angelic image given to some individuals who perpetuated evil is as honest an endeavor as any can get.it is also islamic to shun the evil doers and not associate with them talkless of giving them angelic status.such angelic status is the belief of sunnis that satan would run away by the mere presence of umar but they still believe satan can influence the Prophet (sa)!

Did Ali (RA), the 4th rightly-guided caliph annoy the Prophet (PBUH) at any time? If yes, did the Prophet (PBUH) forgive him? If yes, why do you not keep hammering on this matter that has been forgiven?

Is there no double standard here?

Does that also not show that Ali (RA), was a human being, given to error, which mercifully, and as a source of hope to sinful generation with little eeman like ours, Allah forgave?

There is not once Imam Ali (as) annoyed,angered or disobeyed the Prophet (sa).I have never come across any instance.

BetaThings:
Who is a Nasibi? Is he the one who treats Ali (RA) as one of the rightly guided caliphs? If a man has 4 sons and he names them Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA), is he still a Nasibi

I see a similarity between the Christian position and Shia position here
To a christian, a Muslim who regards Jesus (AS) as a prophet insults Jesus (AS) because the Christian wants a prophet elevated above his peers to the position of God
Similarly to a Shia, a Muslim who regards Ali (RA) as one of the rightly-guided caliphs insults Ali (RA) because the Shia wants a sahaba elevated above his peers to the position of an infallible being

In our present-day,a nasibi is the one who hate the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and honor their killers and enemies:

"Saudi Wahhabis Name School In Honor Of Yazeed":
https://www.nairaland.com/868603/saudi-wahhabis-name-school-honor

As for christians,muslims do not honor the alleged killers of Jesus (as) and muslims don't accuse the mother of Jesus (as) what the jews accuse her of.

BetaThings:

So how do we link this with some specific sahabas that you have singled out for cursing? The hadith did not mention anyone's name. We can only find out for certain on the day of Qiyama. Be patient, that day will come

And should you not be very concerned about how you will look on that day? THat you can influence. You cannot change the deeds of some people who died hundreds of years ago. Allahuma gifril lil mumini wal muminaat, al ahayahi wal amuwaat

Like I earlier explained on the sunni "shock" when some individuals among the sahabas sunnis have given angelic status are exposed for what truly they were,this hadith goes to prove that being a sahaba is no immunity to hell fire or going astray.sunnis on the other hand have blindly made the word "sahaba" a divine title as prophethood and imamate.

This hadith has put paid to your habit of praying to the Prophet (PBUH) and all those dead "saints". Is the Prophet dead (PBUH) and does not know that his sahabas has committed some innovations, or is he alive answering your dua

We only pray to Allah.what you're distorting is tawassul and you've being told overly that tawassul has its basis in the Quran.I have also asked you why daily in the 5 obligatory prayer you talk to a dead person thousands of miles away by saying:"assalamu alaika ya ayyuhan-nabiy"-"peace be unto you O Prophet".I'm still waiting for your answer.are you "praying to the dead"? Or are you "crazy" to talk to a dead man buried thousands of miles away?

@lagosshia, the verse about sunni hiding d truth is a general verse and an example of it is d people of the book. "....do not hide d message for a small gain- not a direct Quote".
it sincerely is not convincing that sunnis are concealing the truth cos of all u said, there is a sunni version too. it is left for one to study both being open minded nd logical abt it. anyone who conceals d truth(as regards the message of islam) in d used context has simply left d fold of islam. but there some things one cannot be sure of, stay away from it for one may be making a wrong conclusion.

i checked Q:33-33. it actually should be 32-34. and it was revealed abt the wives of the prophet. so the wives if i go by you should be of "pple of d house". .. which aisha is among. could they hv been sinless?

LagosShia:

1.) Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 14 records that:

"Fatima said 'When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr 'By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat".

2.)Sahih Ibn Hibban:

"Fatima (ra) approached Abu Bakr asking him for her inheritance from what Allah (swt) bestowed upon his Prophet (s) and Fatima (ra) sought the alms of Rasulullah (s) in Madinah and also Fadak and remaining khums of Khaibar. Ayesha narrates that Abu Bakr said: ‘The family of Muhammad (s) can only eat from this money nothing else and I shall not divert an iota from the practice of the Porphet (s)’.....Abu Bakr refused to give Fatima any of it so Fatima was angry and disappointed with Abu Bakr and she never spoke to him until she died. Fatima (ra) survived the Prophet (s) by six months, when she died Ali (ra) buried her at night forbade Abu Bakr from attending her burial, When Fatima (ra) passed away people's views altered about Ali (ra) that disappointed him he hence sought to heal the rift with Abu Bakr and pay allegiance to him and he had not paying allegiance during these months… ."

I think the property here is for worldly gain, i remember an hadith that relates that "Fatima knew she will die soon after the prophet- When Muhammed(saw) said he will die, she was sad then he told her something in her ear and her face gloomed there was an hadith that explained why her face gloomed, she will join her father soon)...... I think for such a person, duniya will be least of her concern.
also, i dont think Fatima (ra) will mention causing Abubakr after every salat. The prophet will not do that and also it is not Islamic (return evil with that which is better) so i strongly believe the hadith ....."Fatima said 'When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr 'By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat". is not authentic. Fatima(ra) is one of the best Muslims.