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".

Well attributing false positions to Fatima when Abubakr followed the prophets instructions that they leave behind no Inheritance (found in both Sunni and shia sources) is very disheartening indeed. We the followers of the prophet's sunnah do not accept such statments to represent reality.

LagosShia:
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".

we d followers of sunnah read in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:

“Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.”

and still you are yet to show that Fatima expressly forbided Abubakr r.a from her burial, rather you showed that Ali actually forbade her. and importantly Tabari's history is not always taken to be the always authetic you know?

And we also read that:

The 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 Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah 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, Rasool-Allah 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 Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

The overwhelming evidence does not favour your case!

LagosShia:

"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)

The bold shows the context, Zakariyah's a.s prayed for an hier who will inherit the mantle of clerical leadership. Zakariyyah was hardly rich, so it is indeed utterly ridiculous to claim he prayed for an heir when in reality he hardly had properties to inherit.

LagosShia:

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,

LagosShia:
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.

Ali r.a did not rectify the ruling becuase it was the prophet's word and he did not pay lip service to it!

LagosShia:
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".

Translation: It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A miserable of the miserables came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.

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

. . .

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

(source: Ibn Babveh Al Qummi’s “Elal Al-Sharae’”, pp.185-186, Al-Najaf Print; also narrated in Majlisi “Bihar” 43/201-202)

so we do see that the prophet pbuh made the statement with Ali r.a on his mind. Now since you clearly see that Ali r.a made Fatima angry and the statement made was with Ali r.a in mind, we ask whether you would send your lana't on him? it is apparently clear that some have sealed their minds to reasoning and addressing their claims that they only know how to repeat time after time. This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by Al-Majlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story.

LagosShia:
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.

Likewise do send our lanat upon the khomini, his gang of clerics and other wrong dowers who spend their time lying and making lies halal, and forerunners of the dajjal, and we shall continue to do so. InshaALlah till the day Allah judgement

LagosShia:
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.

we have proven that Ali accepted the decision so much so that he did not rectify the decision. we also showed that a shia source that accepted Fatima accepted this ruling. we also showed that Fatima was angered by Ali but yet the shias play a non consistent methodology when they want to rpove their point. we also showed that there is no evidence that Fatima specifically requested Abubakr did not attend her funeral. we also showed that Ali requested Abubakr to perform her funeral prayer. So in short Fatima accepted the leadership of Abubakr, if not why would she go and even request for Fadak from him? let common sense prevail

LagosShia:
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.

The Shiatul Dajjal have a lot of common sense to learn, how does the two options you posted come about? After all a shia source shows that the Fatima and her Leader and Imam reconciled on the issue as both her and her Husband accepted the ruling of Abubakr, like any true muslim will do.

LagosShia:
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?

Your two option did not reflect well on your intellect the shia sources showed Abubakr was right that prophet's do not leave behind inheritance. further more Khomini sighted the hadith to be authentic in validating his position:

the authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”

(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is recorded as saying:

“What we leave behind is to become alms.” (Hadith ash-Shafi)

The truth is that the Shiatul dajjal has no leg to stand upon since we point to their own Al-Kafi.

ghazzal: @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".

I never said the verse was revealed on Sunnis.I applied it in a general to also differniate between hiding the truth which forbidden and taqiyyah in times of danger which is permitted in the Quran and also in the bible.

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.

Brother this Sunni-Shia division is almost as old as Islam itself.the division has become preserved in tradition and the very existence of the two sides.

The Sunnis have no choice but to portray themselves not as opponents of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) because if they do that in a traditional way to our day after the conflicts that arose in history are gone and clearly ubderstood,Sunnis would be breaching the Quran Verse of Mawaddah,which makes it obligatory on loving the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

The claims made by the Shia to our day are found recorded in Sunni accounts regardless of how they try to sugarcoat the events by using fancy words and their (mis)interpretation to either conceal the truth or distort it.on the issue of Fadak for instance,they cannot deny abu bakr wronged or anger Fatima (as).at least that point is evident or agreed upon by all parties even in this thread.so what they have done is to discredit the event by trying to patch the past.we can hear about so called "reconciliation" and based on Tbaba's words "anger in context".

After how many post of not being able to deny the occurrence itself and seeking explanations and making arguments to salvage the image of abu bakr,they have never and will never reach a conclusion because they cannot and will not as a result of the shaddy path they thread on.we still have not known from them whether there was reconciliation or not.we still have not know whether abu bakr attended the funeral or not.we still have not known whether benefit from Fadak was given back to Sayyida Fatima (as) before or after her death.you will not reach the truth on these issues from the so called "sunni version" because bringing out the truth is not in the interest of the "sunni version".the sunni doesn't want the truth on these issues to come out and that is why you find contradictory accounts in their books.researching deeper and trying to gain more knowledge will definitely bring out the truth and that will only expose sunnis in two ways:

1.They are following the wrong path and idolizing evil men in a more or less "tribalistic" fashion and they should repent.
2. Their "version" is deliberately aimed and designed to make sure you dwell in confusion and give up on the truth.then you're "sunni" who will honor both the "murderer" and the "murdered".that can even be seen literally in how sunnis honor muawiya and also Imam Ali (as).by Allah (swt) this "wayo" way is not Islam of Muhammad (sa) and his Ahlul-Bayt (as).

My advice to you is this from my past experience as Sunni: as a sincere seeker of truth,first of all establish and convince yourself the main event took place.then analyze its implications and all that will follow in fact finding would be details.

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?

Verse 33:33 doesn't include the wives at all;not even the wives like Um Salamah (ra) that the Shia honor talkless of Aisha.let me give you an easy test to it that I personally use to convince myself and then you will know who the members of the "Ahlul-Bayt" referred to in that verse are.if that verse of purification refers to both Imam Ali,Sayyida Fatima and their two sons (as) alongside Aisha,Islam is dead and buried.I would make sure not one copy of the Quran remains in my house.Imam Ali (as) and Aisha fought one of the bloodiest battles in the history of Islam,the Battle of Jamal,which claimed the lives of thousands of muslims.if verse 33:33 is truly the word of God,then one of the two must be wrong and sinful,far from the purity and sinlessness the verse attributes.if you still regard both of them as pure and sinless after the battle of jamal,then that cannot be said with such havoc the battle rendered.and if you regard two of them as wrong and blameworthy,then the verse is wrong and proves the two to be impure and sinful.

Also note that Aisha revolted against the "imam of her time".at that point in time Imam Ali (as) was the leader of the Shia and also accepted by Sunnis as their leader or the fourth caliph.and in Sunni belief itself anyone who rise against the "imam of his time" is an apostate.now please apply that on Aisha in the light of verse 33:33.we are only left to conclude that the members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) referred to in verse 33:33 during the time of its revelation are the 5 people mentioned in Hadith al-Kisa.they are: the holy Prophet,Imam Ali,Sayyida Fatima and Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (as).

You can refer to this for further evidence on verse 33:33:

http://www.al-islam.org/ayat-at-tat-heer-dr-hatem-abu-shahba/1.htm

ghazzal:
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.

Brother Islam is referred to as "deen and dunya".even if in principle I would agree with you that the dunya doesn't bother the righteous,you must agree with me in principle too that the righteous are after doing what is right and defending haq! I say this for two reasons:

1.The excuse used by abu bakr to confiscate fadak is wrong in two ways.[b]fadak itself isn't inheritance for Sayyida Fatima (as).fadak was given to her (as) by her father (sa) as a gift during his lifetime.[/b]abu bakr came to confiscate it after the Prophet's (sa) demise under the false premise of "prophets don't leave inheritance".

2. This is the position of the Quran on those who oppress an orphan:

[Holy Quran 4:2]"You shall hand over to the orphans their rightful properties. Do not substitute the bad for the good, and do not consume their properties by combining them with yours. This would be a gross injustice".

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.

Sending la'nat upon wrongdoers is Islamic.the word la'nat is translated insufficiently to "curse".the Quran is filled with evidence of Allah (swt) and even angels and prophets and believers sending la'nat on evil or wrong doers.now if sending la'nat is "evil" I don't think you would agree that Allah (swt) is promoting "evil".so your ground for discrediting the hadith is not correct.also,what concerns me is to put forth evidence from Sunni sources and all the hadiths I have presented are from Sunni sources,among which you find the most authentic and reliable to Sunnis such as the "sahih" books.

vedaxcool:

Well attributing false positions to Fatima when Abubakr followed the prophets instructions that they leave behind no Inheritance (found in both Sunni and shia sources) is very disheartening indeed. We the followers of the prophet's sunnah do not accept such statments to represent reality.



we d followers of sunnah read in the book Fasl ul-Hitab:

“Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.”

and still you are yet to show that Fatima expressly forbided Abubakr r.a from her burial, rather you showed that Ali actually forbade her. and importantly Tabari's history is not always taken to be the always authetic you know?

And we also read that:

The 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 Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah 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, Rasool-Allah 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 Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.”

The overwhelming evidence does not favour your case!







The bold shows the context, Zakariyah's a.s prayed for an hier who will inherit the mantle of clerical leadership. Zakariyyah was hardly rich, so it is indeed utterly ridiculous to claim he prayed for an heir when in reality he hardly had properties to inherit.










Ali r.a did not rectify the ruling becuase it was the prophet's word and he did not pay lip service to it!




so we do see that the prophet pbuh made the statement with Ali r.a on his mind. Now since you clearly see that Ali r.a made Fatima angry and the statement made was with Ali r.a in mind, we ask whether you would send your lana't on him? it is apparently clear that some have sealed their minds to reasoning and addressing their claims that they only know how to repeat time after time. This story is not only narrated by the Shia founding father Al-Qummi, but it is also narrated by Al-Majlisi in his book Jala Al-Eoyon. There are not many scholars of the Shia considered more authoratative than Al-Qummi and Al-Majlisi, and both narrate this story.


Likewise do send our lanat upon the khomini, his gang of clerics and other wrong dowers who spend their time lying and making lies halal, and forerunners of the dajjal, and we shall continue to do so. InshaALlah till the day Allah judgement



we have proven that Ali accepted the decision so much so that he did not rectify the decision. we also showed that a shia source that accepted Fatima accepted this ruling. we also showed that Fatima was angered by Ali but yet the shias play a non consistent methodology when they want to rpove their point. we also showed that there is no evidence that Fatima specifically requested Abubakr did not attend her funeral. we also showed that Ali requested Abubakr to perform her funeral prayer. So in short Fatima accepted the leadership of Abubakr, if not why would she go and even request for Fadak from him? let common sense prevail




The Shiatul Dajjal have a lot of common sense to learn, how does the two options you posted come about? After all a shia source shows that the Fatima and her Leader and Imam reconciled on the issue as both her and her Husband accepted the ruling of Abubakr, like any true muslim will do.



Your two option did not reflect well on your intellect the shia sources showed Abubakr was right that prophet's do not leave behind inheritance. further more Khomini sighted the hadith to be authentic in validating his position:

the authenticity is confirmed by Ayatollah Khomeini, who used this Hadith to prove his claim of Wilayah al-Faqih. Khomeini said about the Hadith:

“The narrators of this tradition are all reliable and trustworthy. The father of ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim [namely Ibrahim ibn Hashim] is not only reliable, [but in fact] he is one of the most reliable and trustworthy narrators.”

(source: Khomeini, al-Hukumat al-Islamiyyah, p. 133, published by Markaz Baqiyyat Allah al-A’zam, Beirut)

The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is recorded as saying:

“What we leave behind is to become alms.” (Hadith ash-Shafi)

The truth is that the Shiatul dajjal has no leg to stand upon since we point to their own Al-Kafi.

^


"Never Argue with a Fool, People will not know the Difference"

-Imam Ali (a)

Gentlemen, kindly take a break.

In the Nahjul Balagha, one of the most revered books of the Shia, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) said in Sermon 126:

“With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is a prey to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is a prey to the wolf. Beware! W[b]hoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], [size=14pt]kill him[/size], even though he may be under this headband of mine.[/b]”

(Source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/126.htm)

When shias are loosing the debate they begin to claim Fadak is a gift, yet the hadith that lagosshia quoted to prove Fatima's anger with Abubakr clearly indicates that Ali asked for inheritance not the gift. Abubakr response showed that he understood their position to be asking for inheritance thus he quoted the hadith showing that Porphets do not leave behind Inheritance.

If Fadak was bestowed upon Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) as a gift, then why did she claim it as her inheritance and not say anything about a gift? We see narration after narration in which Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) talks to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) about inheritance; if it was a gift, then why would she mention inheritance at all? And let us dwell on the timing of the issue: it was immediately after the Prophet’s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) came to claim Fadak. If it had been a gift during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), then it would have already been in her possession at the time of the Prophet’s death (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and there would have been no reason to go to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) for it.

Compounding the matter is that every single narration asserts clearly she asked for her inheritance.

(Note: when you're gifted something by your parent and he passes away,can you be said to have "inherited" it from him or not? Secondly it was abu bakr who deemed fadak as "inheritance" and applied his false testimony to it that prophets don't leave inheritance.so whoever calls it "inheritance",that is using the word abu bakr used)

The means via which Sayyida Fatima (as) acquired Fadak


Allah declares in the Holy Qur'an:

And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.
Al-Qur'an, Surah 17, Ayah 26, translated by Yusufali

Note:

Allah who owns every thing has provided a means for his Servants to acquire some of these things. Land e.g that is acquired without fighting is Fay and the Prophet (s) is it's sole owner. He could give it to whoever he pleased, either as a gift, or by any other mode. Accordingly, when this verse was revealed he (s) gave the land of Fadak to Fatima Zahra (as) under the order of Allah. This is proven from the following authority works of Ahl'ul Sunnah:


Tafseer Durre Manthur v4, p177

Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158

Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra

Tafseer Mazhari, in Tafseer of above mentioned verse

Tafseer Ruh Al-Ma'ani

6. Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid


In the Tafseer of above mentioned verse we read:

"Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her".
 Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Vol. 4, page 177

Also see:
 Jam'e Asbab al-Nuzul by Sheikh Khalid Abdurehman Makki (published in Karachi)

The deceitful Nawasib in their hatred for Sayyida Fatima Zahra (sa) often make feeble attempts to create doubts over the authenticity of the chain of this narration because of a narrator Atya al-Aufi by citing the criticism levelled at him by some people. What they never present is the authentication of Atya al-Aufi by some the famed Sunni scholars. For example Muhammad al-Nuhamisi in the foot note of Shaykh Taqiuddin Ahmad bin Ali bin Abdulqadir al-Moqrizi's (d. 845 H) famed book Emta al-Asma, Volume 13 pag 16 stated: ‘According to me his hadith is not less than the grade of Hasan’. Ibn Hajar records that Imam Tirmidhi considered his hadith as Hasan (Nataj al-Afkar, v2 p414). Imam Ibn Hajar himself declared him ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p678). Imam Yahyah bin Moin said: ‘Nothing bad about him’ (Tarikh ibn Moin by al-Daqaq, p27) while Sunni scholar Mahmood Saeed Mamdoh said in his book Rafe al-Manara, page 163: ‘Yahya bin Moin declared that about whom he said ‘nothing bad about him’, it means that he is Thiqah.’ Imam Muhammad Ibn Saad said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tabaqat al Kubra, v6 p304). Allamah Umar bin Shaheen included him in the book of Thiqah narrators (Asma al-Thuqat, p172). Mahmoud Saeed Mamdouh rightly states in his book: ‘We conclude that Atya al-Aufi are authenticated by Yahya bin Saeed al-Qatan, ibn Saad, ibn Moin, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazar, ibn Shaheen and some others.’ (Rafe al-Manara, p173). And most relevantly, on p144 of the same book, we read: ‘It is settled in the science of Hadith that if there is praise and criticism about a narrator and the reason for the criticism is unknown then (criticism) must be rejected and shall not be relied on and the praise about the narrator must be accepted. This is the correct (act) and that is what the scholars follow.

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/fadak/en/chap2.php

Yawns, it is very funny seeing people so confused of their own position. One quotes a hadiths which he insist is authentic, now the same hadiths indicates that Fatima asked for her inheritance he now wants to insist that she mistated her position which is that she was given a gift which mutated into an inheritance? What sort of logic are being forced to buy? If you dad gifts you a piece of land, in the shia tradition we understand you must waits for him to die before you can posses such land. Well this defy's common sense, if the Prophet pbuh did give fadak as a gift to Fatima r.a then one expects she immediately takes control of it rather we find that never happaned rather the shia logic is that before she could get her gift the prophet pbuh must die. Now such position is clearly at variance with Islam and even common sense. What we know as a fact is that Fatima asked for inheritance not a gift.

Bringing hadiths from known liars like answering ansar does not add anything to your misguided argument. Hadiths that contradicts hadiths you consider authentic is very strange. As usual the shia resort to quoting obscure sources whose authenticity is doubted and generally not accepted.

The truth of the shias is that they hold two positions at the same, if Khomini says a hadith that is reliable and clearly shows prophet's leaves no inheritance the shias immediately shift the goal post and claim gift, yet when people are confused about the truth we are certain they keep changing the goal post to fool none save themselves!

vedaxcool: Yawns, it is very funny seeing people so confused of their own position. One quotes a hadiths which he insist is authentic, now the same hadiths indicates that Fatima asked for her inheritance he now wants to insist that she mistated her position which is that she was given a gift which mutated into an inheritance? What sort of logic are being forced to buy? If you dad gifts you a piece of land, in the shia tradition we understand you must waits for him to die before you can posses such land. Well this defy's common sense, if the Prophet pbuh did give fadak as a gift to Fatima r.a then one expects she immediately takes control of it rather we find that never happaned rather the shia logic is that before she could get her gift the prophet pbuh must die. Now such position is clearly at variance with Islam and even common sense. What we know as a fact is that Fatima asked for inheritance not a gift.

Bringing hadiths from known liars like answering ansar does not add anything to your misguided argument. Hadiths that contradicts hadiths you consider authentic is very strange. As usual the shia resort to quoting obscure sources whose authenticity is doubted and generally not accepted.

The truth of the shias is that they hold two positions at the same, if Khomini says a hadith that is reliable and clearly shows prophet's leaves no inheritance the shias immediately shift the goal post and claim gift, yet when people are confused about the truth we are certain they keep changing the goal post to fool none save themselves!

Stop talking nonsense.and don't derail the thread if you've got nothing to contribute to the topic.we know the Shia are very scary creatures from neptune.and the hadiths Shia cite are from Sunni sources in neptune and not Sunni sources on earth.but that's not the topic here.ok?

Sunnis either defend abu bakr by his false claim that "prophets don't leave inheritance" or they try to play down the dispute and the anger of Sayyida Fatima (as) by seeking baseless explanations and arguments to the extent of even suggesting "reconciliation" initiated by abu bakr according to a hadith even Sunnis reject by their own standard,which contradicts Aisha's hadith found in "sahih bukhari" in which Aisha,daughter of abu bakr,states that Sayyida Fatima (as) died in a state of malice with her father.I wonder if abu bakr was not being dishonest and if Sayyida Fatima (as) was claiming what didn't belong to her,why he would want any form of "reconciliation" or make any initiative by pleading to please a dishonest person? There's a hadith the Prophet (sa) is reported to have said that even if his beloved daughter Fatima (as) is caught stealing,he would chop off her hands.but abu bakr,the only one who heard that prophets don't leave "inheritance" is seeking "reconciliation". The hadith alleging "reconciliation" is not acceptable.The hadith is "Mursal" (disconnected) because it is a Tabi'ee (a man of the generation after the companions) called Shu'ibi who is giving testimony of an incident which he did not see with his eyes and this testimony is not made by someone of that era in which the incident supposedly took place i.e. by a Sahabi (companion).on the other hand in addition to the hadith reported by Aisha in "sahih bukhari" that Sayyida Fatima (as) died while in a state of anger with abu bakr,Abu Hureira (a companion) who also as Aisha lived in that era reports the same account in Sunan Tirmidhi,another hadith compilation held as reliable by Sunnis:

"Abu Huraira said: ‘Fatima went to Abu Bakr and Umar asking them for her heritage from Allah's Messenger, thus they said: ‘We heard Allah's Messenger saying ‘I don’t leave inheritance’. She said: ‘By Allah, I will not talk to you again ever’. Thus she died and never talked to them again’’.

Now let us see what others apart from abu bakr and his buddy umar made of the false testimony that prophets don't leave inheritance-a claim that even evidence in previous scriptures of the bible doesn't support.

We read in Kanz al Ummal taken from Ibn Hanbal with a Hasan [Good] chain.

"On one occasion Hadhrat Umar said to 'Ali and Abbas - Abu Bakr said 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".

We read in Neel al Autaar:

"Hadhrat Umar cited the position of 'Ali and Abbas, that on the issue of the inheritance of the Prophet (s), you held your opponent to be Dhaalim, as is discussed in Sahih al Bukhari"
 Neel al-Autaar, Vol. 6, Page 88

We read in Sunan al Kabeera:

On one occasion Hadhrat Umar said the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said: "We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest".

Of course the seriousness of these words lead to Muhammad Ismaeel Bukhari seeking to cover up the issue as much as possible. He replaced the offensive terms We read in Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 9.408:

"... Then he (Umar) turned to 'Ali and 'Abbas and said, "You both claim that Abu Bakr did so-and-so in managing the property".

Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Fathul Baree addresses this issue as follows:

"Bukhari narrated the Hadeeth with Umar saying 'You both deemed Abu Bakr, the commentary of this Hadeeth is located in Sahih Muslim, that they deemed him liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

Umadah tul Qari informs us that:

"Umar said 'Ali and Abbas you both deemed Abu Bakr to be on the wrong path".

We read in Irshad Sari Sharh Sahih Bukhari:

"Umar said that Abbas and 'Ali both deemed the usurpation of Fadak to be a sinful, treacherous deceit. This has been narrated by the Hadeeth scholar Zubayr, on some occasions he provides a commentary to the words of Umar on other he gives a mere hint".


Aisha inherited land from the Prophet (sa)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:

The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When 'Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and 'Aisha chose the land.

Muslim
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's
on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

So there they go again clutching on straws to aviod drowning yet all we see is dishonest lies. The prophet clearly did not owned the land of khaibar. And the hadith he quotes does not even indicate that Aisha inherited the land.


Imagine quoting the position of Bukhari and then saying he was hiding something yet when Bukhari quotes seem to support their point he is essentially truthful. The fact is, Bukhari's hadith is considered most authentic, the fact that you guys deny hadiths that refute's your case and the accept hadiths that support your case continue to show, you deserve pity. In this same thread lagosshia emphasised that Bukhari or nothing now we are seeing anything but Bukhari. Lol and in their mind they think they call mislead people yet their lies and inconsistencies are always stairing at us indeed.

vedaxcool: Muslim
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's
on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

So there they go again clutching on straws to aviod drowning yet all we see is dishonest lies. The prophet clearly did not owned the land of khaibar. And the hadith he quotes does not even indicate that Aisha inherited the land.


Imagine quoting the position of Bukhari and then saying he was hiding something yet when Bukhari quotes seem to support their point he is essentially truthful. The fact is, Bukhari's hadith is considered most authentic, the fact that you guys deny hadiths that refute's your case and the accept hadiths that support your case continue to show, you deserve pity. In this same thread lagosshia emphasised that Bukhari or nothing now we are seeing anything but Bukhari. Lol and in their mind they think they call mislead people yet their lies and inconsistencies are always stairing at us indeed.

Please for the sake of God stop confusing yourself on issues you're too young to handle.you still need growing up to do.so far the Sunnis are the ones who would dig into their hadiths to find anything even the hadith they by their own standards reject,bring it out to contradict the authentic ones by Sunni standards the Shia point to.take for instance the hadith in "sunan bayhaqi" alleging "reconciliation" between abu bakr and Sayyida Fatima (as).it became clear that the narrator of that claim was a tabi'ee.compare with the hadiths of Aisha and Abu Hureira (two companions) denying any reconciliation.do you see the Sunni inconsistency and their effort to confuse issues from time immemorial to hide the truth of the issues contended with the Shia is easily exposed? Well I don't expect you to see.but I hope others do while I pray for you that Allah will soften your heart.

Now look at the way you're confusing yourself in the above on khaibar.the muslims and jews had agreements on how to co-exist and live in tolerance of each other.you cited a hadith the Prophet (sa) allowed the jews of khaibar to cultivate the land.when was that? Was it before or after khaibar was totally taken by muslims and some the jews were taken as captives and others killed in combat for their treachery against the muslims? My point is did the jews eventually stay in khaibar and if you say they did,for how long? Remember that Aisha was given the land in khaibar by umar.and this is the same umar upon becoming caliph said that the Prophet (sa) had willed that after his death the entire arabian peninsula was to be expunged of both the idolaters and the "people of the book".

Please stop mixing up issues.I know nairaland is free for all but you don't always have to make a post even when you're not sure of what you're saying.

vedaxcool: Muslim
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's
on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

So there they go again clutching on straws to aviod drowning yet all we see is dishonest lies. The prophet clearly did not owned the land of khaibar. And the hadith he quotes does not even indicate that Aisha inherited the land.


Imagine quoting the position of Bukhari and then saying he was hiding something yet when Bukhari quotes seem to support their point he is essentially truthful. The fact is, Bukhari's hadith is considered most authentic, the fact that you guys deny hadiths that refute's your case and the accept hadiths that support your case continue to show, you deserve pity. In this same thread lagosshia emphasised that Bukhari or nothing now we are seeing anything but Bukhari. Lol and in their mind they think they call mislead people yet their lies and inconsistencies are always stairing at us indeed.

Please for the sake of God stop confusing yourself on issues you're too young to handle.you still need growing up to do.so far the Sunnis are the ones who would dig into their hadiths to find anything even the hadith they by their own standards reject,bring it out to contradict the authentic ones by Sunni standards the Shia point to.take for instance the hadith in "sunan bayhaqi" alleging "reconciliation" between abu bakr and Sayyida Fatima (as).it became clear that the narrator of that claim was a tabi'ee.compare with the hadiths of Aisha (in bukhari) and Abu Hureira (in tirmidhi)-two companions- denying any reconciliation.do you see the Sunni inconsistency and their effort to confuse issues from time immemorial to hide the truth of the issues contended with the Shia is easily exposed? Well I don't expect you to see.but I hope others do while I pray for you that Allah will soften your heart.

Now look at the way you're confusing yourself in the above on khaibar.the muslims and jews had agreements on how to co-exist and live in tolerance of each other.you cited a hadith the Prophet (sa) allowed the jews of khaibar to cultivate the land.when was that? Was it before or after khaibar was totally taken by muslims and some of the jews were taken as captives and others killed in combat for their treachery against the muslims? My point is did the jews eventually stay in khaibar and if you say they did,for how long? Remember that Aisha was given the land in khaibar by umar.and this is the same umar upon becoming caliph said that the Prophet (sa) had willed that after his death the entire arabian peninsula was to be expunged of both the idolaters and the "people of the book".

Please stop mixing up issues.I know nairaland is free for all but you don't always have to make a post even when you're not sure of what you're saying.

LagosShia:

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.

Really? Are you saying that the life of a Shia is perpetually in danger.

Imam Jafar Sadi (R) said: "Associate with your opponents only outwardly and oppose them inwardly."

Zararah narrates that I asked a certain question to Imam Baqar (R). He gave me its answer. Another person then asked the same question and the Imam gave him a different answer. Later a third person asked the same question, but the Imam’s answer this time was different from the previous two answers. I then asked him: "O, the son of the Messenger (S)! The two persons who just came here to ask you questions were from Iraq and were Shias, yet you gave them contradictory answers". The Imam then answered: "O Zararah! This is good for me as well as for you and this will help us survive and prosper"

Now watch this clip on this "danger" red herring


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CYxa6icenI


This sheds more light


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwnFxWl5YzM

LagosShia:

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)!

Shock was what I felt when you keep hammering on sins that have been forgiven. I kept asking myself if Shias have issues with the various verses on forgiveness of sins

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah . Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." Quran : 39 : 53

Actually, sunnis know that the sahabas did a lot to make Islam grow in the face of great adversities. So we allow the ONE who dispenses punishment and forgiveness according to his incontestable Will to judge them

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

As previously mentioned to you:

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

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

Hating the Prophet (PBUH) and members of his family is an error I never intend to fall into

LagosShia:
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.

I am not aware that sunnis adorn anyone with the cloak of divinity
I believe that we are not in competition with the Shia regarding that dangerous indulgence especially as you guys have already passed judgement and we know that you are "infallble" anyway

LagosShia:
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?

Tawassul is legitimate and halal. Like every halal thing, it can be abused by human beings. And indeed Shias have abused it

In addition, if making the dead an intercessor were allowed, who would make any strange imam an intercessor when the Prophet (PBUH) could be an intercessor after his death. I mean there is no point asking any moderator in Nairaland to do anything if I had direct access to the owner of the site. Again, as you have been told, make only the LIVING an intercessor

The Prophet (PBUH) is dead and I pray (TO Allah) for him. I DON'T ASK the Prophet (PBUH) to do anything for me. He is dead; he cannot help me. I can stay in Arctic circle and pray to Allah to help somebody in Antarctica. But I cannot seek the help of that person in Antarctica unless he is physically present


"Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe." Quran 21 : 22

"He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned" 21: 23


Look at the bastardisation of tawassul and ascribing divine powers to ordinary human beings that we cannot see

Check 0.22, 3.45 - 3.50
at 5.03, we see


"I call you from a far country, you know what I want, please grant it for me because you help those who are in need etc "



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgsaSCkcqF4

2.32 to 3.55 are critical moments

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

LagosShia:

Please for the sake of God stop confusing yourself on issues you're too young to handle.you still need growing up to do.so far the Sunnis are the ones who would dig into their hadiths to find anything even the hadith they by their own standards reject,bring it out to contradict the authentic ones by Sunni standards the Shia point to.take for instance the hadith in "sunan bayhaqi" alleging "reconciliation" between abu bakr and Sayyida Fatima (as).it became clear that the narrator of that claim was a tabi'ee.compare with the hadiths of Aisha (in bukhari) and Abu Hureira (in tirmidhi)-two companions- denying any reconciliation.do you see the Sunni inconsistency and their effort to confuse issues from time immemorial to hide the truth of the issues contended with the Shia is easily exposed? Well I don't expect you to see.but I hope others do while I pray for you that Allah will soften your heart.

Now look at the way you're confusing yourself in the above on khaibar.the muslims and jews had agreements on how to co-exist and live in tolerance of each other.you cited a hadith the Prophet (sa) allowed the jews of khaibar to cultivate the land.when was that? Was it before or after khaibar was totally taken by muslims and some of the jews were taken as captives and others killed in combat for their treachery against the muslims? My point is did the jews eventually stay in khaibar and if you say they did,for how long? Remember that Aisha was given the land in khaibar by umar.and this is the same umar upon becoming caliph said that the Prophet (sa) had willed that after his death the entire arabian peninsula was to be expunged of both the idolaters and the "people of the book".

Please stop mixing up issues.I know nairaland is free for all but you don't always have to make a post even when you're not sure of what you're saying.

I think you need to have a sit, calm down and make coherent points! The hadith posted shows clearly Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not actually own the land, the hadith quoted was from the same section your other username zhul quoted from, in essence, the shias again re-emphasis that when it comes to proving their position they are willing to be yes and no, authentic and inauthentic, Bukhri is most reliable when he appears to support our posiion, no he is concealing the truth because he does nor support my position . . . all at the same time, we can only conclude that their case is weak and based on deliberate falsification of reality making us wonder why there will go to such low in validating their confusion?

BetaThings:

Really? Are you saying that the life of a Shia is perpetually in danger.

And you honestly think the muslim world is majority (close to 80%) Sunni because of abu bakr and umar and sunni beliefs? It is persecution of the Shia throughout the centuries.the Shia in the middle east suffered in the hands of sunnis more than the jews suffered in europe in the hands of christians.political power in the hand of the sunni caliphate also ensured sunnism is the brand of islam exported to africa,asia and other places.if the political power was in the hands of Shia,you today would be cheering for the Shia.you're lost!I am Shia not because my ancestors were but because I choose to be.I struggled against my ego and my conscience made me follow the truth.yet still,in most of arabia,the levant and mesopotamia (iraq and kuwait) which are the fountain head in spreading Islam,the Shia and Sunni populations are closely divided and in some places inspite of the persecution the Shia still remained a majority.

Here is a modern day example of the continuos sunni (presently in its extreme form of wahhabism) persecution against the Shia:

"A Timeline Of Sectarian Terrorism Against Shia Muslims":
https://www.nairaland.com/961495/timeline-sectarian-terrorism-against-shia

On an honest note,what is the need or relevance for drifting into such issues? Why do you want to derail this thread with your long silly and boring arguments we've gone over before? Why not just stick to the topic?

Imam Jafar Sadi (R) said: "Associate with your opponents only outwardly and oppose them inwardly."

Zararah narrates that I asked a certain question to Imam Baqar (R). He gave me its answer. Another person then asked the same question and the Imam gave him a different answer. Later a third person asked the same question, but the Imam’s answer this time was different from the previous two answers. I then asked him: "O, the son of the Messenger (S)! The two persons who just came here to ask you questions were from Iraq and were Shias, yet you gave them contradictory answers". The Imam then answered: "O Zararah! This is good for me as well as for you and this will help us survive and prosper"

The above hadith is only proving my point on the persecution the Shia have faced alongside the Ahlul-Bayt (as).for those who don't know Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as) is the fifth holy imam of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and great-grandson of Prophet Muhammad (as).the hadith proves that he would give different answers to the Shia so that they wouldn't be identified or associated through/with an action they do and endanger their lives.Imam Baqir (as) as his father Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain (as) were both poisoned and killed.his grandfather Imam Hussain (as)-who is the grandson of Prophet Muhammad s.a.- was beheaded.this is the calamity that those who claimed to be "followers" of Muhammad (sa) perpetuated against the very beloved of Muhammad (sa).this arabia jahiliyyah culture of terrorism encapsuled in the form of sunnism first targeted the Ahlul-Bayt (as) of Muhammad (sa) long before its manifestation on september 11.

Shock was what I felt when you keep hammering on sins that have been forgiven. I kept asking myself if Shias have issues with the various verses on forgiveness of sins

Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah . Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful." Quran : 39 : 53

Actually, sunnis know that the sahabas did a lot to make Islam grow in the face of great adversities. So we allow the ONE who dispenses punishment and forgiveness according to his incontestable Will to judge them

We are neither passing punishment or forgiving anyone.we are simply disassociating ourselves from evil doers whose character is questionable so we too don't fall into error by associating ourselves with such person.examining facts of history and citing particular incidents that exposes particular men isn't sinful.its the truth so you stop glorifying tyrants and attribute immense qualities they lacked to them.if anyone is sentencing anyone,it is sunnis who have given visas to 10 men into paradise.sunnis have a hadith they falsely attribute to the Prophet (sa) promising 10 men paradise,among whom are some infamous characters who are heroic to them.

Most of the growth you're attributing to men is for expanding their influence.I don't attribute the growth and spread of Islam to the will of men.I attribute it to Allah's will who said that:"He will make His religion prevail over all religions even if the unbelievers detest it".

As previously mentioned to you:

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

This is the only point in your post somewhat relevant to the topic.and this claim has been answered in this thread.but I'd answer it again and present evidence below both in video and text.watch this lecture or read the explanation below:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qURl7vT7zcU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqURl7vT7zcU

"Did Ali anger Fatima?" Part 2
http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&rl=yes&feature=relmfu&v=gpHA0hSPe3A

The written answer I gave earlier on the blind Sunni allegation now in details with evidence:

Did Ali(as) anger Fatima(as)?

The Sunnis claim that the hadith "Fatima is a part of me, whoever angered her angered me" was first said by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) when Ali (عليه السلام) had angered Fatima (عليها السلام) in an incident, narrated in Sahih Bukhari, in which Ali (عليه السلام) supposedly wished to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. According to the Sunnis, it was actually Ali (عليه السلام) who had angered Fatima (عليها السلام), and consequently, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima (عليها السلام) angers him. Many Sunnis will undoubtedly be shocked by hearing this incident. Why would Ali (عليه السلام), the lion of Allah, wish to marry the daughter of Allah's sworn enemy? Also, in Islam, men are entitled to marry up to 4 wives, so why did the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) chastise Ali (عليه السلام) for?
Now let us look at the Shia version of the story, narrated by Imam Jafar (عليه السلام):

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Abdullah Jafar Al-Sadiq: A wicked of the wickeds came to Fatima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and said to her: “Did you not know that Ali proposed to marry (Khataba) the daughter of Abu Jahl?” She said: “Is it true what you say? He said three times: “What I say is true.” Jealousy entered into her (heart) to an extent she could not control, for Allah has ordained that women be jealous and that men perform Jihad, and He has made the reward of the patient (woman) similar to that of the Murabit and Muhajir in the way of Allah.
He said: And Fatima’s anguish became severe and she remained thinking about it until night time. She carried Hassan on her right shoulder, Hussain on her left shoulder and held Um Kulthum by her hand and she moved to her father’s residence. Ali came to his residence and did not see Fatima and his anguish increased and became great on him, even though he did not know what happened, and he was ashamed to call her from her father’s house so he went to the Masjid and prayed as much as Allah willed, and he collected some of the sand in the Masjid and laid on it.
When the Prophet saw how sad and anguished Fatima was, he poured water over himself and wore his clothes and entered the Masjid. He kept praying, making Rukoo and Sujood, and after every time he completed two Raka he made Du’a that Allah remove what Fatima had of sadness and anguish because he left her turning over and breathing heavily. When the Prophet saw that she could not sleep and could not rest he said: “O daughter, rise!” So she rose and the Prophet carried Al-Hassan and she carried Al-Hussain and took hold of Umm Kulthoom’s hand until they reached Ali (AS) while he was sleeping.
The Prophet put his foot on Ali, pinched him, and said: “Rise Abu Turab! You have disturbed many a resting person. Call for me Abu Bakr from his house and Umar from his gathering and Talha.” So Ali went and got them from their houses and they gathered around the Messenger of Allah.
The Messenger of Allah then said: “O Ali! Do you not know that Fatima is a part of me and I am from her. Whoever disturbs her has disturbed me and whoever disturbs me has disturbed Allah, and whoever disturbs her after my death then as if he has disturbed her in my lifetime and whoever disturbed her in my lifetime then as if he has disturbed her after my death.”
Source: Sheikh Saduq's Elal-al-Sharae pp 185-6 and Allamah Majlisi's Bihar Al-Anwar 43/pp201-2

A wicked person had come to Fatima (عليها السلام) and told her that Ali (عليه السلام) planned on marrying Abu Jahl's daughter. It is important to remember that this person is described as "wicked". Now, Fatima (عليها السلام) became saddened and anguished, not because she thought the accusation was true but because this individual was spreading lies about her husband, Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Therefore, she went to the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) house which was adjacent to hers. In the mean time, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) returned home, and found that his house was empty. He knew Fatima (عليها السلام) was probably at the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) house, but did not know what was going on and so went to the mosque.
Fatima's (عليها السلام) anguish did not decrease, and so the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) got up, went to the mosque and woke Ali (عليه السلام) up.
The hadith describes the Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) as having pinched Ali, and kicked him with his toe. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) did not do this in a violent or aggressive manner, but did it in a way that would wake Ali (عليه السلام) up. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) then summons Ali (عليه السلام) to go and bring Abu Bakr, Omar and Talha. These three where the ones who started the false rumour that Ali (عليه السلام) wished to marry Abu Jahl's daughter, and these three were the ones who angered Fatima (عليها السلام) during the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه واله وسلم) lifetime,

=========

Hating the Prophet (PBUH) and members of his family is an error I never intend to fall into

Easier said than done.you need to open your mind to truth and reality and pray Allah (swt) soften your heart and give you courage to accept the truth.

I am not aware that sunnis adorn anyone with the cloak of divinity
I believe that we are not in competition with the Shia regarding that dangerous indulgence especially as you guys have already passed judgement and we know that you are "infallble" anyway

Tawassul is legitimate and halal. Like every halal thing, it can be abused by human beings. And indeed Shias have abused it

In addition, if making the dead an intercessor were allowed, who would make any strange imam an intercessor when the Prophet (PBUH) could be an intercessor after his death. I mean there is no point asking any moderator in Nairaland to do anything if I had direct access to the owner of the site. Again, as you have been told, make only the LIVING an intercessor

The Prophet (PBUH) is dead and I pray (TO Allah) for him. I DON'T ASK the Prophet (PBUH) to do anything for me. He is dead; he cannot help me. I can stay in Arctic circle and pray to Allah to help somebody in Antarctica. But I cannot seek the help of that person in Antarctica unless he is physically present


"Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe." Quran 21 : 22

"He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned" 21: 23


Look at the bastardisation of tawassul and ascribing divine powers to ordinary human beings that we cannot see

Check 0.22, 3.45 - 3.50
at 5.03, we see


"I call you from a far country, you know what I want, please grant it for me because you help those who are in need etc "

2.32 to 3.55 are critical moments

Seriously not in every topic you see the word "Shia" you pull your redherring on tawassul.this scare tactic of "shirk" allegation against the Shia on the question of tawassul is an open secret.so don't try to pull it everytime.it just wouldn't work and eventually it would only prove how narrow-minded and fake wahhabis are because even sunnis don't agree with wahhabis on tawassul.I don't need to go over your same arguments and points again.you can refresh your memory and read the answers given to your arguments and see the facts in two other threads you previously took part in:

https://www.nairaland.com/1015116/examining-wahhabism-english-lecture/1

https://www.nairaland.com/954767/honour-muslims-lost-lives-dana/4

vedaxcool:

I think you need to have a sit, calm down and make coherent points! The hadith posted shows clearly Prophet Muhammad pbuh did not actually own the land, the hadith quoted was from the same section your other username zhul quoted from, in essence, the shias again re-emphasis that when it comes to proving their position they are willing to be yes and no, authentic and inauthentic, Bukhri is most reliable when he appears to support our posiion, no he is concealing the truth because he does nor support my position . . . all at the same time, we can only conclude that their case is weak and based on deliberate falsification of reality making us wonder why there will go to such low in validating their confusion?

You need to calm down and listen carefully.making accusations isn't going to validate anything.the fact that the Prophet (sa) allowed the jews to cultivate khaibar and take half the produce and the fact that Aisha inherited land in khaibar refer to two different events in history relating to khaibar.the point is eventually khaibar was completely taken over by the muslims and the jews of khaibar were either killed in combat or taken captives after their treachery against the muslims.you should also read Surat al-Anfal to know whatever booty from war is taken,the Prophet (sa) does have a share.that's from where Aisha got her inheritance of land in khaibar.the point is I am only quoting what is in bukhari and it states to an event Aisha inherited land.I am neither promoting nor demoting "sahih bukhari" in this case.I am only quoting an event unrelated to the one you're pointing to based on time even though both have to do about khaibar.

LagosShia:

You need to calm down and listen carefully.making accusations isn't going to validate anything.the fact that the Prophet (sa) allowed the jews to cultivate khaibar and take half the produce and the fact that Aisha inherited land in khaibar refer to two different events in history relating to khaibar.the point is eventually khaibar was completely taken over by the muslims and the jews of khaibar were either killed in combat or taken captives after their treachery against the muslims.you should also read Surat al-Anfal to know thatever booty from war is taken,the Prophet (sa) does have a share.that's from where Aisha got her inheritance of land in khaibar.the point is I am only quoting what is in bukhari and it states to an event Aisha inherited land.I am neither promoting nor demoting "sahih bukhari" in this case.I am only quoting an event unrelated to the one you're pointing to based on time even though both have to do about khaibar.

The hadiths clearly stated that the land was given to the Jews. Both hadiths speaks of the same context. The word inheritance didn't occur once in the hadiths. The hadiths clearly used the same wording and both refer to the same time as it is apparrent from their wordings. They differ as what eventully happened to the administration of the land which from every indication was controlled by the state.

We essentially see the problem, these people are innovators, they read meanings into simple things, these tactic is clearly adopted from the practice of non - muslim who read into the words of the Qur'an or hadith, if not how does one read inheritance into a hadith that never implied such and then at the same denying another hadith which clearly indicates whom the owned the land? Nowhere have read the Prophet pbuh actually owned the land? And by this conjecture they expect that somehow they are rightly guided.

They lied that Abubakr did wrong by implementing the words of the prophet pbuh, yet we read that his position was stated both in sunni and shia sources and such position was defended by even Khomini. They lied that Fatima did not recouncil with Abubakr, yet we read otherwise in both Sunni and Shia. They use the Fatima disagreement and anger with Abubakr r.a. As reason enough to curse him yet we read in Shia sources that Ali r.a caused Fatima r.a. Serious anguish etc. And yet their cursing lip remains sealed! No consistency that remains the debacle of being a shia. They lied Ali r.a disagreed with Abubakr position yet we find he never rectified the issue when he had the chance. They lied Inheritance was actually a gift yet the hadith they used clearly showed that Fatima ask for her inheritance not gift, now either she mistated her position or there is indeed a serious disconnect between truth and reality, when this people are involved as gift and inheritance are never synonymous. They lied they lied the lied . . . And the position is the Fadak matter is really a non issue unlike billionaire ayatollahs basking in the glory of khumus, these first muslims were hardly greedy nor driven by wealth neither did they use their statust to acquire wealth.

vedaxcool:

The hadiths clearly stated that the land was given to the Jews. Both hadiths speaks of the same context. The word inheritance didn't occur once in the hadiths. The hadiths clearly used the same wording and both refer to the same time as it is apparrent from their wordings. They differ as what eventully happened to the administration of the land which from every indication was controlled by the state.

We essentially see the problem, these people are innovators, they read meanings into simple things, these tactic is clearly adopted from the practice of non - muslim who read into the words of the Qur'an or hadith, if not how does one read inheritance into a hadith that never implied such and then at the same denying another hadith which clearly indicates whom the owned the land? Nowhere have read the Prophet pbuh actually owned the land? And by this conjecture they expect that somehow they are rightly guided.

They lied that Abubakr did wrong by implementing the words of the prophet pbuh, yet we read that his position was stated both in sunni and shia sources and such position was defended by even Khomini. They lied that Fatima did not recouncil with Abubakr, yet we read otherwise in both Sunni and Shia. They use the Fatima disagreement and anger with Abubakr r.a. As reason enough to curse him yet we read in Shia sources that Ali r.a caused Fatima r.a. Serious anguish etc. And yet their cursing lip remains sealed! No consistency that remains the debacle of being a shia. They lied Ali r.a disagreed with Abubakr position yet we find he never rectified the issue when he had the chance. They lied Inheritance was actually a gift yet the hadith they used clearly showed that Fatima ask for her inheritance not gift, now either she mistated her position or there is indeed a serious disconnect between truth and reality, when this people are involved as gift and inheritance are never synonymous. They lied they lied the lied . . . And the position is the Fadak matter is really a non issue unlike billionaire ayatollahs basking in the glory of khumus, these first muslims were hardly greedy nor driven by wealth neither did they use their statust to acquire wealth.

LOL...ok

Any attempt to further reply your post point by point would make me a laughing stock who's desperate to convince you personally.I quoted your post to preserve your points at this point in the thread so others can have a good laugh.the bottom point is you want to deny the hadith in "sahih bukhari"-a sunni hadith book regarded by sunnis only next to the Quran- that Aisha inherited land in khaibar false.well go ahead and say so openly.the reason you're presenting that the jews used to cultivate the land with half the produce for them doesn't rule out the historic fact that during the life time of Prophet Muhammad (sa) all the jews of khaibar were thrown out and the land was totally under muslim control.

I know its hard to admit when facts are facts.but its long overdue in 2012 for your likes especially ignorant or semi literate ones to wake up.to do that you first have to control your nafs and kill the ego.

LagosShia:
And you honestly think the muslim world is majority (close to 80%) Sunni because of abu bakr and umar and sunni beliefs? It is persecution of the Shia throughout the centuries.the Shia in the middle east suffered in the hands of sunnis more than the jews suffered in europe in the hands of christians.political power in the hand of the sunni caliphate also ensured sunnism is the brand of islam exported to africa,asia and other places.if the political power was in the hands of Shia,you today would be cheering for the Shia.you're lost!I am Shia not because my ancestors were but because I choose to be.I struggled against my ego and my conscience made me follow the truth.yet still,in most of arabia,the levant and mesopotamia (iraq and kuwait) which are the fountain head in spreading Islam,the Shia and Sunni populations are closely divided and in some places inspite of the persecution the Shia still remained a majority.

You struggled against your ego so that you can now ask the dead for help - Ya Ali Madad etc? To tear your clothes
Plesae let me be lost. Shirk is the greatest sin and you invite people into it on daily basis
Shirk disputes the powers and rights of Allah. You say it is red herring. But you are cursing people on the contested claim that they deprived the Fatima (RA), daughter of the Prophet (PBUH)
When will you curse people who ask a dead Imam?

Anyway let me open threads to let people know that you hate all sunnis

LagosShia:

LOL...ok

Any attempt to further reply your post point by point would make me a laughing stock who's desperate to convince you personally.I quoted your post to preserve your points at this point in the thread so others can have a good laugh.the bottom point is you want to deny the hadith in "sahih bukhari"-a sunni hadith book regarded by sunnis only next to the Quran- that Aisha inherited land in khaibar false.well go ahead and say so openly.the reason you're presenting that the jews used to cultivate the land with half the produce for them doesn't rule out the historic fact that during the life time of Prophet Muhammad (sa) all the jews of khaibar were thrown out and the land was totally under muslim control.

I know its hard to admit when facts are facts.but its long overdue in 2012 for your likes especially ignorant or semi literate ones to wake up.to do that you first have to control your nafs and kill the ego.

indeed you are really being laughed at especially as we are forced to deal with your love for inconsistency. It remains funny how far you got to twist history just to prove your twisted points that twist hadiths like twisted knots. The two hadith did refer to part of the term§ of peace between Muslim during the conquest of Khaibar, it was Umar who eventually expelled all the Jews, and the ownership of the land became for the muslim community:

. The Jews of Khaybar finally surrendered and were allowed to live in the oasis on the condition that
they would give one-half of their produce to the
Muslims. Jews continued to live in the oasis for
several more years until they were finally expelled
by caliph Umar. The imposition of tribute upon the
conquered Jews served as a precedent for
provisions in the Islamic law requiring the exaction
of tribute known as jizya from non-Muslims under
Muslim rule, and confiscation of land belonging to
non-Muslims into the collective property of the
Muslim community.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar


I think we all get why betatins spoke of Tarqiyyah of the shia, which seems to apparently means lying. And we have seen how twist hadiths then rejects them when they refute his point re-interpolate them to mean what he says (like Fatima asking for her inheritance became Fatima asking for her gift), then again he reads a hadith that clearly never spoke of inheritance or the prophet pbuh owning khaibar yet to "win" he again innovate and interpret as it suits him. When we are left to choose between his point and khomini's acceptance of the hadith that prophets do not leave behind inheritance, then compared to a black man whom Allah does not speak his language but happen to speak Persia when He is happy (this is found in shia hadiths) we have to stick with Khomini and say his position holds higher grounds than lagosshia who apparently stumbled into shiasm.

vedaxcool:



indeed you are really being laughed at especially as we are forced to deal with your love for inconsistency. It remains funny how far you got to twist history just to prove your twisted points that twist hadiths like twisted knots. The two hadith did refer to part of the term§ of peace between Muslim during the conquest of Khaibar, it was Umar who eventually expelled all the Jews, and the ownership of the land became for the muslim community:

. The Jews of Khaybar finally surrendered and were allowed to live in the oasis on the condition that
they would give one-half of their produce to the
Muslims. Jews continued to live in the oasis for
several more years until they were finally expelled
by caliph Umar. The imposition of tribute upon the
conquered Jews served as a precedent for
provisions in the Islamic law requiring the exaction
of tribute known as jizya from non-Muslims under
Muslim rule, and confiscation of land belonging to
non-Muslims into the collective property of the
Muslim community.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar


I think we all get why betatins spoke of Tarqiyyah of the shia, which seems to apparently means lying. And we have seen how twist hadiths then rejects them when they refute his point re-interpolate them to mean what he says (like Fatima asking for her inheritance became Fatima asking for her gift), then again he reads a hadith that clearly never spoke of inheritance or the prophet pbuh owning khaibar yet to "win" he again innovate and interpret as it suits him. When we are left to choose between his point and khomini's acceptance of the hadith that prophets do not leave behind inheritance, then compared to a black man whom Allah does not speak his language but happen to speak Persia when He is happy (this is found in shia hadiths) we have to stick with Khomini and say his position holds higher grounds than lagosshia who apparently stumbled into shiasm.

So you finally quoted what I have been saying that the jews were eventually all expelled from khaibar and even during the Prophet's (sa) as your quote from wikipedia shows the possession of the land belonged to the muslim community.so why are you still arguing and talking endlessly?you're quoting my point and confirming what I earlier have been saying but trying to make it look you're still right.

On another note I just observed,the hadith I quoted on Aisha being given land as inheritance in khaibar is in "sahih bukhari".and the hadith you quoted on the jews getting a share of the produce after they labor on khaibar is apparently from "sahih muslim".but you've claimed they're both from bukhari and even the same hadith (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Here is the hadith in "sahih bukhari" that is sending you insane because Aisha inherited land from the Prophet (sa) in khaibar while Sayyida Fatima (as) is denied inheritance by Aisha's father because of a false testimony that prophets don't leave inheritance:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:

The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When 'Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and 'Aisha chose the land.

And this is exactly what you quoted apparently from "sahih muslim":

Muslim
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's
on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

How on earth did Vedaxcool try to bring conflict into one hadith in the time of Umar and Aisha getting inheritance from khaibar and another in the earlier days of the Prophet (sa) allowing the jews to work on the land and get paid?

someone seems to be a talented liar indeed; let see how he twisted the truth initially;

LagosShia:

rule out the historic fact that during the life time of Prophet Muhammad (sa) all the jews of khaibar were thrown out and the land was totally under muslim control.

First he lied that the prophet pbuh owned the lands in khaibar then again he lied that all the jews were actually expelled from khaibar during the time of Prophet pbuh this remarkable now again he is saying the land belonging to the muslim community which both hadith clearly indicates, was then inherited by Aisha r.a haba, what sense do this people live by? The inconsistency continues without end the land was never prophet pbuh property so if something does not belong to A, B can never inherit it as such! Plain and simple. As the land belong to the muslim community, unless the unskilled tarqiyyist wants us to believe the prophet pbuh owned everything the muslim community (equivalent to state) which offcourse seems to be applicable when Ayatollahs goble up khumus (zakat) which suppose to be the collective property of their community (yes they eat the money unbehalf of the hidden imam, how the shias invent certain beliefs to decieve and plunder) yet during the prophet's time what belong to the muslim community belonged to the muslim community. As we read in wikipedia, the jews kept cultivating the lands even after the death of the prophet pbuh after they were expelled the land became the property of the ummah. We know that accepting the truth is almost like mission impossible for the shias, especially for people like lagosshia who deny's hadith left right and centre, even hadiths that khoemini clearly accepts that is the prophets leave behind no inheritance. And the remains the fact of things. And yes we keep laughing , especially as you have to keep lying to prove your point.

vedaxcool: someone seems to be a talented liar indeed; let see how he twisted the truth initially;





First he lied that the prophet pbuh owned the lands in khaibar then again he lied that all the jews were actually expelled from khaibar during the time of Prophet pbuh this remarkable now again he is saying the land belonging to the muslim community which both hadith clearly indicates, was then inherited by Aisha r.a haba, what sense do this people live by? The inconsistency continues without end the land was never prophet pbuh property so if something does not belong to A, B can never inherit it as such! Plain and simple. As the land belong to the muslim community, unless the unskilled tarqiyyist wants us to believe the prophet pbuh owned everything the muslim community (equivalent to state) which offcourse seems to be applicable when Ayatollahs goble up khumus (zakat) which suppose to be the collective property of their community (yes they eat the money unbehalf of the hidden imam, how the shias invent certain beliefs to decieve and plunder) yet during the prophet's time what belong to the muslim community belonged to the muslim community. As we read in wikipedia, the jews kept cultivating the lands even after the death of the prophet pbuh after they were expelled the land became the property of the ummah. We know that accepting the truth is almost like mission impossible for the shias, especially for people like lagosshia who deny's hadith left right and centre, even hadiths that khoemini clearly accepts that is the prophets leave behind no inheritance. And the remains the fact of things. And yes we keep laughing , especially as you have to keep lying to prove your point.

Pele!
Sorry!!
Nor craze abeg!!!

to summarize the shock and further send Vedaxcool mad:

1. Khaibar was a jewish settlement
2. It was conquered by the muslims
3. Some of the jews were expelled (taken captives) and others were killed in combat
4. The Prophet (sa) allowed some jews to labor on khaibar and half of the produce goes to the jews.
5. The remaining used to be shared by the Prophet (sa) to his wives
6. Umar eventually totally expelled all the jews
7. Aisha inherited land in khaibar.
8. Abu bakr said prophets leave behind no inheritance and everything goes as charity to the poor
9. The Prophet (sa) is part of the muslim community.if the land belonged to the muslim state and the Prophet (sa) had no share of his own or stake in khaibar,why was he giving his wives share? If the land belonged to the state and therefore must be adninistered by the state why did Aisha individually got land in khaibar after the Prophet's (sa) demise because she was his wife?
10. If the land belonged to all muslims,were ALL muslims getting a similar share as the wives both before and after the Prophet's (sa) death? Why were the wives singled out? Based on Surat al-Anfal,after war doesn't the Prophet (sa) personally get a share of the booty? On what basis was the Prophet (sa) giving that share to his wives?

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 39, Number 521:

The Prophet concluded a contract with the people of Khaibar to utilize the land on the condition that half the products of fruits or vegetation would be their share. The Prophet used to give his wives one hundred Wasqs each, eighty Wasqs of dates and twenty Wasqs of barley. (When 'Umar became the Caliph) he gave the wives of the Prophet the option of either having the land and water as their shares, or carrying on the previous practice. Some of them chose the land and some chose the Wasqs, and 'Aisha chose the land.

The TRUTH always outshine lies:

Aisha r.a did not inherit khaibar land from Prophet Muhammad pbuh. The khaibar land never belonged to the Prophet pbuh, it was the property of Muslim Ummah. During his life time he clearly gave the lands to the Jews who in turn paid Jizya tax by giving the produce back to the muslim community. Years after the death of the prophet Umar expelled them from the land, automatically confering the land to the muslim ummah, that is state property. The hadith clearly shows what contract it the Prophet pbuh signed with the Jews,

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

We see what context the hadith being used actually talked about. Both refer to the same incident.

This simply refute the dim lie that Aisha r.a most beloved wife of the prophet pbuh did not inherit from the prophet. and to compound matters the hadith does not speak of inheritance neither did it speak of Aisha asking for her inheritance. Umar r.a giving the prophet pbuh wives means of sustenance might hurt the shias, but we only feel sorry that they hurt over kindness shown to the Ahlul Bayt, but it remains the fact that Umar r.a did good to the family of the Prophet pbuh by his action. Now these people might be pained and might insist that it was inheritance but I think common sense and truth does not stand by their side rather we see a strong desire to play fast and loose with Bukhari, gift bÉcomes inheritance, most authentic becomes a hider, lol . But we thank God the liar in a bid to obscure the truth did not maintain his lies quoted on post 85 that all the Jews were expelled from khaibar, that would have been very ghastly indeed

vedaxcool: The TRUTH always outshine lies:

Aisha r.a did not inherit khaibar land from Prophet Muhammad pbuh. The khaibar land never belonged to the Prophet pbuh, it was the property of Muslim Ummah. During his life time he clearly gave the lands to the Jews who in turn paid Jizya tax by giving the produce back to the muslim community. Years after the death of the prophet Umar expelled them from the land, automatically confering the land to the muslim ummah, that is state property. The hadith clearly shows what contract it the Prophet pbuh signed with the Jews,

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 524:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle gave the land of Khaibar to the Jew's on the condition that they work on it and cultivate it, and be given half of its yield.

We see what context the hadith being used actually talked about. Both refer to the same incident.

This simply refute the dim lie that Aisha r.a most beloved wife of the prophet pbuh did not inherit from the prophet. and to compound matters the hadith does not speak of inheritance neither did it speak of Aisha asking for her inheritance. Umar r.a giving the prophet pbuh wives means of sustenance might hurt the shias, but we only feel sorry that they hurt over kindness shown to the Ahlul Bayt, but it remains the fact that Umar r.a did good to the family of the Prophet pbuh by his action. Now these people might be pained and might insist that it was inheritance but I think common sense and truth does not stand by their side rather we see a strong desire to play fast and loose with Bukhari, gift bÉcomes inheritance, most authentic becomes a hider, lol . But we thank God the liar in a bid to obscure the truth did not maintain his lies quoted on post 85 that all the Jews were expelled from khaibar, that would have been very ghastly indeed

Another slap to your running mouth!

Proof that fadak and land in khaibar belonged to the Prophet (sa).the inheritance given to Aisha by umar in khaibar was initially denied by abu bakr.while fadak usurped by abu bakr was not handed over back to Sayyida Fatima (as)-"what's good for the goose is not good for the gander" by usurpers and tyrants who play with the belongings of muslims corruptly based on their desires.these facts all prove that even umar wasn't convinced by abu bakr's false testimony that prophets don't leave inheritance and umar eventually violated that.

Sahih Al- Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 53, Number 325:

Narrated 'Aisha: "…She used to ask Abu Bakr for her share from the property of Allah's Apostle which he left at Khaibar, and Fadak, and his property at Medina (devoted for charity). Abu Bakr refused to give her that property and said, "I will not leave anything Allah's Apostle used to do, because I am afraid that if I left something from the Prophet's tradition, then I would go astray." (Later on) Umar gave the Prophet's property (of Sadaqah) at Medina to 'Ali and 'Abbas, but he withheld the properties of Khaibar and Fadak in his custody and said, "These two properties are the Sadaqah which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs.

Then he runs to bukhari to cover his track properties at khaibar? Really what were these properties?

And the deceptive shia deliberately left these behind:

"These two properties are the
Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his
expenditures and urgent needs. Now their
management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today."

Now how am I suppose to handle this level of dishonesty.

vedaxcool: Then he runs to bukhari to cover his track properties at khaibar? Really what were these properties?

And the deceptive shia deliberately left these behind:

"These two properties are the
Sadaqa which Allah's Apostle used to use for his
expenditures and urgent needs. Now their
management is to be entrusted to the ruler." (Az-Zuhrl said, "They have been managed in this way till today."

Now how am I suppose to handle this level of dishonesty.

Liar! Did the properties belong to the Prophet (sa) or not? Yes or no? Whether the Prophet (sa) used them for his needs or wants,how does that negate the fact they belonged to him and under his possession? Were those properties inherited by Aisha or not? You're playing dumb by trying to dribble into irrelevant points.and who is Az-Zuhri? Is that your prophet?

oh dear no apologies for suppressing the hadith by expunging the part that went against your case, ehh, i asked how am i to proceed with these sort dishonesty? i ask which properties? still no response. the same liar claimed that the spoils were distributed amongst the muslims

LagosShia:

you should also read Surat al-Anfal to know whatever booty from war is taken,the Prophet (sa) does have a share.

Yet in an extraordinary twist of sheer dishonesty he now says all the spoils belonged to the prophet pbuh. i mean something is wrong somewhere,
what properties was being asked? still no answer except pent up frustration.


Now it should be clear the hadith speaks of properties without specifying what they actually are, the spoils of khaibar were quite immense, funny thing is the hypocrite is not complaining that umar r.a gave out of the property to Ali r.a and Abbass, rather he insist that because Aisha got lands the prophet gave the jews then truly prophets leave behind inheritance, yet this position is still stoundingly dumb to say the least, the hadiths speaks of different context, one talks of the prophet giving the land to Jews and the other spoke of properties in khaibar. while you keep deluding yourself playing fast and loose, i just sit back and laugh some more at your pitiable display of desperation.

vedaxcool: oh dear no apologies for suppressing the hadith by expunging the part that went against your case, ehh, i asked how am i to proceed with these sort dishonesty? i ask which properties? still no response. the same liar claimed that the spoils were distributed amongst the muslims



Yet in an extraordinary twist of sheer dishonesty he now says all the spoils belonged to the prophet pbuh. i mean something is wrong somewhere,
what properties was being asked? still no answer except pent up frustration.


Now it should be clear the hadith speaks of properties without specifying what they actually are, the spoils of khaibar were quite immense, funny thing is the hypocrite is not complaining that umar r.a gave out of the property to Ali r.a and Abbass, rather he insist that because Aisha got lands the prophet gave the jews then truly prophets leave behind inheritance, yet this position is still stoundingly dumb to say the least, the hadiths speaks of different context, one talks of the prophet giving the land to Jews and the other spoke of properties in khaibar. while you keep deluding yourself playing fast and loose, i just sit back and laugh some more at your pitiable display of desperation.

Aboki please learn english.

The hadith mentions properties in khaibar and fadak without specifying which properties because the hadith goes on to regard fadak and khaibar as "two properties".this is how the hadith concluded in collectively refering to both the land of fadak and khaibar as "two properties" belonging to the Prophet (sa):

" "These two properties are the Sadaqah which Allah's Apostle used to use for his expenditures and urgent needs".

The Prophet (sa) had "a share" doesn't mean after the war,the muslims who took part were not compensated from what was taken from the jews.but the "two properties" were whose? Answer!

Umar gave whom and how he wills further shows misappropriation.what happened to "prophets don't leave inheritance"? Funny sunnites! Dull!

i don't know how we can help this pitiable man , most especially how he continues to confuse himself. He posted a hadith which shows that prophet pbuh signed a contract with the jews pertaining peace, this agreement outlived him, further i posted another hadith which showed he did give lands of khaibar to the jews as part of these agreement in return for their payment of half of the produce from these lands, now he post another hadith which speaks of properties not clearly specifying what these properties, this same hadith showed that the management of the properties became entrusted to the ruler. Hence we see the hadith speaks of different context. But the frustrated man seems not to want to reason, i mean don't maga no know when im shia boses don't play with their head? it is very clear this man is so desperate to prove his point that any and every hadith seems to support his cases and when they don't somebody is hiding something. truly we need to pity these people! atleast if the aboki should learn simple common sense and apply as such! shikena now he implies that khaibar was entirely the prophet property yet that is hardly the matter:

Bukhari :: Book 59 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 368

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, ”I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.’ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”

are we seeing how far lagosshia would go to manipulate the truth! it is very clear khaibar wasn't entirely the prophet's property, rather he had a share from it. now these hadith does not refer to the hadith which specifically speaks of the terms of peace between the muslims and jews. i know this is what you believe and would tell any amount of lie to prove your point, but we are always compelled to tell the truth that is what we do, we know it may sound dull to you, but the truth must be told, i think you are actually telling bad lies, if not you should been able to prove your truths with the amount of lies you said over and over again, one won't be surprised if every thing posted does not contain lies and inconsistency

vedaxcool: i don't know how we can help this pitiable man , most especially how he continues to confuse himself. He posted a hadith which shows that prophet pbuh signed a contract with the jews pertaining peace, this agreement outlived him, further i posted another hadith which showed he did give lands of khaibar to the jews as part of these agreement in return for their payment of half of the produce from these lands, now he post another hadith which speaks of properties not clearly specifying what these properties, this same hadith showed that the management of the properties became entrusted to the ruler. Hence we see the hadith speaks of different context. But the frustrated man seems not to want to reason, i mean don't maga no know when im shia boses don't play with their head? it is very clear this man is so desperate to prove his point that any and every hadith seems to support his cases and when they don't somebody is hiding something. truly we need to pity these people! atleast if the aboki should learn simple common sense and apply as such! shikena now he implies that khaibar was entirely the prophet property yet that is hardly the matter:

Bukhari :: Book 59 :: Volume 5 :: Hadith 368

Narrated ‘Aisha: Fatima and Al’Abbas came to Abu Bakr, claiming their inheritance of the Prophet’s land of Fadak and his share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said, ”I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Our property is not inherited, and whatever we leave is to be given in charity. But the family of Muhammad can take their sustenance from this property.’ By Allah, I would love to do good to the Kith and kin of Allah’s Apostle rather than to my own Kith and kin.”

are we seeing how far lagosshia would go to manipulate the truth! it is very clear khaibar wasn't entirely the prophet's property, rather he had a share from it. now these hadith does not refer to the hadith which specifically speaks of the terms of peace between the muslims and jews. i know this is what you believe and would tell any amount of lie to prove your point, but we are always compelled to tell the truth that is what we do, we know it may sound dull to you, but the truth must be told, i think you are actually telling bad lies, if not you should been able to prove your truths with the amount of lies you said over and over again, one won't be surprised if every thing posted does not contain lies and inconsistency

The "properties" Aisha was asking abu bakr and umar gave her eventually was what belonged to the Prophet (sa).what was given to the muslims was gone.no land was given to jews.the jews were allowed by the Prophet (sa) to labor his land and get paid.the land that remained of/as khaybar belonged to the Prophet (sa).

Another slap!

Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 130

"The Prophet conquered Khaybar by force after fighting. Khaybar was something that Allah gave as booty to His Messenger. He took one-fifth of it and divided the remainder among the Muslims".

So was Aisha given what was already shared to other muslims or from the one fifth of the Prophet (sa)? Common sense and plain english is no longer enough to understand.

But be rest assured you're not going to hijack this thread by twisting and manipulation and illogic.expect more slaps! I'd be patient enough with your ignorance.but the more ignorance you show the better people would know how silly sunnis your type living in self denial for 1400 years are.