https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqIys3nzS_g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGkvkxPBdE4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRNSw1YysAI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwD8gmR_DS8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2NHLiuToXc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tn4Jufz5mU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7CtJwgxvE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igxaDu1tCZc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VWKCzr22R4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMChHD0K4Ok

When we post videos to counter these, we would start hearing sectarianism! sectarianism!!

BetaThings: When we post videos to counter these, we would start hearing sectarianism! sectarianism!!

please do.

we don't shout "sectarianism" for debating.it is your people (salafists)-the likes of tbaba and abulbanaat- who don't want to debate and prefer to runaway,because salafiams doesn't encourage "kalam"/debate.we do when we are killed or when you slander us like "abulbanaat" did,which sort of gives ground to justify our killing and resentment from other muslims.

post your videos (if you can find any,in which a Shia really became Sunni.it is very difficult for a Shia to become Sunni and rarely does it happen).then we would at least have the privilege to compare the reasons presented from the two sides.

there is a bigger shock coming though,when I open a thread showing Ex-Sunni scholars giving their testimonies why they became Shia.watch out!

^^^^^
The reason they don't debate are
1. They are here part time. They have some other full time activities required to feed and provide for family. You guys are here full time
2. Debating is your MAIN activity. 90% of your posts are on some political/personalities issues - virtues of this person or that person, political movement etc. Seriously, others want people to understand the deen - the Qur'an - as a whole and as an untainted word of Allah, guarded by Him. They are not after cherry picking some so-called ayats massaged to reveal some strange meanings or some missing Suratul wilaya or its like

You believe that Shias never become sunnis. That is interesting. But we know that is against human nature
As for shocks, the greatest to a Muslim can only be the things you guys do to demolish tawheed. Look at from 3.32 below and anyone who has any commitment to putting a distance between himself and Shirk will cry. But it is de rigeur for you guys


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmhgTurOSW0

BetaThings: ^^^^^
The reason they don't debate are
1. They are here part time. They have some other full time activities required to feed and provide for family. You guys are here full time
2. Debating is your MAIN activity. 90% of your posts are on some political/personalities issues - virtues of this person or that person, political movement etc. Seriously, others want people to understand the deen - the Qur'an - as a whole and as an untainted word of Allah, guarded by Him. They are not after cherry picking some so-called ayats massaged to reveal some strange meanings or some missing Suratul wilaya or its like

You believe that Shias never become sunnis. That is interesting. But we know that is against human nature
As for shocks, the greatest to a Muslim can only be the things you guys do to demolish tawheed. Look at from 3.32 below and anyone who has any commitment to putting a distance between himself and Shirk will cry. But it is de rigeur for you guys


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmhgTurOSW0

I thought I would see serious video with something intellectual that can crack my brain.the same old propaganda videos.it is either you're too slow to think and figure out deception on your own,or you're very ungodly and you're a deceiver.

first claim: Shia are Kaffir.
Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.'' (Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)

"Withhold [your tongues] from those who say `There is no god but Allah' --- do not call them kafir. Whoever calls a reciter of `There is no god but Allah' as a kafir, is nearer to being a kafir himself.'' (Tabarani, reported from Ibn Umar)

Call not the people of your Qibla [i.e. those who face the Ka`ba in Makka for prayer] as kafir.'' (Al-Nihaya of Ibn Athir, vol. iv, p. 187)

"Nothing expels a man from faith except the denial of that by which he entered into it [i.e. the Kalima].'' (Majma` az-Zawa'id, vol. i, p. 43)

"Three things are the basis of faith. [One is] to withhold from one who says `There is no god but Allah' --- do not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any misconduct.'' (Abu Dawud, Book of Jihad, 15:33)

There are many other hadith prohibiting that the "people of the Qibla'' be dubbed as kafir. Such a great sin is it that the Holy Prophet issued the warning:

"Whoever attributes kufr [unbelief] to a believer, he is like his murderer.'' (Tirmizi, ch. Iman (Faith); see Arabic-Urdu edition cited earlier, vol. ii, p. 213. See also Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)


second claim:slapping the cheek as sign of jahiliyyah.was Aisha wrong? can Sunnis condemn Aisha?

al Tabari in History Volume 9 page 183 (English translation by Ismail Poonawala):

Abbas narrates:
“I heard Ayesha saying “The Messenger of God died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of God died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women”.

Ibn Katheer al Nasibi in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 5 page 420 published by Nafees Academy Karachi records the event as follows:

“Rasulullah (s) died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my face along with other women”.
Bidayah wa al Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 5, page 420
Sirah Ibn Ishaq, page 713 (declared ‘Hasan’)
Sirah Ibn Hisham, Volume 4 page 655
Musnad Abi Yala, Vol 8 page 63 Hadith 4586 (Hussain Salim Asad declared it ‘Hasan’ and stated that that the same tradition is recorded in Musnad Ahmad with ‘Sahih’ chain)

Sarah,the wife of Prophet Ibrahim (as) :
“Then came forward his wife in grief, she smote her face and said (what! I) An old barren woman?”
Quran 51:29

more instances:
http://en.shiapen.com/comprehensive/azadari-mourning-for-imam-hussain/hitting-ones-body.html

third claim: the Shia call their Imams as "god"

any Shia who refers to any Imam as "god" or worships any human being or object has disbelieved in Allah (swt).he becomes a non-muslim and therefore cannot claim to be Shia.our Aqeedah,and the most fundamental Aqeedah is Tawheed. whichever Pakistani poet either out of emotion or stupidity claims that any human being is a "god",that person is not practicing Shia Islam,but his own desires.

it is very unfair and wicked when a Sunni would bring such incident to attack the Shia with it,when he knows very well what the Shia aqeedah is based on (i.e. Tawheed).if I am to follow such footsteps,i would bring instances where ignorant Sunnis issue irresponsible statements out of the bounds of Islam,and accuse all Sunnis of that ignorance.you cannot bring a video where a fool calls any imam a "god" and judge me with it.i am Shia Muslim,and I do not follow such nonsense.

fourth claim:Shia "ancestors" are responsible for the killing of Imam Hussein
this is one of the most maliciously mislead statements aimed at veiling the senses of people.

was Yazeed (the sixth Sunni caliph) who ordered that Imam Hussein (as) either pay allegiance to him or be killed,a Shia?

was Umar Ibn Saad (a commander in Yazeed's army that laid siege to Imam Hussein) and Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (Yazeed's governor in Kufa),Shia?

do all Shia around the world descend from the Kufans?

the Kufan Shia who had showed support for Imam Hussein (as) were threatened,bribed or killed by Yazeed's governor.the loyal ones who were not hypocrites went ahead and stood by Imam Hussein (as) to their last drop of blood.an example is Hani Ibn Urwa (ra).most of the Kufans who asked Imam Hussein (as) to come were not Shia.they were Sunni followers of Banu Ummayyad.

and besides,if we are to say "Shia killed Imam Hussein (as) ",can we also claim that "Sunnis tried to assassinate Prophet Muhammad (s) "? the story of the twelve hypocrite among the companions who then were "muslims" is recorded in Sunni hadiths.so we can also say those men were sunni muslims and refrain from citing their hypocricy.those men are among the companions,who sunnis to this day collectively celebrate without discriminating among them.another point is Imam Hussein (as) on his way,was informed that most of the Kufans who had asked him to advance towards Iraq from Arabia had changed from support to opposition,under the brutal force of Ibn Ziyad.Imam Hussein (as) insisted to continue his march towards Kufa.the tragedy of Karbala is one of the ordinations of Allah (swt) on which the religion of Islam was made to survive from the schemes of tyranny.it was the blood of Imam Hussein (as) that woke the ummah from the slumber to rise against the rule of banu umayyah.

here is the Wahhabi (Sunni) chief mufti of Saudi Arabia praising yazeed:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bK3V7JNfY


I expected you to bring facts or claims based on what really Shia Islam is.not what deviants,ignorants,fools and followers of their desires (be they "Shia" or otherwise) think.

SUNNI SCHOLAR COMMITS SHIRK AND KUFR:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtoPdf4Ec50

SUNNI IMAM:'I CAN LIE UPON ALLAH'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huipJay29Xs

SUNNI SCHOLAR CLAIMS PROPHET KHIDR (as) CONTROLS THE WORLD


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaX3ijlF1FA

SUNNI BELIEF: YOU CAN EAT DOGS,RATS,MONKEYS,SNAKES


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9n-pNEU7mY

BetaThing,i hope you love the above videos.there are many more.each time you post silly propaganda videos to attack the Shia,expect hot slaps from videos that would shake your Sunnism.next time,you wont have the privilege from us to give refutation to the propaganda videos.we will respond with real videos that will expose Sunnis and their kufr,shirk,and shameful deeds.

"Sunni Scholars Tell Why They Became Shia" :
https://www.nairaland.com/1235648/sunni-scholars-tell-why-became#14910576

@BetaThing

your Sunni propaganda video is un-Islamic.how can anyone make fun of the sick and dead? it reminds me of those Christian missionaries who tried to prey on Sheikh Ahmed Deedat's sick condition to convert him into Christianity.and when Sheikh Deedat passed away they were clamoring that he was "punished" for speaking against Christianity.i believe Islam teaches us to be merciful and kind.not vengeful,wicked and outrageous even to those we differ to either in aqeedah or point of views.and by the way i am not saying this because I am Shia Muslim or because I regard that man a fellow "Shia".i don't believe he is Shia or Muslim.he is on his own.

and this is for you:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIaW9VzGTE

Rafidi :
@BetaThing

your Sunni propaganda video is un-Islamic.how can anyone make fun of the sick and dead? it reminds me of those Christian missionaries who tried to prey on Sheikh Ahmed Deedat's sick condition to convert him into Christianity.and when Sheikh Deedat passed away they were clamoring that he was "punished" for speaking against Christianity.i believe Islam teaches us to be merciful and kind.not vengeful,wicked and outrageous even to those we differ to either in aqeedah or point of views.

Yes. We should be merciful to the dead
Yet Shias never fail to rejoice and be merry on the anniversary of the death of Umar (RA)!
Below is the special curse you composed for Abu Bakr and Umar (RAA). Are they not dead?

Here are Shias rejoicing and declaring that Aisha (RA)will go to hell


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bj58ZynJpA

Rafidi :

and by the way i am not saying this because I am Shia Muslim or because I regard that man a fellow "Shia".i don't believe he is Shia or Muslim.he is on his own.

I see. So you are making takfir of this person contrary to the "dire warnings" of Zhul-Fiqar? You are saying he is not a muslim!!!

Zhul-Fiqar. :

"Whoever attributes kufr [unbelief] to a believer, he is like his murderer.'' (Tirmizi, ch. Iman (Faith); see Arabic-Urdu edition cited earlier, vol. ii, p. 213. See also Bukhari, Book of Ethics; Book 78, ch. 44)

BTW
Why was he not denounced when he was alive? He made those statements of kufr (singing, dancing and repeating it loudly) in the midst of a group of people while alive and sane. The excuse given while he was alive was that he was just carried away by emotion.


I did not make the video. Personally I don't believe in making statements mocking the dead, only Shias exercise that liberty and justify it!

The main point is that the man made those statements of kufr while alive and he repeated it at death. He never repented!


Shis's curse on Abu Bakr and Umar (RAA). So-called "Du'aa Sanamay Quraish" (imprecation against the two idols of the Quraish)

[s]In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful.

O Allah! Curse the two idols of Quraish and their two magicians, their two rebellious people, their two accusers and their two daughters. Rebuke them, they have consumed Your sustenance and have denied Your obligations, both have discarded Your commands, have rejected Your revelation, have disobeyed Your Prophet, hav destroyed Your religion, have distorted Your book, have made Your laws ineffective, have declared Your obligatory actions as incorrect, have disbelieved in Your signs, have oppressed Your friends, have loved Your enemies, have spread corruption among Your people, have made Your world occur loses.

O Allah! Send Your curses on them and their helpers as they have ruined the house of Your prophet, have dug the door of his house, broken the roof, have brought down the walls, have made the skies, the ground, have destroyed its inhabitants, have killed their supporters have put to death, their children have deserted his pulpit by his successors of knowledge, have desired his prophethood, have ascribed a partner to their Lord, thus consider both of their sins to be great, and make their abode in 'saqar' forever, and do you know what is 'saqar?'

It leaves nothing, nor let anything remain. O Allah, send Your chastisement on them to the extent of the sins of every disobedient, and the covering of truth, and all the pupils where they have gone, and the believer whom they have harmed and the disbeliever whom they have loved, and to the number of pious people whom they have troubled, and whom they have driven out of their cities, and helped the disbelievers, and the Imam on whom they were cruel and have changed the obligatory laws, and have destroyed the practise of the Holy Prophet, and whatever evils they have concealed, the blood which they shed, have changed the goodness and have altered the commands, have created disbelief, or the lie for which they have cheated, the inheritance which they have plundered, and stopped the booties from them and have consumed the prohibited wealth, and that 'Khums' (the fifth part) which they considered as permitted for them, and that evil whose foundation were put, and that cruelty which they made common, that oppression, which they spread, those promises, which they dishonoured, those covenant which they broke, those lawful which is termed as unlawful, and that unlawful which is termed as lawful, that hypocrisy which they have concealed in the hearts, and to the amount of treachery which they bore in their hearts, and those stomach which they have split open, and that 'pahlu' which they broke, and that door which they broke-opened, and those gatherings which they dispersed and those degraded whom they gave honour, and those honourable wom they insulted, and by the number of rights which they have usurped, and the order of Imam which they opposed, bestow Your wrath on them to the extent of the atrocities.

O Allah! Your curses on them to the extent of alteration in Quran and covering the truth, rendering the will, worthless, and breaking the promises, and declaring all the claims as void, refusing all the allegiances, presenting excuses, introducing breach of trust, climbing of hills ande to the nuer of vessel which they turned upside down and all that defects which they possessed. Bestow Your curses on them.

O Allah curse those two, secretly and openly, such a beating which is forever continuous, nonstop and innumberable. Such a whipping which commences in the morning but does not ends at night.

Such a beating should be on those tyrants, and their helpers, their assistance, their friends and their lovers, those attracted to them and those who acknowledge their deeds, those who present proof for them, and those who follow their words, and those who approve their actions.[/s]

BetaThings:
Yes. We should be merciful to the dead
Yet Shias never fail to rejoice and be merry on the anniversary of the death of Umar (RA)!
Below is the special curse you composed for Abu Bakr and Umar (RAA). Are they not dead?

take it as a Quranic principle and a sunnah of Allah (swt),la'nat which is insufficiently translated into English as "curse" and very different from "insult",is permissible on unbelievers,idolaters,hypocrites,tyrants and oppressors.in the Quran Allah (swt),the angels and prophets do la'nat.this is a Quranic teaching.doing la'nat upon an enemy of Islam (for instance) is a way of doing bara'ah (spiritual disassociation) from that person.you are simply telling Allah (swt) you are innocent from the evil deeds of that person.it means you do not feel pleased and you do not agree with what he did,and Allah (swt) will deal with that person.this is the principle here when you mention abu bakr,umar and Aisha.and if you ask me about that mushrik in the video who is fooling himself that he is Shia,he too deserves la'nat.may Allah's la'nat be upon him for his shirk,and may Allah's la'nat be upon for deceiving people and trying to paint the Shia for what we are not.anyone who commits shirk does not represent Shia Islam.he is not practicing Shia Islam.its that simple.

however,what I disagree with is trying to ridicule the suffering of the human being,even if I send la'nat on him.i don't think that is humane.

Here are Shias rejoicing and declaring that Aisha (RA)will go to hell


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bj58ZynJpA

these are followers of Sheikh Yassir al-Habib.i don't know of Shia who celebrate on the day Umar was killed or Aisha died,even though to me as a Shia I disassociate myself in the sight of Allah (swt) from the bad deeds those two people did.Sheikh Yasser al-Habib is extreme (just as there are also extremist Sunnis) and his aggressive approach has caused unease even among us Shia.may be you can check his videos on youtube to see what I am saying.he is not diplomatic.he brings his proof from Sunni books and present them to you,and then hammer his point in a very blunt and inconsiderate way.

I see. So you are making takfir of this person contrary to the "dire warnings" of Zhul-Fiqar? You are saying he is not a muslim!!!

what I said and what Zhul-Fiqar said are not different.we both disassociated ourselves from that person and consider him neither a Shia nor a Muslim at all.here is what Zhul-Fiqar said:

"any Shia who refers to any Imam as "god" or worships any human being or object has disbelieved in Allah (swt).he becomes a non-muslim and therefore cannot claim to be Shia.our Aqeedah,and the most fundamental Aqeedah is Tawheed".

Zhul-Fiqar's warning came to you for using in a bid to tarnish our image as Muslims,what does not represent us as Muslims.he was simply pointing out there are also "bad eggs" among the Sunnis.

in my view both of you are doing a dis-service to the image of Muslims.if a non-muslim sees the video where a Sunni sheikh was permitting Sunnis to eat dogs and rats,the non-muslim wouldn't care if that sheikh is sunni or shia.he would surely attack Islam.i believe both of you know what Shia and Sunnis believe.so maintain your exchanges based on what represents the two groups and not on what either side rejects,and one party would want to use as advantage to capitalize against the other party in debate.that is not fair.refrain from propaganda youtube videos which are available from both sides to attack the other side.

BTW
Why was he not denounced when he was alive? He made those statements of kufr (singing, dancing and repeating it loudly) in the midst of a group of people while alive and sane. The excuse given while he was alive was that he was just carried away by emotion.

I don't even know who that person is.as far as I know he is a nobody in the Shia Muslim world.he is just a poet like there are millions.he was not an alim of any sort.i cannot claim no one in Pakistan among the Shia ulama did not denounce him.those who commented said he was carried away by emotions.but obviously from what I saw in the video,he wasn't carried away by emotions.even in his illness he still expressed those views.so he was astray and in misguidance and kufr.regardless,his views do not represent us Shia as one of the two branches of Islam.

I did not make the video. Personally I don't believe in making statements mocking the dead, only Shias exercise that liberty and justify it!

The main point is that the man made those statements of kufr while alive and he repeated it at death. He never repented!

may Allah's la'nat be upon him.we don't "mock" the dead.as I explained earlier sending la'nat is not mocking and doesn't amount to ridicule or insult.

Shis's curse on Abu Bakr and Umar (RAA). So-called "Du'aa Sanamay Quraish" (imprecation against the two idols of the Quraish)

yes we do for understandable reasons.you can agree with us or disagree with us as to why we send la'nat on them and disassociate ourselves from what they did.but you cannot accuse us of ridiculing or insulting them because Islamically that is haram and should not be done.and I have explained the principle of la'nat as a Quranic teaching different from "insult" or "ridicule".sending la'nat (insufficiently translated as "curse" ) doesn't mean mocking the dead.

Rafidi :
yes we do for understandable reasons.you can agree with us or disagree with us as to why we send la'nat on them and disassociate ourselves from what they did.

So what did they do?

BetaThings:
So what did they do?

i'm not really in the mood to argue over Abu Bakr and Umar again-too many threads already covering their roles.but if my anser would be good for you,then i'd reply.i'd do so by stating the points,and its left for you to research on the points.

1.) disrespecting the Prophet (s) -e.g. raising their voice when talking to the Prophet (s) (and addressing the Prophet Muhammad (s) by his name).Quran is a witness to this as a verse was revealed to checkmate the situation.

2.) disobeying the Prophet (s) - e.g. the pledge of al-Ridwan,and refusing to joing the army under Usama Ibn Zaid (ra).

3.) Insulting the Prophet (s) - event of pen and paper.

4.) attempted assassination of the Prophet(s) in Aqaba

5.) the coup of Saqifa Banu Saeeda

6.) the usurpation of the caliphate from Imam Ali (as)

7.) the confiscation of Fadak from Sayyida Fatima (as)

8.) the attack on Sayyida Fatima's (as) house.

9.) threatening the sahaba who stood by Imam Ali (as) and took shelter in Sayyida Fatima's (as) house with death for refusing to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr.

10.) the killing of Banu Yerboa,by Khalid Ibn Walid who was sent by Abu Bakr.the male members of the clan were massacred while the females taken captives,even though they testified to be muslims.the clan had refused to pay zakat because they did not recognize abu bakr's rule.abu bakr ordered Khalid to attack them and considered them "apostates",when they were not!

11.) the killing of Malik Ibn Nuweira (ra) by Khalid Ibn Walid (abu bakr's commander) and the ra-ping of his wife.Khalid did not face Islamic punishment or justice because of abu bakr's influence.

12.) abu bakr imposed umar unilaterally as caliph,which killed the sunni excuse of "shura".this same caliphate ended up in the hands of yazid,who ordered for the beheading of Imam Hussain (as),the Prophet's (s) grandson,and the tragedy of Karbala.

ofcourse Sunnis have explanations and explanations and explanations and excuses for each.but please spare me the argument.i'm not interested.i only replied to your question.

Rafidi :


i'm not really in the mood to argue over Abu Bakr and Umar again-too many threads already covering their roles.but if my anser would be good for you,then i'd reply.i'd do so by stating the points,and its left for you to research on the points.

ofcourse Sunnis have explanations and explanations and explanations and excuses for each.but please spare me the argument.i'm not interested.i only replied to your question.

First time I am seeing a Shia who does not want to debate!
But Uthman was also involved in the usurpation of the caliphate from Ali. Why do you single out Abu Bakr and Umar in that la'anat you composed?

BetaThings:

First time I am seeing a Shia who does not want to debate!

its not like I don't want to debate.but these are topics that have been debated,discussed,analyzed,and argued many times.and you're among those who have been engaged.debate should be a mean and not an end.if debate doesn't give the desirable outcome,then perhaps advice should be used in its place.

But Uthman was also involved in the usurpation of the caliphate from Ali. Why do you single out Abu Bakr and Umar in that la'anat you composed?

Usthman was not involved in the scheming that took place in Saqifa Banu Saeda (based on what I know).he didn't plot for the usurpation.he is equally a usurper (later on) and a tyrant as his predecessors.but initially Usthman (to my knowledge) didn't plot for Saqifa Banu Saeda.also,the main fault many point out in Usthman is nepotism and corruption.he largely favored his relatives.that is one of the reasons those among the sahaba who plotted his assassination (aside from Aisha's instigation/incitement) pointed out.

Rafidi :

its not like I don't want to debate.but these are topics that have been debated,discussed,analyzed,and argued many times.and you're among those who have been engaged.debate should be a mean and not an end.if debate doesn't give the desirable outcome,then perhaps advice should be used in its place.

If a debater is not convinced, I am not sure that advice will work
I don't have the time for debate really.

Rafidi :

Usthman was not involved in the scheming that took place in Saqifa Banu Saeda (based on what I know).he didn't plot for the usurpation.he is equally a usurper (later on) and a tyrant as his predecessors.but initially Usthman (to my knowledge) didn't plot for Saqifa Banu Saeda.also,the main fault many point out in Usthman is nepotism and corruption.he largely favored his relatives.that is one of the reasons those among the sahaba who plotted his assassination (aside from Aisha's instigation/incitement) pointed out.

Could his assassins have been lying. Afterall every assassin must justify (for good or ill) his actions
Tell me about what Aisha instigated
I believe that Sunnis say that Uthman was married to Ali's daughter. Do Shias contest this? If they do, then who is the father of the woman in question? And did he marry that wife after taking the Prophet (PBUH) daughters or before?

BetaThings:
Could his assassins have been lying.
Afterall every assassin must justify (for good or ill) his actions

find out.

Tell me about what Aisha instigated

1.) Ibn Qutayba in his book Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa records:

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

2.) Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated:

The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal” refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka.


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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that Sunnis say that Uthman was married to Ali's daughter. Do Shias contest this? If they do, then who is the father of the woman in question? And did he marry that wife after taking the Prophet (PBUH) daughters or before?

Sunnis claim it was an elderly Umar who "married" a very young "daughter" of Imam Ali (as);not Usthman.

anyways,Fir'awn (the tyrant who Allah drowned and condemned) was married to Asiyah (as) who is one of the four best women of creation.so no point.Usthman was married to two women,who the historians differ on whether the women were biological daughters of the Prophet (s),or daughters of Sayyida Khadijah (as) from her previous marriage,or daughters of her sister,Hala.

May be you can make or invent another claim and give it to Usthman,that he too married a daughter of Imam Ali (as).

Rafidi :
find out.

I have found out. Those assassins were unjust and concocted lies against Uthman.
Allah will judge the matter on the day of Qiyama

Rafidi :

1.) Ibn Qutayba in his book Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa records:

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

2.) Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated:

The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal” refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka.


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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting anthology

Rafidi :

Sunnis claim it was an elderly Umar who "married" a very young "daughter" of Imam Ali (as);not Usthman.

Sunnis actually insist that Uthman married Ali's daughter. Some Shias claim that Ali was forced to agree to the marriage

Rafidi :

anyways,Fir'awn (the tyrant who Allah drowned and condemned) was married to Asiyah (as) who is one of the four best women of creation.so no point.Usthman was married to two women,who the historians differ on whether the women were biological daughters of the Prophet (s),or daughters of Sayyida Khadijah (as) from her previous marriage,or daughters of her sister,Hala.

Are we comparing the in-laws of Fir'awn to Ali or the Prophet (SAW)?
Sunni historians say that they are biological daughters of the Prophet (SAW)
As for being adopted daughter of Khadijjah (RA) from a previous marriage or her sister, who gave out the girls in marriage to Uthman? The Prophet (SAW)? That is enough for me.
I don't see the Prophet of Allah (SAW) consenting to a marriage of those girls (two of them) to an evil man

Rafidi :

May be you can make or invent another claim and give it to Usthman,that he too married a daughter of Imam Ali (as).

Are you defaulting to advice, debate or polemics?

Remember this? Did I invent what you commended?

Rafidi :
I hope you're not falling for propaganda of the West.BetaThing made some good points in the thread on this topic in the political section (find the link in the OP).

BetaThings:

I have found out. Those assassins were unjust and concocted lies against Uthman.
Allah will judge the matter on the day of Qiyama

Wow! How dare you criticize sahaba and Aisha,the "mother of the believers"!!! Are you now "Shia"? Those assasins were also companions,and Sunnis do not criticize any sahaba and call them "unjust" and "liars".Sunnis don't "interfere in what happened among companions".Sunnis love them all-the good and the bad!!! In fact Sunnis don't reveal what is recorded in their books about the companions who took part in the assasination of Usthman.common if you're Sunni then cover your eyes,seal your lips and turn a deaf ear

Interesting anthology

Sunnis actually insist that Uthman married Ali's daughter. Some Shias claim that Ali was forced to agree to the marriage

I know that of Umar;not Usthman.is this another one? Or you didn't like the correction that Sunnis claim it was Umar (not Usthman) who "married" a "daughter" of Imam Ali (as).

Are we comparing the in-laws of Fir'awn to Ali or the Prophet (SAW)?

I'm comparing Usthman to Fir'awn.

Sunnis call Usthman "dhul-nurayn",meaning "the possessor of two lights",because he allegedly married two "daughters" of the Prophet (s).in that case,Sunnis should call Fir'awn "dhul-nur" or "possessor of one light",because Fir'awn was married to one of the four best women of creation,Asiyah (as).

Sunni historians say that they are biological daughters of the Prophet (SAW)
As for being adopted daughter of Khadijjah (RA) from a previous marriage or her sister, who gave out the girls in marriage to Uthman? The Prophet (SAW)? That is enough for me.
I don't see the Prophet of Allah (SAW) consenting to a marriage of those girls (two of them) to an evil man

Imam Ali (as) was assasinated by the man he personally brought up and took care of like a son in his house.so can we say the killer of Imam Ali (as) was not an "evil man" because if he was Imam Ali (as) wouldn't have had him in his house? Take into consideration Imam Ali (as) knew his killer before he was struck,and the Prophet (s) had told him also that his killer would be in the deepest pit of hell fire.

Are you defaulting to advice, debate or polemics?

Remember this? Did I invent what you commended?

Its a suggestion out of the imagination that would go down well with Sunnis.

Rafidi :

Wow! How dare you criticize sahaba and Aisha,the "mother of the believers"!!! Are you now "Shia"? Those assasins were also companions,and Sunnis do not criticize any sahaba and call them "unjust" and "liars".Sunnis don't "interfere in what happened among companions".Sunnis love them all-the good and the bad!!! In fact Sunnis don't reveal what is recorded in their books about the companions who took part in the assasination of Usthman.common if you're Sunni then cover your eyes,seal your lips and turn a deaf ear

So? Like I have said, Allah will judge the matter. I am not shia, like you mentioned. So I cannot pronounce judgement. I am more concerned really about what will become of me. Allah will forgive those He wants to and He will punish those He want to. The Right is Allah's

But note that a lot of people who wish hellfire on others might just find that they end up in that pit while the people they so detest are just having a great time in Jannah fridaws. Allah is the doer of all He intends. He cannot be questioned

Rafidi :

I know that of Umar;not Usthman.is this another one? Or you didn't like the correction that Sunnis claim it was Umar (not Usthman) who "married" a "daughter" of Imam Ali (as).

Uthman (RA) was married to Umm Kulthum bint Ali bin Talib (RA)
Everyone mentioned in that chain will be in Jannah, insha Allah

[quote author=Rafidi ]
I'm comparing Usthman to Fir'awn.

Compare like with like
Was Fir'awn a Muslim? Was he a companion of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH)
When you answer, remember that people of kalimat injunction by Zhul-Fiqar

Rafidi :

Sunnis call Usthman "dhul-nurayn",meaning "the possessor of two lights",because he allegedly married two "daughters" of the Prophet (s).in that case,Sunnis should call Fir'awn "dhul-nur" or "possessor of one light",because Fir'awn was married to one of the four best women of creation,Asiyah (as).

The light actually comes primarily from the lineage - daughter of the Prophet (PBUH)

You are also forgetting that Asiyah would not have agreed to marry Fir'awn if she had known tawheed from the outset. She was given insight by another person wickedly oppressed by her husband
Of course the light would have been applied to Fir'awn if he had been virtuous. The Qur'an is clear on the matter that he was an evil person, an idol worshipper, unless you believe otherwise

Rafidi :

Imam Ali (as) was assasinated by the man he personally brought up and took care of like a son in his house.so can we say the killer of Imam Ali (as) was not an "evil man" because if he was Imam Ali (as) wouldn't have had him in his house? Take into consideration Imam Ali (as) knew his killer before he was struck,and the Prophet (s) had told him also that his killer would be in the deepest pit of hell fire.

If I am to follow your doctrine, the man served his purpose for which he was brought up by his mentor?

Rafidi :

Its a suggestion out of the imagination that would go down well with Sunnis.

No suggestion. I just tell the truth. And Sunnis have the goodness in their heart to recognise the goodness in others and allow Allah judge matters with His perfect knowledge. Allah knows what is hidden

Zhul-Fiqar.:
it is very difficult for a Shia to become Sunni and rarely does it happen).

Interesting
A Shia never leaves your fold. You are very good.
But according to the Shia virtually all the companions of the Prophet (SAW) apostasised
You are certainly more successful.

Zhul-Fiqar.:
there is a bigger shock coming though,

Here is a real shock. People made by Allah to walk are now crawling on their faces

Then is one who walks fallen on his face better guided or one who walks erect on a straight path? Quran 67:22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RXcJrnWQVc

The SHIRK of Ahmadinajad - supported by many Shia Scholars. He is not just some obscure figure saying this secretly
12th Imam controls the World
And the fake posturing about America being the "Big Satan" or "Arrogant Power" is exposed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-geNTMrucU&list=UUAxIeIXz0iI8wUGqWs3F_Lg

Zhul-Fiqar.:
SUNNI SCHOLAR COMMITS SHIRK AND KUFR:

If accepting a gift that says "Jesus is Lord" is Shirk, LagosShia who has been reading and quoting the Bible - which claims "thou are my beloved...well pleased" - is guilty of what?
I wonder how many Muslim students studying CRK are "committing Shirk?"

Zhul-Fiqar.:

SUNNI IMAM:'I CAN LIE UPON ALLAH'

Is that what he said?
Be truthful

Zhul-Fiqar.:

SUNNI SCHOLAR CLAIMS PROPHET KHIDR (as) CONTROLS THE WORLD

You did not watch the video you posted. He specifically said that Khidr takes permission from Allah
I don;t know his authority on war and Khidr but Allah still controls EVERYTHING
Do yourself a favour, watch the video you posted
Don't act like Hydari and bring an evidence against yourself to a discussion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaX3ijlF1FA

Zhul-Fiqar.:

SUNNI BELIEF: YOU CAN EAT DOGS,RATS,MONKEYS,SNAKES

So is that a consensus? I thought you said Imam Malik can disagree with Imam Ahmad, Shafii, Abu Haneefa (May Allah have mercy on them All)

In any case, you are talking about eating dogs, snakes etc when the GOOD DEEDS DESTROYER - SHIRK - which you openly practice is being brought up

^

You are not after the truth.you are after arguing.

you criticized those (companions) who assassinated Usthman and then said you don't "judge", because the Shia do just as you did (to criticize bad deeds),by opposing the bad deeds of a number of companions.Shia do not believe "almost all" companions apostatized.

then,you replied that a Sunni scholar who said Prophet Khidr (as) controls the world,believes Prophet Khidr (as) controls the world by Allah's permission.that is true and fine.but why don't you apply the same thing that if the Shia believe Imam Mahdi (ajtfs) or the Prophet Muhammad (s) controls the world it is also and only by Allah's permission? you see the double standard? when it comes to examining what Sunnis say,you prove to be smart and in touch with reality.but when it comes to what the Shia say,you turn yourself blind and twist what the Shia say.you've still gone to bring propaganda videos,and decided to reply earlier posts of Zhul-Fiqar at a stage you saw you couldn't continue in a logical fashion with me.

you can talk to yourself.it wont make any difference.you have made blindness your choice.tread in it.

SALAM.