Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126

Ali says:

[size=18pt]“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! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”[/size]

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

these are the words of Ali r.a whom you claim to follow, he refereed to the shia who are not the majority till date, s being the Satans prey . Alhamduliliah how easy it is to show the misguided the path to honor

The doctrine of imamate and the declaration that Imam Ali (as) was the successor of the Prophet (s) was pronounced by the Prophet (sa) himself and ordered by Allah as the Quran reports also.there are several instances already cited in this thread.it is ironic how an accursed jew and hypocrite believed in the imamate of Ali (as) yet the likes of vedaxcool from the other extreme dont believe.

As for the extreme idea and kufr of Ibn Saba in associating divinity with Imam Ali (as),we Shia who are followers of Allah,the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the rightly guided caliphs who only are the 12 Imams (as) of the purified members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are innocent.
We believe in LA ILAHA ILLALLAH MUHAMMAD RASULULLAH (s).

I have earlier challenged the mouth-piece of the Nasibis on nairaland aka 'vedaxcool' on two issues,namely:
1.to provide one hadith that 'sabaites' as he refered to that word killed Usthman.

2.to tell us why Marwan Ibn Hakam killed Talha.

He has refrained to answer those two questions so far.he knows why most likely

Now i am going to add a third.as we can see vedaxcool is perfecting the blind art of spreading unfounded allegations,lies and insults.it looks like the main thing he has benefitted from being sunni is learning how to hate as exemplified by the wahabi/salafist movement,which is giving Islam a bad image of terrorism;lying and insults.he has alleged severally that Imam Ali (as) cursed the Shia and called us names like traitors and hypocrites. I tried to reason with him by showing him that it isn't reasonable we muslims be called 'hypocrites' since some followers of the Prophet Muhammad (s) who claimed to be muslims were infact hypocrites who only believed with their mouths as the Quran says.but to no avail,he just continues repeating the lie.now i want him to show us where and when Imam Ali (as) cursed us all as he says and called us names.you will see that he will only quote out of context and twist the words of Imam Ali (as) when we examine the words and the time and place they were uttered.

Stalwert:

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126

Ali says:

    [size=18pt]“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! Whoever calls to this course [of sectarianism], kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine.”[/size]

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

these are the words of Ali r.a whom you claim to follow, he refereed to the shia who are not the majority till date, s being the Satans prey . Alhamduliliah how easy it is to show the misguided the path to honor

you need to open the link of al-islam.org that you claim to be quoting from and read the speech of Imam Ali (as).stop misquoting,misinterpreting and twisting words of our Imam (as).

In the days of Imam Ali (as) and in the time of the kharijites or khawarij,there were 3 groups of people:
1.those who hated Imam Ali (as) like the kharijites and the Nasibis like banu umayya who denied him many things.for example,Muawiya another hero of the sunnis who vedaxcool would bless and say 'may Allah be pleased with him' whenever Muawiya is mentioned,hated Imam Ali (as).Muawiya made sure that Imam Ali (as) was cursed from the pulpits and in mosques during friday sermons for 40years until Umar Ibn Abdul-aziz stopped the practice.presently and in modern times,sunnis do not hate Imam Ali (as) because times have changed and they cannot afford to hate him.but they still honor those who hated Imam Ali (as) and fought him like aisha and muawiya and co.this is either misguidance,hypocrisy or ignorance.the views of overwhelming number of shia scholars is that sunnis are misguided and many of them are victims of fabrication and a distorted history thanks to their tyrannical and oppressive caliphs who hated Imam Ali (as).

2.the second group are those who in the name of so called love who attributed divinity to Imam Ali (as) like Ibn Saba.

3.the third group include the shia who neither hate nor over-love Ali (as).we give him the honor due to him.also in this group,in the time Imam Ali (as) was talkin,was the majority of people who did not hate Imam Ali (as) and did not also over-love him.they actually loved Ali (as).in the words of the Prophet (s):'love for Ali is faith'.the third group is the middle course.

Naturally and islamically,anyone who over-love someone to attribute divinity to a human being is doomed.also hating a pious believer and someone like Imam Ali (as) is sinful and can lead to damnation.the middle course is best.but does it also mean those there would automatically attain paradise?no,because you have avoided hating and over loving Imam Ali (as) and taken yourself from automatic damnation of 2 groups but As for those in the middle course you must also be rightly guided.among those in the middle course who love Imam Ali (as),it is the shia who are rightly guided and follow the absolute truth and correct interpretations and the ultimate reality of Islam.just saying 'i love Ali' with your mouth like those who also love and honor the enemies of Imam Ali (a),or even truly loving Imam Ali (as) while you dont give him due regards and honor like the shia give him,would still leave you lacking.

Zhul-fiqar:

The doctrine of imamate and the declaration that Imam Ali (as) was the successor of the Prophet (s) was pronounced by the Prophet (sa) himself and ordered by Allah as the Quran reports also.there are several instances already cited in this thread.it is ironic how an accursed jew and hypocrite believed in the imamate of Ali (as) yet the likes of vedaxcool from the other extreme dont believe.

ironic you say?  keep following the accursed jew and hypocrite, I have choosen to worship Allah alone by not saying Ya madad Ali auzobillah!

As for the extreme idea and kufr of Ibn Saba in associating divinity with Imam Ali (as),we Shia who are followers of Allah,the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the rightly guided caliphs who only are the 12 Imams (as) of the purified members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are innocent.
We believe in LA ILAHA ILLALLAH MUHAMMAD RASULULLAH (s).


“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:32-33)

The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33)

You follow the Ahlul Bayt but decide to insult memebers of Ahlul Bayt. I follow the provisions of the Qur'an, which says I should abhor anything that is an expression of Kuffar, Yaa madad Ali! !

Zhul-fiqar:

I have earlier challenged the mouth-piece of the Nasibis on nairaland aka 'vedaxcool' on two issues,namely:
1.to provide one hadith that 'sabaites' as he refered to that word killed Usthman.

to which I showed you and you decided to deny the hadith

Zhul-fiqar:

2.to tell us why Marwan Ibn Hakam killed Talha.

when you can explain why the shias murdered Ali r.a, Hassan, Hussayn, then I might consider answering a question that bears no semblance to what we were discussing

Zhul-fiqar:

He has refrained to answer those two questions so far.he knows why most likely

Actually you refraining from explaining to us why Ali r.a according to you shias whom Ali r.a called Hypocrites, liars, etc why he feared doing justice, why despite he became the Caliph he refused to do what is right? why with his alleaged ability to gorven over atoms he still feared mere mortals to teh extent that he did injustice to himself and his own family, you know the right reasons  that incidence dents the false picture shias created in their fairytale land where imams rule over atoms and are equal to Prophets of Allah auzobillah an Intoxicated land it is.

Now i am going to add a third.as we can see vedaxcool is perfecting the blind art of spreading unfounded allegations,lies and insults.it looks like the main thing he has benefitted from being sunni is learning how to hate as exemplified by the wahabi/salafist movement,which is giving Islam a bad image of terrorism;lying and insults.he has alleged severally that Imam Ali (as) cursed the Shia and called us names like traitors and hypocrites. I tried to reason with him by showing him that it isn't reasonable we muslims be called 'hypocrites' since some followers of the Prophet Muhammad (s) who claimed to be muslims were infact hypocrites who only believed with their mouths as the Quran says.but to no avail,he just continues repeating the lie.now i want him to show us where and when Imam Ali (as) cursed us all as he says and called us names.you will see that he will only quote out of context and twist the words of Imam Ali (as) when we examine the words and the time and place they were uttered.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 57

Ali said to his Shia:

“Storm may overtake you while there may be none to prick you (for reforms). Shall I be witness to my becoming heretic after acceptance of Faith and fighting in the company of the Prophet?! So you should return to your evil places, and get back on the traces of your heels. Beware! Certainly you will meet, after me, overwhelming disgrace and sharp sword and tradition that will be adopted by the oppressors as a norm towards you.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 68

Ali admonishes his Shia:

“How long shall I accord you consideration that is accorded to camels with hollow hump, or to worn clothes which when stitched on one side give way on the other. Whenever a vanguard force of Syria [Muawiyyah’s Syrians] hovers over you, everyone of you shuts his door and hides himself like the lizard in its hole or a badger it its den. By Allah, he whom people like you support must suffer disgrace and he who throws arrows with your support is as if he throws arrows that are broken both at head and tail. By Allah, within the courtyard you are quite numerous but under the banner you are only a few. Certainly, I know what can improve you and how your crookedness can be straightened. But I shall not improve your condition by marring myself. Allah may disgrace your faces and destroy you. You do not understand the right as you understand the wrong and do not crush the wrong as you crush the right.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 69

Ali said about his Shia:

“I saw the Prophet of Allah appear before me, and I said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! What crookedness and enmity I had to face from my people.’ The prophet of Allah said: Invoke (Allah) to place evil upon them,’ but I said, ‘Allah may change them for me with better ones’”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 70

Ali said in condemnation of the Shia of Iraq:

“Now then, O people of Iraq! You are like the pregnant woman who, on completion of the period of pregnancy delivers a dead child and her husband is also dead and her period of widowhood is long while only remote relation inherits her. By Allah, I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say ‘Ali speaks a lie.’ May Allah fight you! Against whom do I speak lie? Whether against Allah? But I am the first to have believed in him. Whether against His Prophet? But I am the first who testified to him. Certainly not. By Allah it was a way of expression which you failed to appreciate, and you were not capable of it. Woe to you. I am giving out these measures of nice expression free of any cost. I wish there were vessels good enough to hold them.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 96

Ali said to the Shia of Kufa:

“People are afraid of the oppression of their rulers while I fear the oppression of my subjects. I called you for war but you did not come. I warned you but you did not listen. I called you secretly as well as openly, but you did not respond. I gave you sincere counsel, but you did not accept it. Are you present like the absent, and slaves like masters? I recite before you points of wisdom but you turn away from them, and I advise you with far reaching advice but you disperse away from it. I rouse you for jihad against the people of revolt but before I come to the end of my speech, I see you disperse like the sons of Saba. You return to your places and deceive one another by your counsel. I straighten you in the morning but you are back to me in the evening as curved as the back of a bow. The sraightener has become weary while those to be straightened have become incorrigible.

“O those whose bodies are present but wits are absent, and whose wishes are scattered. Their rulers are on trial. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobeyed him while the leader of the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s men] disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Muawiyya exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them.

“O people of Kufa, I have experienced in you three things and two others: you are deaf in spite of having ears, dumb in spite of speaking, and blind in spite of having eyes. You are neither true supporters in combat nor dependable brothers in distress. Your hands may be soiled with earth. O’ examples of those camels whose herdsman has disappeared, if they are collected together from one side they disperse from the other. By Allah, I see you in my imagination that if war becomes intense and action is in full swing you would run away from the son of Abi Talib like the woman who becomes Unclad in the front.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 115

Ali says to his Shia:

“Your ideas went astray and your affairs were dispersed. I do long that Allah may cause separation between me and you and give me those who have a better right to be with me than you.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 124

Ali says to his Shia:

“You are not trustworthy to rely upon, nor are you holders of honor to be adhered to. You are very bad in kindling the fire of fighting. Woe to you! I had to bear a lot of worries from you. Some day I call you and some day I speak to you in confidence, you are neither true free men at the time of call, nor trustworthy brothers at the time of speaking in confidence.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 126

Ali says to his Shia:

“Certainly you are the most evil of all persons and are those whom Satan has put on his lines and thrown out into his wayless land.”

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 130

Ali says to his Shia:

“O people of differing minds and divided hearts, whose bodies are present but wits are absent. I am leading you (amicably) towards truthfulness, but you run away from it like goats and sheep running away from the howling of a lion. How hard it is for me to uncover for you the secrets of justice, or to straighten the curve of truthfulness.”


Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191

Ali says to his Shia:

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people. Be sure that if you incline towards anything other than Islam. the unbelievers will fight you. Then there will be neither Gabriel nor Michael, neither Muhajirun nor Ansar to help you, but only the clashing of swords, till Allah settles the matter for you…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands!”

And perhaps the best of all to summarize with, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) says that the people have sinned by splitting up into Shias (sects), and that they have left Islam and instead gone back to the pagan Beduin ways. He tells the Shia that they will dishonor Islam by breaking the pledge of brotherhood with the Muslim Ummah and insulting the pioneers of Islam.


[/quot/e]

Roflmao! , we now know that the shia ancestors where cursed, tell me if the fore runners of shiasm where of despeakable character to which Ali r.a insulted cursed, cursed, and cursed, then we are sure the true Nasibis are the shias, they killed ali, they killed hussayn they killed hassan they are indeed the worst of creatures, as they insult the prophets' widow, Mother of the believers, it is as if they cannot kill you they insult you. Now tell me, if the men that pass all the knowledge of shiasm were of very bad character, then how can anyone with a sane mind still take this sort of people to be of the best manners worthy of being followed? only the twisted mind of a shia can explain!

Zhul-fiqar:

you need to open the link of al-islam.org that you claim to be quoting from and read the speech of Imam Ali (as).stop misquoting,misinterpreting and twisting words of our Imam (as).

In the days of Imam Ali (as) and in the time of the kharijites or khawarij,there were 3 groups of people:
1.those who hated Imam Ali (as) like the kharijites and the Nasibis like banu umayya who denied him many things.for example,Muawiya another hero of the sunnis who vedaxcool would bless and say 'may Allah be pleased with him' whenever Muawiya is mentioned,hated Imam Ali (as).Muawiya made sure that Imam Ali (as) was cursed from the pulpits and in mosques during friday sermons for 40years until Umar Ibn Abdul-aziz stopped the practice.presently and in modern times,sunnis do not hate Imam Ali (as) because times have changed and they cannot afford to hate him.but they still honor those who hated Imam Ali (as) and fought him like aisha and muawiya and co.this is either misguidance,hypocrisy or ignorance.the views of overwhelming number of shia scholars is that sunnis are misguided and many of them are victims of fabrication and a distorted history thanks to their tyrannical and oppressive caliphs who hated Imam Ali (as).

2.the second group are those who in the name of so called love who attributed divinity to Imam Ali (as) like Ibn Saba.

3.the third group include the shia who neither hate nor over-love Ali (as).we give him the honor due to him.also in this group,in the time Imam Ali (as) was talkin,was the majority of people who did not hate Imam Ali (as) and did not also over-love him.they actually loved Ali (as).in the words of the Prophet (s):'love for Ali is faith'.the third group is the middle course.

Naturally and islamically,anyone who over-love someone to attribute divinity to a human being is doomed.also hating a pious believer and someone like Imam Ali (as) is sinful and can lead to damnation.the middle course is best.but does it also mean those there would automatically attain paradise?no,because you have avoided hating and over loving Imam Ali (as) and taken yourself from automatic damnation of 2 groups but As for those in the middle course you must also be rightly guided.among those in the middle course who love Imam Ali (as),it is the shia who are rightly guided and follow the absolute truth and correct interpretations and the ultimate reality of Islam.just saying 'i love Ali' with your mouth like those who also love and honor the enemies of Imam Ali (a),or even truly loving Imam Ali (as) while you dont give him due regards and honor like the shia do,would still leave you lacking.

Lol! Ali meant the shias who go to low levels in their alleged love for Ali r.a, lets see how their lows has pushed them to the faction that are in the minority:

The Shia place a piece of stone or clay, known as “Turbah,” on the ground so that their forehead touches the stone when they prostrate themselves in prayer. The Turbahs are made out of the stone or clay from the shrines of Imams or saints. Oftentimes, the Turbah is made from the clay or stone from Imam Hussain’s shrine. The Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussain’s shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Ka’abah.

The Shia are guilty of committing Shirk by giving characteristics of Allah to their Imams. The Shia even pray to their Imams and invoke their names by saying “Ya Ali” or “Ya Hussain” or “Ya Nabi!” They then proceed to make du’a asking for whatever they want. The famous Shia prayer “Ya Ali Madad” means “O Ali, help us!”

The Shia believe that their prayers are accepted because they invoke the names of their Imams. They believe that the names of their Imams are the key-factor for acceptance of their prayers and a major prerequisite for getting invocations answered by Allah. This is similar to the unfounded claim by the polythiests who say that their idols draw them nearer to Allah.

The Christians ascribe qualities of Allah to Prophet Isa (عليه السلام) in the name of loving him. So too do the Shia exalt the status of Imamah in order to praise Ali (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is perfect, infallible, cannot make mistakes, cannot sin, knows Al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knows when he will die, dies only by his own wish, and has the power to do Tawassul for his followers. The Shia refer to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as “Mazhar Al Aja-ib” which translates to “The Executor of Wonders,” a name that should only be used for Allah Almighty. The Christians call Isa (عليه السلام) the Son of God, but the Shia go one step even further and call Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be the “Yadullah” or the “Hand of Allah.” The Shia call Ali (رضّى الله عنه) the Living “Ism-i Azam” or the Living “Supreme Name of God.”

We have seen in previous articles how the Shia believe that the Imams are infallible and posses many attributes of Allah. But the Shia don’t stop there; they have taken it to the next level. The Shia have erected shrines over the graves of their Imams. Millions of Shia from all over the world visit these shrines in Iran and Iraq to pray in them.

The Ahlus Sunnah is stunned by this pagan practise of creating shrines and grave-worshipping. The Shia will argue that they really aren’t praying to the deceased, but that really doesn’t make any sense. Why then do they travel all the way to Iran to do prayer? Surely they believe there is some benefit of praying next to the body of a deceased Imam? Otherwise, why would they come from so far to do it?

This are just a few of the outlandish expression for their "love" for the Ali and Ahlul Bayt.

To crown it, Ali r.a said . . .o be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. " this statement clearly refers to the Sunni, as Sunnis are still the Majority sect in Islam. Alhamduililah.

[b]Someone really sounds drunk or has gone mad.

Anyways,each and every allegation or lie either in the form of mockery,comedy,or plot to mislead jokingly or purposefully would be refuted as deemed appropriate or could also be ignored as deemed appropriate where silence is understood as golden and not to be taken for either as weakness or submission. and the anti-shia,and anti-islamic rantings and remarks which evidently lack the fear of Allah (swt) will be rewarded with the fire of jahannam.the evidence which is severe punishment against tyranny,oppression and corruption in the land to fight true islam shall be painful reward for the enemies of islam in this world before the next.those are the ones who lost hope in Allah and shall be punished.they deliberately take wrong for the right and the right for wrong.the lines of apparent kufr and alarming accusations show that shaitan is very angry at exposing the truth against his horns and his representative on nairaland who is destroying himself with ignorance and explaining things from rumor and hate is really gone mad and is burning un-islamically with rage and uttering the unbelieveable.what a comic relief! let falsehood be uttered by the enemies of God.the forces of good  and those who want to know the truth of the matter and see light,there is surely enough light for them to see as Imam Ali (as) says of those who really want to know the truth.those after the truth would surely search for it and see it.

still let the forces of shaitan demonstrate and expose themselves of how ignorance has overtaken them and how un-islamic they are to the extent of cold-blooded lies while they hide their true colors and deceive people by claiming to be muslims.we are the Shia of Ali,the believers in Allah and those who raise the banner of Islam high till eternity and for that divinely bestowed blessing of guidance,we praise and thank almighty Allah;for there is no guidance if Allah does not guide us.we seek more knowledge and understanding into all things,of that which we know and of that we know NOT.and we will continue to expose falsehood which has long being mistaken for islam.and we will continue to reveal the truth inspite of the stumbling block,lies and propaganda the enemies of God put in our way.the enemies of God can either continue to burn in rage which in itself is obvious defeat for them or they can join us which is better for them.revealing the truth topic by topic will continue and exposing falsehood is our duty.shaitan and his followers should burn in their rage.

Ya Ali Madad![/b]

vedaxcool:


I have choosen to worship Allah alone by not saying Ya madad Ali auzobillah!

What is the meaning of Ya Ali Madad?

Find Out the Meaning of “Ya Ali Madad”!
An Ayatollah Explains What "Ya Ali Madad" Means

You follow the Ahlul Bayt but decide to insult memebers of Ahlul Bayt. I follow the provisions of the Qur'an, which says I should abhor anything that is an expression of Kuffar, Yaa madad Ali! !

We don’t insult anyone.we only curse the enemies of God.if you regard Aisha as a member of the Ahlul-Bayt,you should know that even at that and being a member of the Ahlul-Bayt is not what makes us Shia love the Ahlul-Bayt (as).when we use the word Ahlul-Bayt (as) we refer to the members of the Prophet’s Household who Allah was pleased with and they were purified (Holy Quran 33:33).these people were the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself,Imam Ali (as),Sayyidah Fatima (as) and Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as).these are the five members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) Allah purified.these are also the people known as the people of the cloak or Ahlal-Kisa.you can read about the Hadith of the Cloak.
These are the members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) whom Allah (swt) made compulsory to love them in the Quran:

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


Just the way we do not bundle all the companions and dump them into one basket under the name of being “companions of the Prophet”,likewise we also do not bundle all those related to the Prophet (sa) and regard them and Ahlul-Bayt (as).this is built upon the fact that in the Holy Quran,Allah told Prophet Noah (as) that his son was not “of him” because he was rebellious.likewise,a woman like Aisha who fought Imam Ali (as) and stood against the grandchildren of the Prophet (sa) cannot herself also be regard as a member of the purified “Ahlul-Bayt” .a purified person does not wage war and kill others who are also purified.so it is either all the members related to the Prophet (sa) are not purified and the Quran is false or only some members are.to the shia we believe only some members are and they are the Ahlal-Kisa.they were the ones the Prophet (sa) prayed for and named and regarded as his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and none others.

Read More With Quranic Evidence On The Ahlul-Bayt (as)
Sunni Myth of Love and Adherence to the Ahlul-Bayt (as)

to which I showed you and you decided to deny the hadith

The hadiths you presented do not tell us that the “sabaites” killed Usthman.one dishonestly makes use of brackets to inject the word “sabaite” into the narration of al-tabari,while the other mentions “sabaites” in regards to the battle of the camel.

THE CHALLENGE STILL STANDS:IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COMPANIONS INCLUDING AISHA AND TALHA AND ZUBAYR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF USTHMAN,PRESENT ME A HADITH FROM SUNNI SOURCES TELLING US WHO KILLED USTHMAN.

You can take a look at the hadith you presented earlier and observe that you have not presented a hadith to support your allegation that so called “sabaites” killed usthman:

“And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman[b] [the Saba’ites] [/b]had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718

when you can explain why the shias murdered Ali r.a, Hassan, Hussayn, then I might consider answering a question that bears no semblance to what we were discussing

You are very funny.so you master Muawiya and his accursed son Yazid who murdered 3 of our Imams (Imams Ali,Hassan and Hussain (as) are now shia?
You can take a look here what sunni scholars have said about Yazeed:
Al-Dhahabi Writes About Yazid(la):
He (Yazid l.a) was a disgusting Nasibi (i.e. those who hate Ahlul bayt). He drank and did evil. He started his kingdom with the killing of the Shahid al-Hussain (a.s) and ended it with the incident of al-Harra (i.e. besiegement of Madina which also makes him directly liable for Lanah as sahih ahadith prove). Hence the people hated him, he was not blessed in his life, and many took up arms against him after Imam Hussain (a.s) such as the people of Madina - they rose for the sake of Allah.
[As Siyar al Alam an Nabula, Volume No. 4, Page No. 37-38]

2) al-Dhahabi writes: I say: 'When Yazid(l.a) did to the people of Madina what he did and killed al-Hussain(a.s) and his brothers and progeny, and Yazid(l.a) drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. God didn't bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.'
[Tarikh al-Islam: wa-tabaqat al-mashahir wa-al-a`lam, Volume 005, Page No. 30.

I POSED A SECOND CHALLENGE TO YOU:PLEASE TELL US WHY MARWAN IBN HAKAM KILLED TALHA.YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER AND THINK IT IS NOT RELATED TO OUR DISCUSSION.IN THAT CASE MOST OF WHAT YOU HAVE RAISED IS NOT RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.MARWAN,USTHMAN’S COUSIN,KILLED TALHA (AISHA’S COUSIN) BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TALHA TOOK PART IN THE MURDER OF USTHMAN.BOTH TALHA AND MARWAN ACTUALLY FOUGHT ON AISHA’S SIDE AGAINST IMAM ALI (as) IN THE BATTLE OF THE CAMEL TO “AVENGE THE KILLING OF USTHMAN” AS THEY FALSELY CLAIMED .WHEN THE FORCES OF IMAM ALI (as) DEFEATED AISHA’S ARMY,THEY DISPERSED AND THAT WAS WHEN MARWAN KILLED TALHA BY HIMSELF IN REVENGE FOR USTHMAN’S MURDER.SUNNI HADITH SOURCES HAVE ALREADY BEING CITED REPORTING HOW MARWAN KILLED TALHA.

Actually you refraining from explaining to us why Ali r.a according to you shias whom Ali r.a called Hypocrites, liars, etc why he feared doing justice, why despite he became the Caliph he refused to do what is right? why with his alleaged ability to gorven over atoms he still feared mere mortals to teh extent that he did injustice to himself and his own family, you know the right reasons that incidence dents the false picture shias created in their fairytale land where imams rule over atoms and are equal to Prophets of Allah auzobillah an Intoxicated land it is.

Imam Ali (as) never cursed the shia.you are the one interpreting it as such and distorting the meaning og his words.he cursed the hypocrites and they are found everywhere including those who were not considered “shia”.

Imam Ali (as)'s position on Fadak

Roflmao! , we now know that the shia ancestors where cursed, tell me if the fore runners of shiasm where of despeakable character to which Ali r.a insulted cursed, cursed, and cursed, then we are sure the true Nasibis are the shias, they killed ali, they killed hussayn they killed hassan they are indeed the worst of creatures, as they insult the prophets' widow, Mother of the believers, it is as if they cannot kill you they insult you. Now tell me, if the men that pass all the knowledge of shiasm were of very bad character, then how can anyone with a sane mind still take this sort of people to be of the best manners worthy of being followed? only the twisted mind of a shia can explain!

Your own ancestors are cursed.you are the evidence of that curse.
You keep injecting into the sermons and letter from Nahjul-Balagha:” Ali said to his Shia”.
How do you know he was actually talking to his own Shia who are his supporters and staunch loyalists?

Here is a link to all the letters and sermon in Nahjul-Balagha by Imam Ali (as).examine all the sermons and letters you imagine that Imam Ali (as) was cursing his Shia (astaghfirullah!!!):

Nahjul-Balagha By Imam Ali (as)

vedaxcool:

The Shia place a piece of stone or clay, known as “Turbah,” on the ground so that their forehead touches the stone when they prostrate themselves in prayer. The Turbahs are made out of the stone or clay from the shrines of Imams or saints. Oftentimes, the Turbah is made from the clay or stone from Imam Hussain’s shrine. The Shia Ulema have declared that no Turbah has a higher sacredness than a Turbah made from Imam Hussain’s shrine, not even the stone from the Holy Ka’abah.

Please can you provide us the statements of a Shia scholar who says the soil of Karbala is more sacred than that of Makkah? We will also discuss later on why all muslims (sunni and shia) kiss the black stone when we do pilgrimage to Makkah.is that shirk or polytheism?why or why not?

Secondly,the practice of prostration on soil (i.e. on the earth) has nothing to do with loving the 12 Imams (as).the practice of prostrating on the earth is a sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) which you do not know about.we pray as the Prophet (sa) prayed.

Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: I saw Allah's Apostle prostrating in mud and water and saw the mark of mud on his forehead.[Al-Bukhari, Sahih (English translation), vol. 1, book 12, no. 798; vol. 3, book 33, no. 244]


Why the Shi'ah do prostration on Turbah(soil)?

Why Prostrate on Karbala's Turba?

The Shia believe that their prayers are accepted because they invoke the names of their Imams. They believe that the names of their Imams are the key-factor for acceptance of their prayers and a major prerequisite for getting invocations answered by Allah. This is similar to the unfounded claim by the polythiests who say that their idols draw them nearer to Allah.

"O you who believe! Fear Allah and seek an intercession (wasilah) unto Him, "
(Holy Qur'an 5:35)

", And they do not intercede (tawassul) except for him whom He approve, " (21:28)
Evidence for Tawassul by a Sunni Writer

Tawassul

Proof of Tawassul from the Quran

The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is perfect, infallible, cannot make mistakes, cannot sin, knows Al-Ghaib (the Unseen), knows when he will die, dies only by his own wish, and has the power to do Tawassul for his followers.

You have just committed a sin by ascribing shirk and disbelief on other muslims.may Allah judge you for that!
Shirk or polytheism is when you believe that someone other than Allah or alongside Allah have powers to do and undo.however it is not polytheism or shirk to believe that someone beloved to Almighty Allah (swt),has being blessed by Allah (swt) things like knowing the future or to intercede for his followers.it is Allah and His might that have made that possible.therefore to the Shia,Allah alone do we worship and we believe there is no power or might except from Allah (swt).also,we Shia believe that all prophets and Imams (successors to prophets like the 12 Imams) are blessed by Allah (swt) with ismah (infallibility) and are protected by Allah (swt) from going astray.
Infallibility
Leadership and Infallibility
Infallibility of the Prophets

The Shia refer to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as “Mazhar Al Aja-ib” which translates to “The Executor of Wonders,” a name that should only be used for Allah Almighty. The Christians call Isa (عليه السلام) the Son of God, but the Shia go one step even further and call Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be the “Yadullah” or the “Hand of Allah.” The Shia call Ali (رضّى الله عنه) the Living “Ism-i Azam” or the Living “Supreme Name of God.”

Your mouth or may be your fingers that type nonsense deserve to be roasted and given to the dogs.be mindful of Allah (swt)!!!
In the Quran we read about the “face of God”.does that mean that Allah (swt) has a face?these are figurative and symbolic.they are not literal.also,whatever miracle or wonder a prophet or Imam chosen by Allah is able to do,that is only done by the power of Allah given to him.

We have seen in previous articles how the Shia believe that the Imams are infallible and posses many attributes of Allah. But the Shia don’t stop there; they have taken it to the next level. The Shia have erected shrines over the graves of their Imams. Millions of Shia from all over the world visit these shrines in Iran and Iraq to pray in them.

Evidence from the Quran that building an edifice (structure over the grave) or building a place of worship (masjid) where the chosen ones of Allah (swt) are buried is allowed and is not shirk.let us take the “ashabul-Kahf” mentioned in suratul kahf in the Quran as example and how Allah (swt) allowed it:

“Thus did We make their case known to the people, that they might know that the promise of Allah is true, and that there can be no doubt about the Hour of Judgment. Behold, they dispute among themselves as to their affair. (Some) said, "Construct a building over them": Their Lord knows best about them: those who prevailed over their affair said, "Let us surely build a place of worship over them."(Holy Quran 18:21)

The Ahlus Sunnah is stunned by this pagan practise of creating shrines and grave-worshipping. The Shia will argue that they really aren’t praying to the deceased, but that really doesn’t make any sense. Why then do they travel all the way to Iran to do prayer? Surely they believe there is some benefit of praying next to the body of a deceased Imam? Otherwise, why would they come from so far to do it?

Visiting the dead and honoring their memory is a sunnah in Islam.
You say visiting the grave is a pagan practice.then how do you as a muslim intend to convince the Christian that when you visit the Ka’bah,you are not worshipping it? And that when we prayer five times turning towards the Qiblah (directiong of the Ka’bah) we are not worshipping it? When you do the pilgrimage to Makkah and you kiss the black stone,why is that not shirk and polytheism?

Oh I see: you will tell them that your intention is to worship Allah alone and you only acknowledge Allah (One God) as your creator and Lord who has power over all things.so why don’t you sunnis also see that when we visit the graves of the Imams,we don’t also worship them? You question the intention of the shia but you want others to believe your intentions.

Also just the way we believe that the ka’bah is a house of worship and the “house of Allah”,and we only honor Allah by doing the pilgrimage,likewise when we visit the graves of our Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the 12 Imams who are his descendants and pious members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as),we are not worshipping or glorifying the stone or the grave or the iron.we are remembering our beloved leaders and masters whom Allah (swt) is well pleased with.it is devotion and love for Allah that we love and honor those beloved to Allah (swt).where the members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are buried are lands honored by Allah (swt) to house the pure bodies of the pious members of the Prophet Muhammad’s(sa) household.when we pray there and make supplication to Allah,we only do it to Allah (swt). Just like when we face the ka’bah we don’t worship it,likewise when we visit the graves of the beloved ones,we neither worship the grave nor the person whose body is in it.

You can watch the below video and understand more on this issue with evidence from the Quran that visiting the grave of the chosen ones of Allah is permitted and is not shirk.the speaker is a Shia scholar speaking with british accented English for all to understand clearly:

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

To crown it, Ali r.a said . . .o be with him and be with the great majority of Muslims because Allah’s hand of protection is on keeping unity. " this statement clearly refers to the Sunni, as Sunnis are still the Majority sect in Islam. Alhamduililah.

Keep on dreaming!
Imam Ali’s (as) statement was not a prophesy but he was expressing his belief about the reality prevalent in his times.i have already explained the statement and identified the 3 groups of people that existed then.

Zhul-fiqar:



Ya Ali Madad![/b]

Roflamao<<< what ever that means! , the above Expression is Shirek, as we do not even say Ya Muhamad Madad, talk-less of saying the above blasphemous words, your furstration is comical indeed. I see the curse that Ali placed on the man that Insulted Muhammad's pbuh Sahabahs is also afflicting you, may Allah remove you from the veil of darkness, amin.

“You alone do we worship, and Your aid alone we seek.” (Quran, 1:5)

We see the Shia saying things like “Ya Ali” and “Ya Mehdi” when they are distressed and need help. They will say “Ya Ali Madad!” These people cry out these names in times of distress when they wish for help. In true Islam, however, we should only say “Ya Allah!” Calling out anyone else’s name for help is Shirk, because we believe only Allah can help us! This is the Sunnah of the Prophet, as well as the way of Ali.

Allah Almighty says clearly in the Quran:

“And invoke not, besides Allah, [anyone since that] will neither profit you, nor hurt you, but if (in case) you did so, you shall certainly be one of the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers). And if Allah should afflict you with harm, then there is none to remove it but He; and if He intends good to you there is none to repel His grace.” (Quran, 10:106-107)

using the words of Ali r.a the shia have fallen prey to satan!

Zhul-fiqar:

What is the meaning of Ya Ali Madad?

Find Out the Meaning of “Ya Ali Madad”!
An Ayatollah Explains What "Ya Ali Madad" Means

it means Oh! Ali help us! auzobillah, there is no any other name for this blasphemy except the word shirk! as to Allah alone do we seek help from. Alhamdulilah we are part of the majority Ali referrred to.

Zhul-fiqar:

We don’t insult anyone.we only curse the enemies of God.if you regard Aisha as a member of the Ahlul-Bayt,you should know that even at that and being a member of the Ahlul-Bayt is not what makes us Shia love the Ahlul-Bayt (as).when we use the word Ahlul-Bayt (as) we refer to the members of the Prophet’s Household who Allah was pleased with and they were purified (Holy Quran 33:33).these people were the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself,Imam Ali (as),Sayyidah Fatima (as) and Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as).these are the five members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) Allah purified.these are also the people known as the people of the cloak or Ahlal-Kisa.you can read about the Hadith of the Cloak.
These are the members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) whom Allah (swt) made compulsory to love them in the Quran:

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

the misguided man that fanatically follow the path of men Ali cursed, denies Quranic verse and claims I do not insult any one but I curse someone, play hypocrisy with words to fool none but himself, verse 33:33 expressly referred to the Prophets wives as being ahlul bayt, I would not argue with what the Qur'an says, because I know it is the word of Allah and since I depend solely on Allah for help by refusing to say Ya Ali Madad, I would be foolish to argue with the words of my sole Helper!

Zhul-fiqar:

Just the way we do not bundle all the companions and dump them into one basket under the name of being “companions of the Prophet”,likewise we also do not bundle all those related to the Prophet (sa) and regard them and Ahlul-Bayt (as).this is built upon the fact that in the Holy Quran,Allah told Prophet Noah (as) that his son was not “of him” because he was rebellious.likewise,a woman like Aisha who fought Imam Ali (as) and stood against the grandchildren of the Prophet (sa) cannot herself also be regard as a member of the purified “Ahlul-Bayt” .a purified person does not wage war and kill others who are also purified.so it is either all the members related to the Prophet (sa) are not purified and the Quran is false or only some members are.to the shia we believe only some members are and they are the Ahlal-Kisa.they were the ones the Prophet (sa) prayed for and named and regarded as his Ahlul-Bayt (as) and none others.

well I know the Qur'an used the term Ahlul Bayt, you can feel free to manufacture ahlal kisa, or Ahlal Ya Ali madad, but because I depend sole on Allah I do not have such freedom. The Qur'an in verse 33:33 used the term Ahlul Bayt in relation to the prophets wives, I am not going to argue with the words of Allah, as i depend on him solely for help.

Zhul-fiqar:

Read More With Quranic Evidence On The Ahlul-Bayt (as)
Sunni Myth of Love and Adherence to the Ahlul-Bayt (as)

Ali says:

“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 hadiths you presented do not tell us that the “sabaites” killed Usthman.one dishonestly makes use of brackets to inject the word “sabaite” into the narration of al-tabari,while the other mentions “sabaites” in regards to the battle of the camel.

Zhul-fiqar:

THE CHALLENGE STILL STANDS:IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COMPANIONS INCLUDING AISHA AND TALHA AND ZUBAYR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDER OF USTHMAN,PRESENT ME A HADITH FROM SUNNI SOURCES TELLING US WHO KILLED USTHMAN.

Sir, you have been shown proof, It is left for you to see what is clear that rebels were directly responsible for hius death these rebels were incited by the accursed Jew Saba, whom you shias follow! and whom the jewish encyclopedia credits for the formation of shiasm.

The Shia Imam Al-Nowbakhti has a similar point of view. He says, “Some Muslims became disbelievers and left Islam. The tribe of Banu Hunayfah accepted the prophecy of Musaylimah who claimed prophecy at the time of the Prophet peace be upon him. Abu Bakr sent the armies headed by Khalid bin Al-Waleed bin Al-Mugheirah Al-Makhzomi to fight them. Khalid fought them and killed Musaylimah. Some were killed and others accepted Islam again and were called the People of Apostasy. And the People of Apostasy were united until they got angry with Uthman for inventing things. (At the affliction of Uthman) some were involved in the killing and some did not object it. The only supporters to Uthman were his family and few others.” [Firaq Al-Shia, p.4]

Zhul-fiqar:

You can take a look at the hadith you presented earlier and observe that you have not presented a hadith to support your allegation that so called “sabaites” killed usthman:
You are very funny.so you master Muawiya and his accursed son Yazid who murdered 3 of our Imams (Imams Ali,Hassan and Hussain (as) are now shia?
You can take a look here what sunni scholars have said about Yazeed:
Al-Dhahabi Writes About Yazid(la):
He (Yazid l.a) was a disgusting Nasibi (i.e. those who hate Ahlul bayt). He drank and did evil. He started his kingdom with the killing of the Shahid al-Hussain (a.s) and ended it with the incident of al-Harra (i.e. besiegement of Madina which also makes him directly liable for Lanah as sahih ahadith prove). Hence the people hated him, he was not blessed in his life, and many took up arms against him after Imam Hussain (a.s) such as the people of Madina - they rose for the sake of Allah.
[As Siyar al Alam an Nabula, Volume No. 4, Page No. 37-38]

2) al-Dhahabi writes: I say: 'When Yazid(l.a) did to the people of Madina what he did and killed al-Hussain(a.s) and his brothers and progeny, and Yazid(l.a) drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. God didn't bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.'
[Tarikh al-Islam: wa-tabaqat al-mashahir wa-al-a`lam, Volume 005, Page No. 30.

The Story of Karbala

During his Caliphate, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) shifted the Caliphate from Medinah to Kufa in Iraq. The Kuffans were staunch Partisans of Ali (Shia’t Ali). The Jew Abdullah Ibn Saba found the Kuffans to be very receptive to his claims that Ali was divinely appointed by Allah, and his followers became the Saba’ites. When the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah on the battlefield, Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) convinced Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to hold a cease-fire and to use arbitration to decide who will be the Caliph. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration. This angered the Kuffan Saba’ites because they held the erroneous belief that Ali had been divinely appointed by Allah, so they believed that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was going against the will of Allah by agreeing to arbitration. In their minds, there could be no negotiation on a matter that was decreed by Allah. Some of these Kuffan Saba’ites rebelled against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), turning on him and calling him an apostate. These people would be known as Kharajites, and they would eventually assasinate their leader Ali (رضّى الله عنه), the same leader they had once claimed so much love for.

Zhul-fiqar:

I POSED A SECOND CHALLENGE TO YOU:PLEASE TELL US WHY MARWAN IBN HAKAM KILLED TALHA.YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER AND THINK IT IS NOT RELATED TO OUR DISCUSSION.IN THAT CASE MOST OF WHAT YOU HAVE RAISED IS NOT RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.MARWAN,USTHMAN’S COUSIN,KILLED TALHA (AISHA’S COUSIN) BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT TALHA TOOK PART IN THE MURDER OF USTHMAN.BOTH TALHA AND MARWAN ACTUALLY FOUGHT ON AISHA’S SIDE AGAINST IMAM ALI (as) IN THE BATTLE OF THE CAMEL TO “AVENGE THE KILLING OF USTHMAN” AS THEY FALSELY CLAIMED .WHEN THE FORCES OF IMAM ALI (as) DEFEATED AISHA’S ARMY,THEY DISPERSED AND THAT WAS WHEN MARWAN KILLED TALHA BY HIMSELF IN REVENGE FOR USTHMAN’S MURDER.SUNNI HADITH SOURCES HAVE ALREADY BEING CITED REPORTING HOW MARWAN KILLED TALHA.

Lol! #

Zhul-fiqar:

Imam Ali (as) never cursed the shia.you are the one interpreting it as such and distorting the meaning og his words.he cursed the hypocrites and they are found everywhere including those who were not considered “shia”.

Let me quote where he cursed u,

Another story narrated by Al-Arbali, “Then some people from Iraq entered upon him (Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen Ali bin Al-Hussain) a[b]nd said some bad things about Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman.[/b] When they were done, Ali bin Al-Hussain told them, ‘Tell me, Are you the (Muhajirs, those who were expelled from their homes and their property, while seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure, and aiding Allah and His Messenger: such are indeed the sincere ones)? They answered, ‘No!’ Then Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘So, are you (those who, before them, had homes (in Medina) and had adopted the Faith, show their affection to such as came to them for refuge, and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves, even though poverty was their (own lot))?’ They answered, ‘No!’ Ali bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Therefore, you disassociated yourselves from being one of these two groups and I bear witness that you are not the ones (who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith, and leave not, in our hearts, rancor (or sense of injury) against those who have believed. Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." Get out of here, may Allah curse you!” [Ibid, vol. 2, p. 291, under the subtitle of “Virtues of Al-Imam Zayn Al-Abideen”.

Zhul-fiqar:

Imam Ali (as)'s position on Fadak

Whatever position you want to state has no bearing on the matter, Ya Ali madad, according to shia portion of the fadak incident, could not even help himself do Justice, in essence he oppressed himself rather than remove oppression upon him, he feared his enemies so much so that he refused to do what is right, we sunnis do not believe Ali r.a was a coward, instead he called the shias coward and traitors!

Zhul-fiqar:

Your own ancestors are cursed.you are the evidence of that curse.
You keep injecting into the sermons and letter from Nahjul-Balagha:” Ali said to his Shia”.
How do you know he was actually talking to his own Shia who are his supporters and staunch loyalists?

if you ancestors are cursed you do not need annoucing it on nl, as Ali r.a clearly cursed people that insulted the Prophets' sahabahs, in essence cursing the fore runners of the shias, again he not only used terms such cowards,traitor etc. in qualifying the shias but reading within the context of what he wrote, you would conclude taht he was actually talking to his shias:


Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 68

Ali admonishes his Shia:

Zhul-fiqar:

“How long shall I accord you consideration that is accorded to camels with hollow hump, or to worn clothes which when stitched on one side give way on the other. Whenever a vanguard force of Syria [Muawiyyah’s Syrians] hovers over you, everyone of you shuts his door and hides himself like the lizard in its hole or a badger it its den. By Allah, he whom people like you support must suffer disgrace and he who throws arrows with your support is as if he throws arrows that are broken both at head and tail. By Allah, within the courtyard you are quite numerous but under the banner you are only a few. Certainly, I know what can improve you and how your crookedness can be straightened. But I shall not improve your condition by marring myself. Allah may disgrace your faces and destroy you. You do not understand the right as you understand the wrong and do not crush the wrong as you crush the right

here he was clearly referring to men fighting for him, again he cursed them that may Allah disgrace them, you not only deny the Qur'an, hadiths but also deny the meaning of what Ali r.a said, behaving like the men he cursed

Zhul-fiqar:

Here is a link to all the letters and sermon in Nahjul-Balagha by Imam Ali (as).examine all the sermons and letters you imagine that Imam Ali (as) was cursing his Shia (astaghfirullah!!!):

Nahjul-Balagha By Imam Ali (as)

read within the context and you would not need posting links to fool yourself!

[size=14pt]DO SUNNIS SAY "Ya Muhammad" TO SEEK INTERCESSION WITH ALLAH THROUGH MUHAMMAD (sa)?[/size]

watch below rebuttal by a Sunni sheikh against the wahhabi claim that intercession is shirk:

Refuting the WAHABI On Intercession By a Sunni Sheikh,Part 1 of 2

Refuting the WAHABI On Intercession By a Sunni Sheikh,Part 2 of 2

Ya Muhammad!

vedaxcool:

The Shia Imam Al-Nowbakhti has a similar point of view. He says, “Some Muslims became disbelievers and left Islam. The tribe of Banu Hunayfah accepted the prophecy of Musaylimah who claimed prophecy at the time of the Prophet peace be upon him. Abu Bakr sent the armies headed by Khalid bin Al-Waleed bin Al-Mugheirah Al-Makhzomi to fight them. Khalid fought them and killed Musaylimah. Some were killed and others accepted Islam again and were called the People of Apostasy. And the People of Apostasy were united until they got angry with Uthman for inventing things. (At the affliction of Uthman) some were involved in the killing and some did not object it. The only supporters to Uthman were his family and few others.” [Firaq Al-Shia, p.4]

So it was afterall the munafeq (hypocrites) among the muslims that killed their caliph with help and under the watchful eyes of the some companions sunnis still honor and love.i should also try a bit of your stu.pidity and accuse all the sunnis of killing Usthman SUNNIS KILLED USTHMAN,SO THEREFORE ALL SUNNIS ARE HYPOCRITES!!!! I’m trying to be like “vedaxcool”

The Story of Karbala
During his Caliphate, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) shifted the Caliphate from Medinah to Kufa in Iraq. The Kuffans were staunch Partisans of Ali (Shia’t Ali). The Jew Abdullah Ibn Saba found the Kuffans to be very receptive to his claims that Ali was divinely appointed by Allah, and his followers became the Saba’ites. When the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah on the battlefield, Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) convinced Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to hold a cease-fire and to use arbitration to decide who will be the Caliph. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration. This angered the Kuffan Saba’ites because they held the erroneous belief that Ali had been divinely appointed by Allah, so they believed that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was going against the will of Allah by agreeing to arbitration. In their minds, there could be no negotiation on a matter that was decreed by Allah. Some of these Kuffan Saba’ites rebelled against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), turning on him and calling him an apostate. These people would be known as Kharajites, and they would eventually assasinate their leader Ali (رضّى الله عنه), the same leader they had once claimed so much love for.

I pity you!
So Ibn Saba founded shiism and the shia who you call “sabaites” were actually led to the battle-field by the leadership of Imam Ali (as) himself against muawiya!!!!  Amazing,Imam Ali (as) is being accused of hypocrisy by “vedaxcool” because he was leading people who had "erroneous beliefs".can you imagine Imam Ali (as) leading the followers of a jew? Is that possible? so you are accusing Imam Ali (as) of being the leader of the people you accuse of being “sabaites”.
It is so obvious that the shia from the first day,before,during and after  the death of the Prophet (sa) were attached to Ali (as).infact the Prophet (s) himself uttered the words “Shia’t Ali” or “the Shia Of Ali”.you cannot escape but to admit that Imam Ali (as) is our leader.so dont try to contradict yourself and imagine we follow Ibn Saba who was a jew who commited kufr and we don’t even like him and we also curse him.

As for the events leading to Karbala,it was like this:
1.) Abu Bakr usurped the caliphate at “SAQIFAH BANU SAEDA” from Imam Ali (as).(note:no shura or consultative council was implemented to “elect” abu bakr.he was actually imposed by a select few gangs close to him)
2.) Abu bakr  appointed Umar while on his deathbed
3.) Umar was struck and was about to die.he formed a committee of six people to select a successor to him with the condition that the successor not only follow the sunnah of Muhammad (sa) but also the sunnah of the “shaykhain” (i.e. abu bakr and umar).an ultimatum was given by umar that if the 6 people do not reach agreement to choose his successor they all 6 men would be put to death.Imam Ali (as)refused to follow the sunnah of the shaykhain and usthman was selected.
4.) Usthman was besieged and finally killed.no successor was in place.the muslim ummah had no one to rule/lead it.people appealed to Imam Ali (as) and out of good will he accepted to take up the caliphate.sunnis now regard him as their “fourth caliph”
5.) Rebellion by aisha and muawiya in three battles to threaten and weaken the leadership of Imam Ali (as):battle of jamal,battle of siffeen and battle of nahrwan.Imam Ali (as) was finally assassinated with muawiya’s instigation and bribery by a kharijite.
6.) Muawiya becomes caliph and corruption continues.sunni scholars reminisce the days of the first four caliphs and regard them as the “four rightly guided caliphs” of sunnis because of the atrocities muawiya commiited.Imam Hassan (as) gave up succession to his father to avoid further bloodshed and the lust for power by the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).he made a truce with muawiya that after muawiya dies,the caliphate must be returned to Imam Hussain (as).
7.) Muawiya in conjunction with one of the wives of Imam Hassan (as) poisoned Imam Hassan (as),promising her wealth and in return to marry his own son Yazeed (la).
8.) Imam Hassan (as) was matyred through the poison muawiya paid for.muawiya grooms his unfaithful,ungodly,and drunkard son,Yazeed to succeed him and establish a hereditary succession for the banu ummayya (muawiya’s clan) by default.(note that muawiya’s father,abu sufya had been the arc-enemy of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).
9.) Muawiya is remembered for instituting cursing of Imam Ali (as) on pulpits and in mosque services and sermons for 40 years.
10.) Muawiya died.Yazeed,who got nothing to do with islam succeeded his father.Imam Hussain (as) refused to pay allegiance to Yazeed and recognize him as caliph.
11.) Yazeed ordered Imam Hussain’s (as) assassination even if found “holding the walls of the ka’bah”.Imam Hussain (as) sent his cousin Muslim Ibn Aqeel to Kufa to stir support.thousands promised support for Imam Hussain’s (as) revolution.
12.) Imam Hussain (as) left makkah and medinah heading to kufa in Iraq.
13.) On the way,he receives the news of the martyrdom of his cousin and that people would not support him.as someone puts it:”their hearts are with you (Hussain) but their swords have been turned against you”.Imam Hussain (as) continued his march unto kufa.
14.) In Iraq,yazeed had replaced the governor of kufa with ubaydullah ibn ziyad who was more brutal and treacherous.the people were bribed or intimidated into submission and not helping Imam Hussain (as).the people of kufa are are regarded to have betrayed Imam Hussain (as) because they did not fulfill their promise of support for him.
15.) Imam Hussain (as) was besieged in Karbala and water cut off from him and his family members including children and women.
16.) On the 10th day of Muharram (day of Ashura),Imam Hussain  (as) was beheaded and his family members (family of the Prophet Muhammad) were massacred and killed.
Now we have a fool following wahhabi propaganda that the shia or “sabaites” as he hallucinates in his head killed Imam Hussain (as).before he says “sabaites” killed usthman without being able to provide one hadith to back it up even from sunni books.

Zhul-fiqar:

So it was afterall the munafeq (hypocrites) among the muslims that killed their caliph with help and under the watchful eyes of the some companions sunnis still honor and love.i should also try a bit of your stu.pidity and accuse all the sunnis of killing Usthman SUNNIS KILLED USTHMAN,SO THEREFORE ALL SUNNIS ARE HYPOCRITES!!!! I’m trying to be like “vedaxcool”

, you small brain failed you yet again, as Ali r.a is also amongst these companions you claimed under their watchful eyes Uthman was murdered, using your stupi*dity all the Companions killed Uthman, and hence all Muslims killed Uthman, what an Ode-Chukwu you actually are.

The Origins and Early Development of Shi`a Islam

S.H.M.Jafri

Chapter 8

The Reaction after Karbala

The martyrdom of Husayn was of great religious significance and had a deep heart-searching after-effect upon the Shi’is, giving a new turn to the mode and nature of the Shi’i movement.

The tragic fate of the grandson of the Prophet stirred religious and moral sentiments, particularly among those of the Kufan followers of the House of the Prophet who had so zealously asked Husayn to come to Iraq to guide them on what they considered to be the path of God. But when Husayn came to Iraq they did not or could not stand with him in the hour of trial.

Soon afterwards, however, they realized that their inability, or rather weakness, had been the cause of the tragedy. A deep sense of repentance set in, provoking their religious conscience; and in order to expiate their negligence and obtain God’s forgiveness, they thought they must make similar sacrifices. They believed that they could only prove their real repentance by exposing themselves to death while seeking vengeance for the blood of Husayn.

Hence they named themselves the Tawwabun (penitents) and are known in Islamic history by this self-imposed title. This movement, as will be seen below, proved to be an important step forward in the consolidation of Shi’i Islam.
source:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/history/origins-development-shia-islam/


These shias seem to be expert in leaders killing, after Killing Ali r.a thereby denying the Ahlul Bayt of Rulership and granting there ensuring that Muawiyah seats on the throne, they again decieved Husayn to come to Karbala and be killed. what a people they are,

Distrusting his Shia, Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) made peace with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) and gave him the Caliphate, so long as Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) promised that Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would be made Caliph after Muawiyyah’s death (رضّى الله عنه). Hussain’s Shia protested at this, and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه)’s reply is preserved in the most important of the Shia books of Hadith, Al-Kafi:

“By Allah, I handed over power to him for no reason other than the fact that I could not find any supporters. Had I found supporters I would have fought him day and night until Allah decides between us. But I know the people of Kufa. I have experience of them. The bad ones of them are no good to me. They have no loyalty, nor any integrity in word or deed. They are in disagreement. They claim that their hearts are with us, but their swords are drawn against us.” [Al-Kafi, vol. 8 p. 288]

in essence the ancestors of the shias were never to be trusted to do what is right, then how would any follow such a lead? Only those that fallen prey to Satan can go with men whom their Leaders condemned over and over again as being Cowards,Traitors, Liars and Hypocrites. These same men are the role models of Mr. Dhul what a pity indeed!

vedaxcool:

, you small brain failed you yet again, as Ali r.a is also amongst these companions you claimed under their watchful eyes Uthman was murdered, using your stupi*dity all the Companions killed Uthman, and hence all Muslims killed Uthman, what an Ode-Chukwu you actually are.

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”
This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

Soon afterwards, however, they realized that their inability, or rather weakness, had been the cause of the tragedy. A deep sense of repentance set in, provoking their religious conscience; and in order to expiate their negligence and obtain God’s forgiveness, they thought they must make similar sacrifices. They believed that they could only prove their real repentance by exposing themselves to death while seeking vengeance for the blood of Husayn.

so they repented and sought revenge against the followers of vedaxcool's hero,Muawiya and his son Yazid.

Hence they named themselves the Tawwabun (penitents) and are known in Islamic history by this self-imposed title. This movement, as will be seen below, proved to be an important step forward in the consolidation of Shi’i Islam.

so the kufans reppented.is there anywhere i can read of the sunnis who repented because they did not defend Imam Hussain (as) against Yazeed? and what about Usthman? did they repent after some companions sunnis love killed Usthman?

These shias seem to be expert in leaders killing, after Killing Ali r.a thereby denying the Ahlul Bayt of Rulership and granting there ensuring that Muawiyah seats on the throne, they again decieved Husayn to come to Karbala and be killed. what a people they are,

first you are assuming that all shias are descended from the kufans.or may be do you believe in the "inheritance of sin" as the christians believe in "original sin"? i am innocent of the sin and betrayal of the kufans who did not help their Imam,if i can even refer to Imam Hussain (as) as their imam.it is illogical for you to claim that you believe in a cause you abstain from defending.so the kufans can best be described as betrayers or hypocrites and nothing close to being Shia of Ali (as).being a Shia has to do with believing and practicing Islam as the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the 12 Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) did, it has nothing to do with being a kufan or descending from the kufans.are all muslims arabians? or are all christians jews? i dont think so. secondly,among the kufans,they were "political shias" mostly.the shia in terms of creed and beliefs as we are today were a minority.

Read:The actual beliefs espoused by the people of Kufa

that aside,let us talk the reality on ground.are you ready today to be different from the people of kufa who froze at the moment Imam Hussain (as) needed their help against Yazeed (la)? are you ready to stop praising Muawiya,Yazeed,abu bakr,aisha,umar and company? are you ready to become a true SHIA of Imam Ali (as)? are you ready to recognize the rights of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) who were oppressed and wronged? are you ready to follow the command of Allah and the sunnah of Muhammad (sa) to declare the 12 Imams (as) in your heart and accept them as the only rightly guided caliphs who have the right to be successors of Muhammad (sa)?

show your true color one more time!

Distrusting his Shia, Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) made peace with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) and gave him the Caliphate, so long as Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) promised that Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) would be made Caliph after[b] Muawiyyah’s death (رضّى الله عنه). [/b] Hussain’s Shia protested at this, and Hasan (رضّى الله عنه)’s reply is preserved in the most important of the Shia books of Hadith, in essence the ancestors of the shias were never to be trusted to do what is right, then how would any follow such a lead? Only those that fallen prey to Satan can go with men whom their Leaders condemned over and over again as being Cowards,Traitors, Liars and Hypocrites. These same men are the role models of Mr. Dhul what a pity indeed!

hypocrisy and misguidance are a disease.

watch above in vedaxcool's words:

"Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) "

"Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) "

after Imam Hassan's (as) name,"vedaxcool" placed in arabic characters "radiallahu anhu";i.e. "may Allah be pleased with him".

then after the name of Muawiya,the one responsible for the killing of Imam Ali (as) and Imam Hassan,the grandson of Muhammad (sa),"vedaxcool" again placed the tag of "may Allah be pleased with him".

such people as vedaxcool are worse than the people of kufa.at least the people of kufa later on repented and became known as "tawwabun" or "those who have repented" and sought revenge for Imam Hussain (as) after they saw the barbaric massacre forces loyal to Yazeed,the son of Muawiya did to the Prophet Muhammad's (sa) family members.but over 1400 years later,we still have the likes of "vedaxcool" who call themselves "sunnis" or "followers of the sunnah" blessing both the victims and their killers.if anything this is outright devilish!

may Allah never be pleased with Muawiya and his likes.may Allah also never please or be pleased with those who are pleased with the likes of Muawiya and his accursed son,Yazid.

"vedaxcool" may Allah's curse and wrath be upon you for blessing the killers of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).may your experience of the wrath of Allah be a testimony we shall share on nairaland for the sake of the 12 Imams (as) and the purified members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).the followers of banu ummayya will never proper in this world and the next holds much worse for them.

Zhul-fiqar:

“Imam Ahmed stated: ‘Qatan told us Yunus (Ibn Abi Ishaq) narrated from his father that he heard Abu Salmah bin Abdulrehman that Uthman during his siege looked outside his palace and stated: ‘In the name of Allah I make an appeal to the person who saw the Holy Prophet (i.e. a companion) on the day of Hira, when mountain shook, He [s] struck his foot on it…’”
This tradition is recoreded in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Volume 1 page 59 while both Shaykh Shu'aib al-Arnaout and Shaykh Ahmad Shakir declared it ‘Sahih’ (Musnad Ahmad, v2 p343).

remeber mr. shallow brain you were the one that quoted this hadiths:

“It has been narrated with different renowned and Sahih chains that when they besieged Uthman, he beseeched the Sahabah for various things”
Isaba, Volume 4 page 378 Translation No. 5452

and which I said this does not exclude Ali r.a, Ali is also considerd a Sahabah, hence using your Stu*pidity this will equally make Ali r.a as culpable as the other Sahabahs who did nothing but wacht as Uthman r.a, was being killed, whatever explanation you invent to explain Ali r.a innocence in the death of Uthman so also such explanation is advanceable to the other Sahabahs, ALhamdulilah how easy it is to show men that Ali r.a cursed for insulting the Prophet's puh sahabahs the truth!

Zhul-fiqar:

so they repented and sought revenge against the followers of vedaxcool's hero,Muawiya and his son Yazid.

The issue is that your Heros where misfits, imbeci*les, and mental retartedeens whom Ali r.a, Husayn r.a, Hassan r.a all cursed, again I re-assert that if the men that covey the message of shiasm were always being insulted and cursed by their masters as being Liars, traitors and names that are too big for the print to write, then how would any sensible individual depend on such misfits that we all agree that according to Ali r.a, Husayn r.a, Hassan r.a all condemed as being Liars and at best Traitors to teach you anything in religion? is this the hight of stupidi*ty any living individual can go? this is the condition of the shia

Ali r.a - Husayn r.a - Hassan r.a
|
|
| Condemned the following as Liars, Hypocrite, Traitors, Cowards and cursed them for insulting the Prophets Sahabahs
|
Shia ancestors (Followers of the Shia Ali r.a) who pass the messages of Shiasm to the next generation
|
|
|
Second Generation of Shia
|
|
Generation X

|
|
Lagos shia. Dhul, Uplawal etc who follow men that are know to be liars, hypocrite, Traitors etc

Now, my emphasis on why I will consider you a liar, Hypocrite etc is becuase you follow men as such simple, whether you live in denial or keep changing the issues will not deter us from telling you who you are, as you follow men that are cursed, and by Allah Ali r.a, cursed men that insulted the Prophet's sahabahs! Alhamdulilah how easy it is to show men that Ali r.a called liars, hypocrite, cowards and Traitors.

Zhul-fiqar:

first you are assuming that all shias are descended from the kufans.or may be do you believe in the "inheritance of sin" as the christians believe in "original sin"? i am innocent of the sin and betrayal of the kufans who did not help their Imam,if i can even refer to Imam Hussain (as) as their imam.it is illogical for you to claim that you believe in a cause you abstain from defending.so the kufans can best be described as betrayers or hypocrites and nothing close to being Shia of Ali (as).being a Shia has to do with believing and practicing Islam as the Prophet Muhammad (sa) and the 12 Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) did, it has nothing to do with being a kufan or descending from the kufans.are all muslims arabians? or are all christians jews? i dont think so. secondly,among the kufans,they were "political shias" mostly.the shia in terms of creed and beliefs as we are today were a minority.

Read:The actual beliefs espoused by the people of Kufa

lol! the message of shias flew and hit you on your head! what nonsense thoughts comes from a man that Ali cursed for insulting the prophets Sahabahs! the shias who were to deliver the message of shiasm where called Hypocrites,liars, cowards and Traitors, I say again this sort of indictment on the ancestry of shiasm cannot let any sane individual to depend on whatever tale they pass on as "truths".

Zhul-fiqar:

that aside,let us talk the reality on ground.are you ready today to be different from the people of kufa who froze at the moment Imam Hussain (as) needed their help against Yazeed (la)? are you ready to stop praising Muawiya,Yazeed,abu bakr,aisha,umar and company? are you ready to become a true SHIA of Imam Ali (as)? are you ready to recognize the rights of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) who were oppressed and wronged? are you ready to follow the command of Allah and the sunnah of Muhammad (sa) to declare the 12 Imams (as) in your heart and accept them as the only rightly guided caliphs who have the right to be successors of Muhammad (sa)?

show your true color one more time!

You must be on Hish hash to think I would follow the accursed paths of men that Ali r.a, called hypocrite, Liars, Traitor and cowards. the same men that he cursed again for insulting the Sahabahs of the Prophet's. I follow the shiat of Muhammad pbuh, and he predicted that there will be four rightly guided caliphs, whatever imanate your hyporitical shia ancestry invented is none of my business! oh! accursed one, why do things that brings the displeasure of Ali r.a, who cursed men that insulted the prophets' sahabah? It simply means you do not follow Ali r.a, but your vain desires.

"As a Seeker of Truth, how do I know which of these lineages is correct? This is a monumental decision. According to the Shia belief system, ascribing false Imamah to a person is Kufr (disbelief). Hence, if I pick the wrong lineage to follow, then I become a Kaffir (disbeliever) destined for Hell-Fire. So I have to be very careful when I pick which of these sects I want to follow and which of the Imams is the right one. Each of these sects has their own set of Hadith which show that their set of Imams is the correct one. Some of these sects have very divergent beliefs, but there are also many sects which are virtually identical with the exception of following a different Imam, or branching the lineage at a different place [i.e. taking a second son as the Imam instead of the third, etc]."

I see I am better off following the sunnha of the Prophet pbuh, Alhamdulilah!

Zhul-fiqar:

hypocrisy and misguidance are a disease.

watch above in vedaxcool's words:

"Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) "

"Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) "

after Imam Hassan's (as) name,"vedaxcool" placed in arabic characters "radiallahu anhu";i.e. "may Allah be pleased with him".

then after the name of Muawiya,the one responsible for the killing of Imam Ali (as) and Imam Hassan,the grandson of Muhammad (sa),"vedaxcool" again placed the tag of "may Allah be pleased with him".

such people as vedaxcool are worse than the people of kufa.at least the people of kufa later on repented and became known as "tawwabun" or "those who have repented" and sought revenge for Imam Hussain (as) after they saw the barbaric massacre forces loyal to Yazeed,the son of Muawiya did to the Prophet Muhammad's (sa) family members.but over 1400 years later,we still have the likes of "vedaxcool" who call themselves "sunnis" or "followers of the sunnah" blessing both the victims and their killers.if anything this is outright devilish!

may Allah never be pleased with Muawiya and his likes.may Allah also never please or be pleased with those who are pleased with the likes of Muawiya and his accursed son,Yazid.

"vedaxcool" may Allah's curse and wrath be upon you for blessing the killers of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).may your experience of the wrath of Allah be a testimony we shall share on nairaland for the sake of the 12 Imams (as) and the purified members of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).the followers of banu ummayya will never proper in this world and the next holds much worse for them.

lol! I imagine the hypocrite almost convulsing when typing lol! , it seems his curse prevented my laptop from browsing lol! , oh oh wait, the curse made me have a goodnight sleep, lol , oh wiat I had this "nightmare" where I saw Lagoshia repenting from cursing the sahabahs of the prophet's lol

Let me share my testimonial, 10 reason why i have not invited the wrath of Allah upon myself

1. I do not commit shirk by saying Ya Ali Madad, instead I say Ya Allah in terms of need and prosperity!

2. I do not mock the words of the Qur'an like Mr. Dhul has shown severally

3. I do not claim that the Qur'an is incomplete, a blasphemy the shias espoused!

4. I do not insult the wives of the prophet's , women that Allah called Mothers of the Beilievers

5. I do not curse the Prophet's Sahabah , men that Allah promised Al Jannat in the Qur'an

6. I aviod sins as much as I can

7. I try to do as much good deeds as i can

8. I do not go around cursing people for simply diaggreeing with my opinon (something Uplawal,dhul and lagishias are masters in doing)

9. I refuse associating partners with Allah.

10. I do not attribute powers to Imams whom were mere mortals, no do I worship mud taken from their grave site to make sujudd on!

Now most of the above is what mr. Dhul does for a living, now in all honesty it must be him that invites the wrath of Allah!

The Shia Are Followers and Lovers of Imam Ali (as) and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) As Witnessed In the Words of the Prophet (sa) Himself and Commanded By Allah-THE SHIA ARE NOT THE FOLLOWERS OF THE HYPOCRITES BE THEY FROM KUFA OR FROM NIGERIA.

The Sunni scholar, Imaam al-Shahristaani, said in his al-Milal wa al-NiHal, vol. 1, p. 146
“The Shia are those who follow ‘Ali exclusively”.
Sunni scholar, Ibn Khaldoon also said in his Muqaddimah, p. 196:
“Know that the word “Shia” linguistically means “companions” and “followers”. This phrase has been applied in the language of the jurists and the philosophers, from the later and early generations, to the followers of ‘Ali and his descendants”.

Lisan al-'Arab, by Ibn Manzur, vol. 8, p189
"those people who love what the Prophet's Progeny loves, and they are loyal to such Progeny".

Sunni scholar, Al-Jirjaanee backs him up in his al-Ta’reefaat, p. 129:
“The Shia are those who follow ‘Ali”.

Allah and the Prophet Ordered Us to Be “Shia Of Ali” and Followers of the Ahlul-Bayt (as)

“Your Master is none but Allah and His Messenger and those who believed and establish prayer and give zakah, WHILE they bow [in worship]”.(Quran 5:55)


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


Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, page 662-663
"I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt".

Sunni scholar Ahmad bin Hanbal records in his Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat al-Qurtuba) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaoot], vol. 3, p. 59, #11578:
Narrated Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri:
Allah’s Apostle, peace be upon him, said: “I have left among you that which if you hold fast to it you will NEVER go astray after me: the two weighty things (al-thaqalayn). One of them is greater than the other: the Book of Allah, a rope stretching from the heaven to the earth, AND my ‘itrah (progeny), who are my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall NEVER separate until they return to me at the Lake-font.”

It is in praise of the Shi'a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following revelation:

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

Muhammad bin Ali narrates in Tafsir ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo edition) that the Prophet (s) said "The best of creations are you Ali and your Shi'as."
Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 - 911 AH) is one of the highest ranked Sunni scholars of all time. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 asnad (chains) of narrators, that the Prophet (s) told his companions that the verse referred to Ali and his Shi'a:

"I swear by the one who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi'a shall secure deliverance on the day of resurrection".
(Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)
The classical Shafii scholar al Maghazli records a tradition from Anas bin Malik that he heard the Prophet (s) say:

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

[size=16pt]EXAMPLES OF THE EARLY SHIA OF IMAM ALI(as)  FROM AMONG THE COMPANIONS (SAHABAH) OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (sa)[/size]

Hujr Ibn Adi (May Allah be pleased with him)
Sunni scholar, al-Dhahabee states in his Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa, vol. 3, p. 463 about one of them, Hujr bin ‘Adi:
“He was a Sahab. HE WAS ONE OF THE SHIA OF ‘ALI, may Allah be pleased be them both”.
He also states in the same book, vol. 3, p. 180, # 70 about another SaHaabee, Sa’eed bin Wahb:
“ He was one of the senior Shia of ‘Ali .He accepted Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him”.


Sunni scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in his book Caliphs and Kings writes:
"Hajr bin Adi was a pious companion of the Prophet (saws) and played a vital role in the correction of the Ummah. During Muaweyah's reign when the custom of cursing Ali from the pulpit's of Mosques began, hearts of the Muslims were being bled dry but people bit their tongues fearing death. In Kufa Hajr bin Adi could not remain silent and he began to praise Ali (ra) and condemn Muaweyah. Until Mughira remained the Governor of Kufa, he adopted a lenient attitude towards this, but when Ziyad's Governorship of Basra was extended to include Kufa, serious altercations arose. He would curse Ali (ra) during the khutba and Hajr would refute him.
On one occasion he (Hajr) warned Ziyad for being late for Jumma prayers. Ziyad then arrested him along with twelve of his companions on false accusations of forming an opposition group to overthrow the Khalifa and was cursing the Khalifa. He also gathered witnesses to testify against them alleging that they claimed that khilafath was the exclusive right of the lineage of `Ali ibne Abi Talib and further accused them of creating an uproar, throwing out the commander and of supporting `Abu Turab Ali, of sending blessings upon him and hating his enemies. From amongst these witnesses, Qadi Shudhri's testimony was used. He later wrote to Muaweyah that the blood and property of people who said they offered Salat, paid zakat, and performed Hajj and Umrah, preached right and declared that evil was haram, however if you want to kill them so be it, otherwise forgive them.
The accused were sent to Muaweyah and he sentenced them to death. A condition was placed that if they cursed `Ali (ra) and showed their hatred to him they would be pardoned. They refused and Hajr said `I will not say that thing that will displease Allah'.
Finally he and his seven companions were murdered. From amongst them Abdur Rahman bin Hassan was sent back to return with a written instruction that he be murdered in the worst possible manner, Ziyad buried him alive." chapter 4: "The elimination of freedom of speech"
His mausoleum is in Adra with his son Humaam ibn Hajr' - a small town just north of Damascus, Syria. A mosque has been built around his grave and is a pilgrimage site for Shī‘a Muslims.

Foremost companions who were considered to be the earliest “SHIA OF ALI” are:Salman al- Farisi, Abu Dhar al-Ghifari, Miqdad Ibn Aswad, Owais Qarni, Ammar Ibn Yasir,Bilal al-Habshi and Zuhayr Ibn Qain (may Allah be pleased with them).

Among the above,Abu Dhar al-Ghafari was banished by Usthman while Ammar Ibn Yassir,who was above 50 years old, was matyred while fighting on the side of Imam Ali (as) against the forces of Muawiya (la).Ammar (RA)was one of the companions who were the heroes of the battle of Badr,where the father of muawiya was humiliated.

Zuhair Ibn Qain (RA) was matyred fighting for Imam Hussain (as) in Karbala against the forces of Yazid (la).

, the shias follow the men that Ali r.a cursed, simply put it they follow the information that were passed to them by this people. This is simply the matter at hand, they follow the information that was passed by men that were cursed by the Ali r.a and even Husayn.

Now did Ali r.a believe in the shias crap?

The Battle of Siffin

So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.

The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration. T[size=18pt]he Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?[/size]

A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!

This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?



[size=18pt]How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.[/size]

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.

in addition ALi r.a did not believe that he was divinely appointd by Allah, instead he accepted that he was appointed by the companions of the prophet pbuh, and by extension accepted that Ruling the Caliphate was by shura!

vedaxcool:

The Battle of Siffin
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.

The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration.The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?

A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.”For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them.They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!

So we finally got to know that the so called “sabaites” were only a “contingent” among the Shia of Ali who broke away and became known as kharijites according to the article “vedaxcool” copied and paste as quoted above. also we now know the difference between those the Imams cursed who were kharijites aka “sabaites” and the real shia who were true followers of the Imams who never broke away.these are all the different imaginations “vedaxcool” is feeding us from his nasibi hallucinating websites as my clarifications would show in more than one way.
It is actually mysterious how Imam Ali (as) could have led people known to be “sabaites” as the allegation goes.

The wahhabi cannot but admit the presence of the true Shia of Ali.then he goes on to tell us that the so called “ardent supporters of Ali” who were once “sabaites” became known as kharijites.so all on their own,they make the accusations against the shia of today that we are “sabaites” and then by themselves the nasibis vindicate us from the accusations they throw at us by referring to the so called “sabaites” as those who became “kharijites”.in reality today,the kharijite are extinct and no longer exist.no muslim today identifies himself as “kharijite”.we finally got to know that it was the hypocritical kharijites that were cursed and not the shia of Ali.i kept insisting that the Imams cursed the hypocrites and not their own true followers who were shia’t Ali.but our hatred possessed friend who is an expert in copy/paste,refused to see my point.

In reality and factually,It is of importance to know that the kharijites claimed to be Shia at a time.there was really nothing as “sabaites”.the Abdullah ibn saba card is a deceitful way the nasibis use to tarnish the image of the Shia presently by linking us to an accursed jew known as Abdullah ibn saba.the term “sabaite” is a derogatory word used by the nasibis to accuse the Shia as is also the word “rafidha”.
It is actually strange and impossible that Imam Ali (as) would accept the misguided followers of a misguided abdullah ibn saba as alleged and rather imagined by the nasibis of today to be part of his own followers. one thing that is of note,is how the nasibi shoots himself on the foot by acknowledging that the “sabaites” as he called them became the kharijites who separated from the Shia of Ali who remained and accepted the verdict of Imam Ali (as).so the Shia are vindicated! Truthfully,all the “sabaite” allegations of the nasibis cannot be backed up by hadiths or historical references.

It is also important to note that this Abdullah ibn saba is said to have being himself a supporter of Imam Ali (as) who was later executed by the Imam himself.it is mysterious and wonderful to think that a man such as this would have followers himself to follow the man he is alleged to have followed.how would even Imam Ali (as) have accepted to lead a faction led by an accursed man he punished? How can a follower have his own followers in a following and the leader would accept such acts of separatism within his followership?

The fact is the kharijites were no “sabaites” as the term “sabaite” is a nasibi-coined -word that is used to attack the shia presently as a derogatory term and a lie against the shia by calling them “sabaites” when it suits the nasibis.they use that word at will to serve their imaginations.the kharijites were not so called “sabaites”.they once claimed and said to be part of the shia of Ali.but when disagreement occurred during the battle of siffeen,these followers disobeyed their Imam and doubted him like Umar doubted the Prophet Muhammad (sa) at Hudaibiyya.they broke away.

This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away.

I will prove you wrong.

They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph.And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?

First it is great news that the alleged “sabaites” are said to have become kharijites which totally makes them non-shia afterwards.so we are done with the accusation which the nasibis use at will to taunt the shia that we shia are so called “sabaites”.

As for the question that how can Imam Ali (as) agree to arbitration to an issue decreed by Allah,I really don’t know who is more foolish:the nasibi writer of the article or “vedaxcool” who copied and pasted it.

Imam Ali (as) during both battles of jamal against aisha and siffeen against muawiya is agreed by both sunnis and shia (a consensus of majority of muslim) to have being the legitimate ruler wielding political power at that time.islamically and in Arabian culture,a leader who allegiance has being paid to has right over his subjects.in sunni doctrine,anyone who revolts against the ruler of his time has committed treason and his just punish is death.sunnis regard Imam Ali (as) as the legitimate “fourth caliph” and therefore both aisha and muawiya who revolted deserved the dealth penalty if the rule is to be applied to them and justice was served.it was along this line of thinking that those who became kharijites broke away.they saw Imam Ali (as) as being on the right side and muawiya on the wrong side and also the Imam was chosen by God to have being the first sucessor.to them,truth was not to be compromised as they wrongly saw it and muawiya should have being punished all the same.in reality,the Imam (as) made the right decision to settle a dispute and avoid further bloodshed and disagreements.that was the bitter decision that was to be made by Imam Ali (as) because of the prevailing circumstances as at then.it was not an issue of Imam Ali (as) compromising,denying or rejecting his imamate at all when Imam Ali (as) made a truce with muawiya.I will further explain that the truce had nothing to do with Imam Ali’s (as) right to the divinely designated station of imamate or even the political office of caliphate.

How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.

The arbitration and truce which resulted was after a battle has being fought between two sides.this has to do with ending a conflict.it has nothing to do with negotiating Imam Ali’s (as) right as the first legitimate successor of the Prophet (sa) which was a decree by Allah that the Prophet (sa) declared severally and particularly at Ghadir Khumm.

If we are to say that the truce Imam Ali (as) signed with muawiya was denial of his right as a divinely appointed successor of the Prophet and a divinely appointed Imam (leader/successor),then we can as well say that the Imam also denied his right to have being the legitimate caliph of that time who was holding political office.but that was not the case because inspite of the truce with muawiya,sunnis still regard Imam Ali (as) as their “fourth legitimate caliph” and legitimate ruler of the muslims when he faced muawiya.sunnis even regard Imam Ali (as) as one of the so called “four rightly guided caliphs”.for us shia to accept that the Imam negotiated on the matter of imamate because of that truce,the sunnis would have to also accept that the Imam negotiated on the matter of legitimacy of his caliphate as well.so you are simply saying that imam ali did not see himself as the legitimate fourth sunni caliph because he had a truce with muawiya (a subject) who revolted and deserved punishment.logically,the kharijite thinking and the sunni thinking are the same! both are denying imamate and the first successor because Imam Ali (as) signed a simple truce to end a dispute.

It is important to note that the truce did not by shadow of a doubt discredit Imam Ali (as) as the first successor and imam of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) divinely decreed,nor does it negate the fact that he was the legitimate and rightful caliph over muawiya as sunnis regards Imam Ali to this day as their fourth caliph.in simple terms,the truce was not a negotiation over imamate or caliphate.the truce resulted in order to settle a dispute and much turmoil that came during the battle of siffeen.

I will further explain if a legitimate leader or even a divinely appointed leader contradicts himself or goes against his title or divine decree for signing a truce with his opponents.

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.

in addition ALi r.a did not believe that he was divinely appointd by Allah, instead he accepted that he was appointed by the companions of the prophet pbuh, and by extension accepted that Ruling the Caliphate was by shura!

[size=14pt]THE TREATY OF HUDAIBIYYA:A TRUCE SIGNED BY THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (sa) WITH THE PAGANS OF MAKKAH[/size]

Did the treaty of Hudaibiyya that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) signed with the pagans of Makkah make Muhammad (sa) any less of the prophet of Allah he is or does it negate his prophethood? If not at all,then why does a truce between Imam Ali (as) and the pagan Umayyad,muawiya to end a dispute negate imamate? It is only to the followers of Umar,”vedaxcool’s” second sunni caliph,that would make you think as such:that because Imam Ali (as) signed a truce with muawiya he was denying or refuting a divine decree in his favor to have being the first legitimate successor of the prophet.you regard Imam Ali (as) to have being at that time your fourth caliph yet you don’t apply the same measure and think that he was refuting your claim that he was the fourth legitimate caliph and he was the wrong party in respect to muawiya.you still believe that inspite of the truce he remained what you regard him as the “fourth caliph”.

I would like to note that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself signed a truce with the pagans of the Quraysh and that famously became known as the “Treaty of Hudaibiyya”.it is to no surprise that the nasibis “vedaxcool” is quoting are claiming that the truce between Imam Ali (as) and muawiya translates to Imam Ali (as) not to have being appointed by Allah and His messenger to be the first successor of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).it is not suprising at all.do you know why?

When the Prophet Muhammad (sa) agreed to sign a truce with the pagans of makkah which became know as the “treaty of hudaibiyya” which is even cited in the Quran as a victory for the muslims,[b]Umar the second sunni caliph doubted and questioned the Prophet Muhammad (sa).he openly asked the Prophet (sa):”are you not really a prophet of God”?if the beloved Umar of the sunnis questioned the right of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) to prophethood which Allah bestowed upon Muhammad (sa) because of a truce,then I am not surprised if a sunnis question the right of imam Ali (as) to imamate for signing a truce with muawiya.this is the logic of hypocrisy and doubt that prevails in the minds of the ardent followers of Umar.

If you say Imam Ali agreeing to a truce with muawiya means denial of any sort of divine appointment by Allah and His messenger of Imam Ali to be the first successor,then it is Umar’s logic that when Muhammad (sa) signed the “treaty of hudaibiyya” with the pagans,Umar questioned the prophethood of Muhammad (sa).

Furthermore,how can Imam Ali (as) himself deny what the Prophet Muhammad (sa) had declared?the holy Prophet (sa) had declared Imam Ali (as) to be his first legitimate and divinely appointed successor.i have pointed out in this thread already no less than 4 different times and places where the Prophet (sa) made that declaration.

“THERE WAS NO SHURA”
As for the so called “shura” (consultation) excuse that the caliphs recognized by the sunnis were “elected/selected” through shura,a quick examination of how those men assumed/usurped power would clearly show there was really nothing as shura in place to choose “elect/select” them into power/caliphate.this shura thing is just a cover-up and excuse to make sure to save the image of abu bakr and his likes for usurping the caliphate from the 12 imams (as) starting with Imam Ali (as) who Allah decreed as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Here is a quick examination how the sunni caliphs assumed power:
1.) Abu bakr was selected by some muslims at “saqifah banu saeda”.many prominent muslims including the banu hashem (clan of the Prophet ) were unaware of the proceedings.the coup and usurpation of the caliphate by abu bakr took place at the saqifah banu saeda at a time when most muslims were still busy with the Prophet’s funeral and his body was yet to be buried.
2.) Abu bakr on his death-bed appointed umar and imposed him on the muslim ummah.no election,no selection,no consultation and nothing of those sorts at all.it was dictator-style appointment and imposition of umar.
3.) Umar was struck with a sword and was dying.he appointed a panel of 6 men to choose among themselves a successor to him with an ultimatum and condition.failure by the six men to agree upon a candidate to succeed umar would see all 6 of them executed.usthman was finally chosen.
4.) Usthman died without leaving any successor.people pleaded with Imam Ali (as) to fill in the vacuum and lead the muslims by assuming the office of the caliphate and exercising political power.he finally accepted in order to favor the interests of the muslims.during his leadership,both aisha and muawiya revolted.
5.) Imam Ali (as) signed a truce with Muawiya and ended bloodshed.Imam Ali (as) was finally matyred through muawiya’s scheming and with the help of an accursed kharijite.
6.) Imam Hassan (as),the second Imam and legitimate successor to the Prophet (sa) was expected to take over the caliphate.further agitation by muawiya saw Imam Hassan’s (as) refusal to accept the caliphate.a truce was signed and muawiya became the 5th sunni caliph with the condition that after muawiya’s death the caliphate would be handed over to Imam Hussain (as) since Imam Hassan (as) was matyred again by muawiya’s scheming.
7.) Muawiya dies and handed over power to his non-muslim son,yazeed.yazeed spreads oppression and corruption and ransacked makkah and medinah.Imam Hussain (as) opposed him and refused to pay his allegiance to yazeed.
8.) Yazeed ordered for the tragedy of karbala and Imam Hussain (as) was beheaded alongside his loyal Shia and family members of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).
In all of these power tussles and power grabbing,the shameless ones still have the guts to claim that their usurpers came to power through “shura”.all these corrupt play in regards to the caliphate which eventually saw it in the hands of yazeed only proves that there was no system in place for handing power and choosing a successor to the Prophet (sa).it is therefore impossible to think that Islam as a complete way of life and a complete religion would not have provision for identifying who the successor of the Prophet (sa) would be.it is obvious and evident from the events that occurred that the only fact and the undeniable proof is that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) did appoint Imam Ali (as) as his successor but he was no followed.that is the only reason the muslims found themselves in much confusion and fighting over power.

Zhul-fiqar:

So we finally got to know that the so called “sabaites” were only a “contingent” among the Shia of Ali who broke away and became known as kharijites according to the article “vedaxcool” copied and paste as quoted above. also we now know the difference between those the Imams cursed who were kharijites aka “sabaites” and the real shia who were true followers of the Imams who never broke away.these are all the different imaginations “vedaxcool” is feeding us from his nasibi hallucinating websites as my clarifications would show in more than one way.
It is actually mysterious how Imam Ali (as) could have led people known to be “sabaites” as the allegation goes.

The wahhabi cannot but admit the presence of the true Shia of Ali.then he goes on to tell us that the so called “ardent supporters of Ali” who were once “sabaites” became known as kharijites.so all on their own,they make the accusations against the shia of today that we are “sabaites” and then by themselves the nasibis vindicate us from the accusations they throw at us by referring to the so called “sabaites” as those who became “kharijites”.in reality today,the kharijite are extinct and no longer exist.no muslim today identifies himself as “kharijite”.we finally got to know that it was the hypocritical kharijites that were cursed and not the shia of Ali.i kept insisting that the Imams cursed the hypocrites and not their own true followers who were shia’t Ali.but our hatred possessed friend who is an expert in copy/paste,refused to see my point.

In reality and factually,It is of importance to know that the kharijites claimed to be Shia at a time.there was really nothing as “sabaites”.the Abdullah ibn saba card is a deceitful way the nasibis use to tarnish the image of the Shia presently by linking us to an accursed jew known as Abdullah ibn saba.the term “sabaite” is a derogatory word used by the nasibis to accuse the Shia as is also the word “rafidha”.
It is actually strange and impossible that Imam Ali (as) would accept the misguided followers of a misguided abdullah ibn saba as alleged and rather imagined by the nasibis of today to be part of his own followers. one thing that is of note,is how the nasibi shoots himself on the foot by acknowledging that the “sabaites” as he called them became the kharijites who separated from the Shia of Ali who remained and accepted the verdict of Imam Ali (as).so the Shia are vindicated! Truthfully,all the “sabaite” allegations of the nasibis cannot be backed up by hadiths or historical references.

You don't even know what you are! lol! what makes you a sabaites is simply that you believe Ali r.a was divinely appointed to be caliph, that is clear the Kharwajites simply rebelled against Ali r.a because they understood his negotiation with Mawiya as being going against his divine appointment, you are sabaites because just like the Kharawajites you insist that he was divinely appointed yet Ali knew better than your perverse minds think. Sabaites al Nasibi is what you are!

Zhul-fiqar:

It is also important to note that this Abdullah ibn saba is said to have being himself a supporter of Imam Ali (as) who was later executed by the Imam himself.it is mysterious and wonderful to think that a man such as this would have followers himself to follow the man he is alleged to have followed.how would even Imam Ali (as) have accepted to lead a faction led by an accursed man he punished? How can a follower have his own followers in a following and the leader would accept such acts of separatism within his followership?

You thinking always reflect the faulty path you follow, it is possible to have multiple leadership with one being the overall head, it doe not mean one is engange in separatism, like you have the Ayatollah of Iran, with numerous Mullhas and their followers, using your flat intellect does it mean the Mullahs are engaged in separatism? i am not really baffled at your reasoning since you can Ali r.a did curse individuals that insults the prophets' pbuh companions.

Zhul-fiqar:

The fact is the kharijites were no “sabaites” as the term “sabaite” is a nasibi-coined -word that is used to attack the shia presently as a derogatory term and a lie against the shia by calling them “sabaites” when it suits the nasibis.they use that word at will to serve their imaginations.the kharijites were not so called “sabaites”.they once claimed and said to be part of the shia of Ali.but when disagreement occurred during the battle of siffeen,these followers disobeyed their Imam and doubted him like Umar doubted the Prophet Muhammad (sa) at Hudaibiyya.they broke away.
I will prove you wrong.
First it is great news that the alleged “sabaites” are said to have become kharijites which totally makes them non-shia afterwards.so we are done with the accusation which the nasibis use at will to taunt the shia that we shia are so called “sabaites”.

Ode - chukwu,you are a sabite who lacks the intellect to reason well, all shias are sabaites since they have the same believe with them that Ali r.a was divinely appointed, you repeated denial only shows the low intellect associated with sabaites!

Zhul-fiqar:

As for the question that how can Imam Ali (as) agree to arbitration to an issue decreed by Allah,I really don’t know who is more foolish:the nasibi writer of the article or “vedaxcool” who copied and pasted it.

Imam Ali (as) during both battles of jamal against aisha and siffeen against muawiya is agreed by both sunnis and shia (a consensus of majority of muslim) to have being the legitimate ruler wielding political power at that time.islamically and in Arabian culture,a leader who allegiance has being paid to has right over his subjects.in sunni doctrine,anyone who revolts against the ruler of his time has committed treason and his just punish is death.sunnis regard Imam Ali (as) as the legitimate “fourth caliph” and therefore both aisha and muawiya who revolted deserved the dealth penalty if the rule is to be applied to them and justice was served.it was along this line of thinking that those who became kharijites broke away.they saw Imam Ali (as) as being on the right side and muawiya on the wrong side and also the Imam was chosen by God to have being the first sucessor.to them,truth was not to be compromised as they wrongly saw it and muawiya should have being punished all the same.in reality,the Imam (as) made the right decision to settle a dispute and avoid further bloodshed and disagreements.that was the bitter decision that was to be made by Imam Ali (as) because of the prevailing circumstances as at then.it was not an issue of Imam Ali (as) compromising,denying or rejecting his imamate at all when Imam Ali (as) made a truce with muawiya.I will further explain that the truce had nothing to do with Imam Ali’s (as) right to the divinely designated station of imamate or even the political office of caliphate.
The arbitration and truce which resulted was after a battle has being fought between two sides.this has to do with ending a conflict.it has nothing to do with negotiating Imam Ali’s (as) right as the first legitimate successor of the Prophet (sa) which was a decree by Allah that the Prophet (sa) declared severally and particularly at Ghadir Khumm.

If we are to say that the truce Imam Ali (as) signed with muawiya was denial of his right as a divinely appointed successor of the Prophet and a divinely appointed Imam (leader/successor),then we can as well say that the Imam also denied his right to have being the legitimate caliph of that time who was holding political office.but that was not the case because inspite of the truce with muawiya,sunnis still regard Imam Ali (as) as their “fourth legitimate caliph” and legitimate ruler of the muslims when he faced muawiya.sunnis even regard Imam Ali (as) as one of the so called “four rightly guided caliphs”.for us shia to accept that the Imam negotiated on the matter of imamate because of that truce,the sunnis would have to also accept that the Imam negotiated on the matter of legitimacy of his caliphate as well.so you are simply saying that imam ali did not see himself as the legitimate fourth sunni caliph because he had a truce with muawiya (a subject) who revolted and deserved punishment.logically,the kharijite thinking and the sunni thinking are the same! both are denying imamate and the first successor because Imam Ali (as) signed a simple truce to end a dispute.

It is important to note that the truce did not by shadow of a doubt discredit Imam Ali (as) as the first successor and imam of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) divinely decreed,nor does it negate the fact that he was the legitimate and rightful caliph over muawiya as sunnis regards Imam Ali to this day as their fourth caliph.in simple terms,the truce was not a negotiation over imamate or caliphate.the truce resulted in order to settle a dispute and much turmoil that came during the battle of siffeen.

I will further explain if a legitimate leader or even a divinely appointed leader contradicts himself or goes against his title or divine decree for signing a truce with his opponents.

[size=14pt]THE TREATY OF HUDAIBIYYA:A TRUCE SIGNED BY THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (sa) WITH THE PAGANS OF MAKKAH[/size]

Did the treaty of Hudaibiyya that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) signed with the pagans of Makkah make Muhammad (sa) any less of the prophet of Allah he is or does it negate his prophethood? If not at all,then why does a truce between Imam Ali (as) and the pagan Umayyad,muawiya to end a dispute negate imamate? It is only to the followers of Umar,”vedaxcool’s” second sunni caliph,that would make you think as such:that because Imam Ali (as) signed a truce with muawiya he was denying or refuting a divine decree in his favor to have being the first legitimate successor of the prophet.you regard Imam Ali (as) to have being at that time your fourth caliph yet you don’t apply the same measure and think that he was refuting your claim that he was the fourth legitimate caliph and he was the wrong party in respect to muawiya.you still believe that inspite of the truce he remained what you regard him as the “fourth caliph”.

I would like to note that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) himself signed a truce with the pagans of the Quraysh and that famously became known as the “Treaty of Hudaibiyya”.it is to no surprise that the nasibis “vedaxcool” is quoting are claiming that the truce between Imam Ali (as) and muawiya translates to Imam Ali (as) not to have being appointed by Allah and His messenger to be the first successor of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).it is not suprising at all.do you know why?

When the Prophet Muhammad (sa) agreed to sign a truce with the pagans of makkah which became know as the “treaty of hudaibiyya” which is even cited in the Quran as a victory for the muslims,[b]Umar the second sunni caliph doubted and questioned the Prophet Muhammad (sa).he openly asked the Prophet (sa):”are you not really a prophet of God”?if the beloved Umar of the sunnis questioned the right of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) to prophethood which Allah bestowed upon Muhammad (sa) because of a truce,then I am not surprised if a sunnis question the right of imam Ali (as) to imamate for signing a truce with muawiya.this is the logic of hypocrisy and doubt that prevails in the minds of the ardent followers of Umar.

If you say Imam Ali agreeing to a truce with muawiya means denial of any sort of divine appointment by Allah and His messenger of Imam Ali to be the first successor,then it is Umar’s logic that when Muhammad (sa) signed the “treaty of hudaibiyya” with the pagans,Umar questioned the prophethood of Muhammad (sa).

Furthermore,how can Imam Ali (as) himself deny what the Prophet Muhammad (sa) had declared?the holy Prophet (sa) had declared Imam Ali (as) to be his first legitimate and divinely appointed successor.i have pointed out in this thread already no less than 4 different times and places where the Prophet (sa) made that declaration.

The Ode - Chukwu keeps showing why I do not take him seriously! the Treaty of Hudaibiyah has no bearing on the issues, as the Prophet pbuh never called for Abirtrators to negotiate on his Prophethood, rather it had to do about performing the Hajj and condition for peace, that being said you comparism falls flat on your, again i remind you that Ali r.a cursed men that insults the prophet's companions, as we all know Ali r.a even refused to rub off the title messenger of Allah even after the Prophet's pbuh insisted he rub it of to that effect the prophet pbuh rub it off himself despite the fact that Allah referred to the event as a vicory for Muslims, what does it prove that our shia friend is showing how low his brain is when it comes to reasoning properly as most of the Prophet's companion were not happy with the deal yet the man that selectivly hypocritical to that effect Ali r.a called Liars traitorous, cowards and Hyporite would be ever keep in insulting the prophet's sahabas even when Ali r.a isinvolved. I do say you are cursed! as only one who is cursed will insist on insulting the Prophet's Sahabahs and even his wife! now

Now that we are agreed that the Treaty of Alhudaibiyah is a very poor comparison, we again have to establish what the arbitration between Muawiyah and Ali r.a, Muawiyah had refused to give his allegiance to Ali r.a requesting that the muderers of Uthman be apprehended before he pledges his allegiance, the event culmicated into the battle of siffin, the long a short of it arbirtrators were selected from both parties what they arbirtrated upon was on the rulership of Ali r.a, this led them to annul Ali r.a caliphate, meaning all this while Ali r.a decided to put up his divine appointment for mere mortals to annul! the whole shia crap is based on this false claim, in fact because the Khawarjites too believe in the concept of the Immamh to so they insisted that it being a divine appointment, it can never be acceptable for man to preside upon! making them rebel against the their leader. In essence Ali r.a believed in shura, that was why he accepted that he was appointed by Shura! Again just as upu accuse Ali r.a of oppressing himself and his family by refusing to retake fadak so also do you agai accuse him of Negotiating a divine appointment! do the shia blasphemy ever end!

Zhul-fiqar:

“THERE WAS NO SHURA”
As for the so called “shura” (consultation) excuse that the caliphs recognized by the sunnis were “elected/selected” through shura,a quick examination of how those men assumed/usurped power would clearly show there was really nothing as shura in place to choose “elect/select” them into power/caliphate.this shura thing is just a cover-up and excuse to make sure to save the image of abu bakr and his likes for usurping the caliphate from the 12 imams (as) starting with Imam Ali (as) who Allah decreed as the successor to the Prophet Muhammad (sa).

is it 12 imams or 7 or 9 or 11? only in the perverse shias dreams do all this number mean the same thing!

Zhul-fiqar:

Here is a quick examination how the sunni caliphs assumed power:
1.) Abu bakr was selected by some muslims at “saqifah banu saeda”.many prominent muslims including the banu hashem (clan of the Prophet ) were unaware of the proceedings.the coup and usurpation of the caliphate by abu bakr took place at the saqifah banu saeda at a time when most muslims were still busy with the Prophet’s funeral and his body was yet to be buried.

Majority of the Sahabah pledged their allegiance to him, meaning they accepted him to be their leader, meaning there was shura

Zhul-fiqar:

2.) Abu bakr on his death-bed appointed umar and imposed him on the muslim ummah.no election,no selection,no consultation and nothing of those sorts at all.it was dictator-style appointment and imposition of umar.

this Karbala drunk again fail to understand things clearly, as he was nominated by Abubakar r.a thereby the rest of Sahabahs pledged their allegiance to him, meaning again they accepted his nomination as their leader! your reasoning is baffling indeed though we take solace in the fact that such illogicality is commonly shia in nature!

Zhul-fiqar:

3.) Umar was struck with a sword and was dying.he appointed a panel of 6 men to choose among themselves a successor to him with an ultimatum and condition.failure by the six men to agree upon a candidate to succeed umar would see all 6 of them executed.usthman was finally chosen.

likewise the above! no wonder Ali r.a called shias Liars, cowards, Hypocrites and Traitorous!

Zhul-fiqar:

4.) Usthman died without leaving any successor.people pleaded with Imam Ali (as) to fill in the vacuum and lead the muslims by assuming the office of the caliphate and exercising political power.he finally accepted in order to favor the interests of the muslims.during his leadership,both aisha and muawiya revolted.
5.) Imam Ali (as) signed a truce with Muawiya and ended bloodshed.Imam Ali (as) was finally matyred through muawiya’s scheming and with the help of an accursed kharijite.

So the accursed Khawajites were sent by Muawiyah? you are indeed a liar just as Ali r.a called the shias!

Zhul-fiqar:

6.) Imam Hassan (as),the second Imam and legitimate successor to the Prophet (sa) was expected to take over the caliphate.further agitation by muawiya saw Imam Hassan’s (as) refusal to accept the caliphate.a truce was signed and muawiya became the 5th sunni caliph with the condition that after muawiya’s death the caliphate would be handed over to Imam Hussain (as) since Imam Hassan (as) was matyred again by muawiya’s scheming.

aya! remeber Hassan called the shias Traitors and said he could not find anybody to fight his cause! shakes head!

Zhul-fiqar:

7.) Muawiya dies and handed over power to his non-muslim son,yazeed.yazeed spreads oppression and corruption and ransacked makkah and medinah.Imam Hussain (as) opposed him and refused to pay his allegiance to yazeed.

Oh Yazid was a christian?

Zhul-fiqar:

8.) Yazeed ordered for the tragedy of karbala and Imam Hussain (as) was beheaded alongside his loyal Shia and family members of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).

It was shias again that murdered Husayn due to their well established bad manners and untrustworthy character!

Zhul-fiqar:

In all of these power tussles and power grabbing,the shameless ones still have the guts to claim that their usurpers came to power through “shura”.all these corrupt play in regards to the caliphate which eventually saw it in the hands of yazeed only proves that there was no system in place for handing power and choosing a successor to the Prophet (sa).it is therefore impossible to think that Islam as a complete way of life and a complete religion would not have provision for identifying who the successor of the Prophet (sa) would be.it is obvious and evident from the events that occurred that the only fact and the undeniable proof is that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) did appoint Imam Ali (as) as his successor but he was no followed.that is the only reason the muslims found themselves in much confusion and fighting over power.

Only in the minds of men that Ali r.a cursed for insulting the prophet's pbuh companions and further called traitors, liars, cowards and Hypocrites would change the whole of history to suit their perverse doctrines! the same accursed shias that would accuse Uthman of Nepotism would also find not nepotic about restricting leadership to certain people, yet the ode - chukwus were caught napping when their last imam left no heir, showing one of the flaws of their concocted system of disbelief!

[b]The Prophet Muhammad (sa) negotiated a truce with the pagans and signed the treaty of hudaibiyyah.he was questioned by Umar if he was really a prophet.indeed he proved to be the true Prophet of God as events later showed.


Imam Ali (as) signed a truce with Muawiya to end a dispute and he remained caliph and did not hand over power to muawiya.he is accused by followers of Umar and the kharijites of denying his imamate.where does it say that Imam Ali (as) renounced his imamate?infact the first thing he did when he was chosen to be the fourth caliph was to remind people of Ghadir Khumm.

besides,whether or not a prophet or a divinely appointed imam holds political leadership or not,he remains with the title bestowed upon him by Allah (swt)-example are many prophets of Allah like Isa (as) who never held political power when the romans were in power.prophethood and imamate have both spiritual and physical dimensions.an imam can be the spiritual guide and head of the ummah and the most knowledgable by divine providence.a prophet also can guide his followers and receives revelations.even if they are deprived of political leadership,the ummah is still benefitting from the presence of prophethood and imamate and there are striking examples that i can provide if need be.i can put forth the instances the Imam acted as a true guide by showing the ummah what is right even to the acknowledgment of umar himself.caliphate is only the political (physical) dimension in imamate.while caliphate is solely political, imamate contains both spiritual and physical dimensions.

also,truce or no truce,the events where the Prophet (sa) made his declarations of Imam Ali (as) to be his sucessor are undeniable.whether umar likes it or not and his followers can die if they like.even umar's insolence to the Prophet Muhammad (sa) while the Prophet (sa) was breathing his last days cannot stop the fact that the Prophet (sa) appointed Imam Ali (as) as successor.you can see the "Hadith of Pen and Paper".[/b]

Zhul-fiqar:

[b]The Prophet Muhammad (sa) negotiated a truce with the pagans and signed the treaty of hudaibiyyah.he was questioned by Umar if he was really a prophet.indeed he proved to be the true Prophet of God as events later showed.

likewise Ali r.a refused to obey the command of the Prophet pbuh when he was told to clean off the title prophet of God, which made the Prophet pbuh rub it off by himself, any explanation that you can tender for Ali r.a refusal to obey the command of the Prophet pbuh is also tenable to the case of Umar. Now the Big question is did the prophet negotiate his prophet-hood! the man who Ali r.a called men he follows as Liars, hypocrite, cursed etc will have us believe the Prophet pbuh negotiation was about his prophet - hood when it was clearly about Performing the rights of hajj and terms of living in peace. This is the historical context of the Hudabiyyah Treaty, no amount of shia taste for mocking the Qur'an, the prophet pbuh and his companion r.a(s), and wives r.a, would ever explain away the context of the Treaty of al Hudaybiyyah. In the case of Ali r.a, his negotiation clearly was about his Ruling the Ummah, and it involved in arbitrating on an issue that shias claim is divinely bestowed upon him clearly shows he did not believe he was divinely appointment to lead, as the Prophet pbuh never arbitrated on the issue of his prophet - hood, Ali r.a even agreed to choose a man from his camp, to arbitrate on the Issue which eventually led to the annulment of his caliphacy, the real issue clearly is that Ali r.a agreed to the arbitrate on his immamah. this simply disprove the lie surrounding the Immamah, Ali r.a believed in Shura and knew he was appointed by Shura! thereby rejected flatly the notion of Immamah

Someone is really gone insane.

First he played down the treaty of hudaibiyya.now he brought an example where the Prophet (sa) himself cancelled his title 'prophet of God' next to his name to meet the demand of the pagans who didn't recognize him as prophet.why dont you say the Prophet (sa) denied his prophethood?this to show that whether or not the disbelievers recognize a prophet or divinely appointed imam,if the chosen one signs a treaty and make compromise to reach agreement that does not at all translate to compromising his title recognize by God Himself and the believers.

Furthermore,Umar questioned if truly Muhammad (sa) is a prophet of God in disbelief of his actions.Imam Ali (as) after the same actions by the Prophet (sa) and being in the same situation still demonstrated firm and full belief in the title of Muhammad (sa) and showed honor and respect by not using his own hands to erase the title.and here we have a blind fellow comparing Imam Ali (as) to Umar.dont forget this the same Umar in the 'hadith of pen and paper' who insulted the Prophet (sa) on his deathbed.

vedaxcool:

Ali r.a even agreed to choose a man from his camp, to arbitrate on the Issue which eventually led to the annulment of his caliphacy, the real issue clearly is that Ali r.a agreed to the arbitrate on  his immamah. this simply disprove the lie surrounding the Immamah, Ali r.a believed in Shura and knew he was appointed by Shura! thereby rejected flatly the notion of Immamah

the Prophet (sa) never negotiated his prophethood and where did you read that Imam Ali (as) negotiated his imamate? Come to think of it,are you saying muawiya knew of imamate and opposed it? That shows muawiya's disbelief.also you are admitting that Imam Ali (as) knew about his imamate so how then do you explain that he was denying his imamate by negotiating over it as you claim ? Or is that your interpretation? People cannot be negotiating over something which they dont know about or which they themselves deny.you can negotiate over something you claim or have possession of.the president cannot negotiate the presidency if you dont claim to be president or in power one way or the other.like if Imam Ali (as) was deny being an imam then how can he negotiate over imamate? It is either he was truly imam or claiming to be.also,a title such as prophethood or that of a divinely appointed imam is a choice made by God and cannot be decided by men.when God has chosen someone whether you agree or not you cannot change it.men cannot control God who is above and annul His choice and ruling.Muawiya couldn't have negotiated over imamate because he was a munafeq to say the least who didn't recognized Imam Ali's (as) right even as caliph talkless of divinely appointed imam,just like the pagans didn't recognize the title of prophethood for Muhammad (sa).even reasoning shows the truce between Imam Ali (as) and muawiya was not about imamate.please show us where you read that it was about imamate.or are you still mixing up the concept of imamate and caliphate? I already explained the diffrence.

'annulment of Imam Ali's caliphate'? Malam,i know you can lie but do you know the meaning of 'annulment'? Are you trying to forge history that Imam Ali (as) gave up the caliphate to muawiya? If Imam Ali's (as) caliphacy was anulled,Imam Ali (as) would not have remained the caliph till the moment of his martyrdom and passing away.when elections are annuled in nigeria,the post contested is vacated.therefore you cant annul someone's rule while he remains in power.also,why would Imam Ali (as) compromise his rule after muawiya's forces surrendered by placing Quranic verses on their swords? I know you lie but try to be not that slow!

Ode - Chukwu , has been known never to reason, the fo*ol thinks annulment means to give power to Mauwiyah yet it just mean to cancel an appointment, to dissolve something, his Caliph again was annulled by the panel of arbitration, the panel of two men, one from the camp of Ali r.a the other from Mauwauiyah's camp. Ali r.a did not accept the annulment but this clearly means the arbitration was about being the Caliph! again if Ali r.a believed that he was divinely appointed to rule the Ummah, then how can he accept to arbitrate on the matter, that was what made the khariwajities broke rank with him, because they took what he did as going against their beliefs in his divine appointment! that is clearly the issue, instead of replying go read about history and stop making yourself look illiterate! Ali took shura to be the only way to rule the Ummah, if not why did he wait until people press him to take the reigns of leadership why did he just assume to the position of ruling? no wonder Ali r.a cursed the shias as being cowards, liars, Traitors and hypocrites may i add people with deformed thinking as well

1. A divinely appointed imam just as a prophet does not have to hold political power to be the person God has made out of him.even thoug people reject divine choice,that choice cannot be negotiated.

2. The functions of being a divinely appointed imam is not all about political rulership just as prophethood is also to guide and about spiritual leadership.

3.show us a hadith that says Imam Ali (as) negotiated his imamate.

4.get a dictionary and check for the word 'annuled'.

5.why would Imam Ali (as) remain caliph till death if his caliphate was 'annuled'?

With all the insult from a malam like yourself,a malu rearer,you are following the sunnah of umar.not suprising.

Finally he confessed Ali r.a was not divine appointed to take over from Muhammad as Caliph of the Muslims, in order words Abubakar never claimed to be anybody's spiritual leader, meaning Shias have all along been insulting him for a crime he never commit since Ali r.a Immamah was not about Political Leadership Really!    Yet Ali negotiated with Muawiyah on the Issue, that was why the Arbitrators annulled his reign, now your new claim is that Ali was not divinely appointed to be the caliph of the Ummah,but to be spiritual leader!  , Thank goodness your perpetual lies has boxed you into a corner all made by your own lies  . if you have a different definition of annul, then bring it but we know you hardly have any real point to make! as for why Ali r.a remain caliph till death despite his caliph being annulled, well common sense should have told you he did not accept the verdict of the arbitration, but it becomes evident that the arbitration was about his rule, for the mere fact that Ali r.a subjected his "divine" rights to rule to the judgement of mere mortals showed clearly that he did take his appointment to be by shura not the misinterpreted Mawla pronouncement by shias. Malu rearer really, we know shiasm is founded on racial imbecility that is why all the 11 imams of shias tend to have come from Persians! what low character you have, FYI not a Fulani! Umar Sunnah! well Umar did not teach any Muslim to insult the prophet companions as an act of worship! neither did he teach us to insult the Prophet's beloved wives, from all indication your sunnah points to insult, Insult, Insult and Insult, which you have shown severally here. but alas didn't Ali r.a called the shias hypocrites, liars, cowards and Traitors! how true this words are!   

vedaxcool:



Finally he confessed Ali r.a was not divine appointed to take over from Muhammad as Caliph of the Muslims, in order words Abubakar never claimed to be anybody's spiritual leader, meaning Shias have all along been insulting him for a crime he never commit since Ali r.a Immamah was not about Political Leadership Really!   

how does explaining to you that caliphate is just one aspect of the divine imamate of Imam Ali (as) amount to me "confessing that he was not appointed to be caliph"? are you alright?

the Prophet (sa) was the leader of the muslims both in the spiritual and physical senses.he was a complete leader and so also must the leadership of his sucessor be complete leadership to serve the needs of the muslim ummah.your statement that abu bakr never claimed to be anybody's spiritual leader,shows that he has nothing to do with the title :"sucessor to the Prophet".abu bakr was just an opportunistic usurper who wanted worldly power without having the merits and qualities to succeed the Prophet (sa).

Yet Ali negotiated with Muawiyah on the Issue, that was why the Arbitrators annulled his reign, now your new claim is that Ali was not divinely appointed to be the caliph of the Ummah,but to be spiritual leader!  ,

caliphate is a part of imamate.being deprived of caliphate or not holding political office does not make Imam Ali (as) any less than the choice of God and the Prophet (sa) as a complete successor.Imam Ali (as) was denied the caliphate by abu bakr,umar and usthman,yet he was always the Imam.he fought muawiya because,by then he was already holding political office of the caliphate and muslims have sworn allegiance to him.revolting against the ruler is kufr according to sunni beliefs.so muawiya was a kafir likewise aisha who revolted in the battle of jamal immediately Imam Ali (as) took over the caliphate.that was what the battle of siffeen was about.muawiya revolted after allegiance was paid to Imam Ali (as).it was not about imamate and it was not about whether or not Allah had chosen Ali (as) to be a divinely appointed imam and complete successor of the Prophet (sa) because of the leadership qualities and knowledge inherent in Imam Ali (as) which Allah had bestowed upon him.

we see the example of Imam Ali (as) being deprived of the caliphate also in prophets who never ruled over their people when they were more deserving and rightful to lead than the tyrants and usurpers.yet the prophets remained the choice of Allah in a complete sense both spiritually and physically to lead the people politically and hold the office of political leadership.

Thank goodness your perpetual lies has boxed you into a corner all made by your own lies  . if you have a different definition of annul, then bring it but we know you hardly have any real point to make! as for why Ali r.a remain caliph till death despite his caliph being annulled, well common sense should have told you he did not accept the verdict of the arbitration, but it becomes evident that the arbitration was about his rule, for the mere fact that Ali r.a subjected his "divine" rights to rule to the judgement of mere mortals showed clearly that he did take his appointment to be by shura not the misinterpreted Mawla pronouncement by shias.

so you finally refuted and discarded your arguments all by yourself.you claimed through your own interpretation that Imam Ali (as) denied his imamate when he agreed to an arbitration.then you finally pointed out that Imam Ali (as) did not accept the decision of the arbitration.so if Imam Ali (as) did not accept the decision of the arbitration was Imam Ali (as) a hypocrite in your view? or was he simply telling you and your likes that the arbitration was wrong and did not implement was favors the truth?so finally Imam Ali (as) demonstrated through his rejection of the outcome that he is right and his opponents are wrong and no matter what men say he would not follow it if it is not the truth and does not support divine justice.

Malu rearer really, we know shiasm is founded on racial imbecility that is why all the 11 imams of shias tend to have come from Persians! what low character you have,

so are you saying that the Prophet Muhammad (sa) who the Imams descended from is persian? what are you saying?

FYI not a Fulani! Umar Sunnah! well Umar did not teach any Muslim to insult the prophet companions as an act of worship! neither did he teach us to insult the Prophet's beloved wives, from all indication your sunnah points to insult, Insult, Insult and Insult, which you have shown severally here. but alas didn't Ali r.a called the shias hypocrites, liars, cowards and Traitors! how true this words are!   

may God join you with Umar in the hereafter and make his destiny your own destiny!

ofcourse,Umar did not teach you to curse anyone.Umar simply insulted the Prophet Muhammad (sa) when the Prophet (sa) was on his deathbed and labeled him as "talking nonsense"!see the hadith of pen and paper.the Prophet (sa) asked for pen and paper to write a will after which "no muslim will go astray".sensing that the Prophet (sa) would pen down the name of his successor after witnessing the appointment of Imam Ali (as) at Ghadir Khumm,Umar prevented the Prophet (sa) from obtaining writing tools.according to Umar the Prophet (sa) was "talking nnsense!see the "hadith of pen and paper".

we do not insult anyone.we curse the evil doers because cursing is present in the Quran and even Allah curses the evil doers.it is not bad but good to curse the evil doers.cursing them is vindication from hell fire and disassociation from the evil doers and Allah will reward our good intentions and actions abundantly.