Failed attempt of suicide bombing at Mosque in Islamabad exposes the security apparatus – by A Z
Here is the Video footage of a failed attempt of suicide bombing at Jamia Mosque Ali Ibn-e-Abi Talib , in Barakahu, Islamabad, while prayers were in progress. CCTV footage shows that the assailant was walking on a path that leads to the mosque from Attal Chowk. As he neared the mosque, he took out a pistol and started firing, forcing people to flee the area. The bomber then ran through the narrow streets leading up to the mosque while brandishing the weapon. There are two guards following him. One of them sneaks into a house, probably to take refuge, but the other one responds to the call of his duty and continues to follow the terrorist. The guard is finally able to reach the terrorist soon after the terrorist enters the mosque and is able to gun him down before the terrorist can explode his jacket. Hence, a major terrorism attempt was foiled by a conscientious and brave private security guard. The pictures here show the terrorist’s body lying in the main hall of the mosque.
It is interesting to note that the government’s much touted ‘heavy deployment’ of security agencies is nowhere to be seen in the video. In fact there is no policeman in sight. Subsequent to the incident SSP Islamabad Dr Rizwan has suspended six officials including the SHO of Barakahu Abid Hussain and a probe has been launched into the matter. Luckily these suspensions don’t come after a heavy loss of life, as they usually do in the Islamic Republic. However, what more can we expect from a Police force which is not even able to save its own personnel as evinced by the attack in Quetta just a couple of days of earlier. In fact the spate of attacks across the country in the past few days and the conquest of DI Khan jail by the terrorists reek of a complete security breakdown in the country.
Perhaps the brave guard, Shaheed Amin Hussain, in this instance may have dismayed our great leaders like Sharif brothers and Imran Khan who want to negotiate with these very terrorists. They may point out that the guard should have tried to negotiate with the terrorist and convince him to abandon his holy plan for the sake of the greater national interest of Pakistan. Who knows the guard may have even tried but the terrorist, quite visibly, doesn’t seem interested in any sort of negotiations as he runs and fires in a bid to enter the mosque. I find it extremely worrisome for if the terrorists remain intent on blowing themselves up without giving negotiations a chance then it may become very difficult to ensure peace in a state whose government thinks that the best bet for peace is to negotiate with the terrorists.
Sarcasm apart, little does our government realize that the terrorists must never be rewarded for using violence and inflicting terror. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the country’s political systems, undercut sovereign legitimacy, and set a dangerous precedent in a country where there are countless armed groups. While watching a video like this one, the idea of negotiations with these terrorists should make us collectively sick to our stomachs. It is a slap in the face to every single man and woman who has fought and died or has been killed in Pakistan’s longest war. It is hard to see why our leaders are too afraid to do what is necessary to eliminate these terrorists? What value negotiations with these brutal radicals? They will tell us whatever they need to in order to survive, regroup, and launch a counter-attack. Our government and military leadership have to look at this differently. This is not conventional warfare. The whole nation has to fight it together to give this country a chance.
“Koi musalman aesa krnay ka soch bhi nahi sakta” ye to shakal say he Hindu lagta hai. dekho iski darhi bhi hinduon jesi hai… laazmi amreeka ki saazish hai humain aapas mei larwanay ki. Ya phir shiaon nay khud krwaya hoga attack apnay ooper. Unki sazish bhi hosakti hai. Wesay bhi taliban tow amn chahtay hain. Iskay konsa mathay pr likha hai kay ye taliban hai. Yaqeenan ye kisi drone hamlay ka victim hoga, uska badla lenay aya hai becharay ka kya kasoor, drone na hota tow ye banda is waqt dryaye kunhar mei machlion ka shikaar kr raha hota, magar is waqt shia shikaar kr raha hai.
-rant of a Taliban apologist
GOOD JOKE KAY TALIBAN AMAN CHAHATY HAI,AGAR TUMARA KOI APNA MARA HOTA TO TUMAY PATA LAGTA. BAAT KARTI HO
Har bath amreeka ar india p dal dena kafi asan ha, magr haqeeqat ka smana karna ni ha hame, ham khush ha k log mare, qatl o gharath giri o, logo k tukde o, ase munafeqeen ko to hm jese logo ki khamosh himayat hasil ha, tabi to a masoom logo ko qatl kar k fakhr se qubool karte ha k a ham ne kia ha, yaqeenan jb apne kisi k tukde hawa m udenge tb hame pata chale ga k a qatil ha ya mujahid.
Being illiterate is one thing and being ignorant is another but in your case you have achieved both feets to infinity. There is no need to blame others to hide your own fidelity. Such acts of insanity should be criticized on the ground of humanity without prejudice however from your comment I can say you have lost your intellect to differentiate between right and wrong. Your eyes are open but your brain is shut.
Qurban iss tajahil e arfana par. (Jahalat jahalat he hoti hey or ilm sey isko sada sey dushmani qaim hey) Arz yeh k iss mazloom naam nehad “hindu” ka naam zaka ullah thha, taaluq chiniot sey thha, sipah e sahaba ka karkun thha, iskey 7 adad bachey hein jo mukhtalif madrason mein dars ley rahey hein ghaliban yeh k kistrahan sey ikhtelaf e nazer rakhney waley muaslmano ko nabood kiya jaye. hindu ko q ilzam deya jaye?america ko qusoorwar girdantey sey haqeeqat badel nahin jati meri afsanwi duniya sey nikal kar soch bechar karney mein koi harj nahi…masha Allah maktaba e deoband sey sikhaye balka sidhaye howey (aisey khudkash) issi tarhan Pakistan ko barbad o nest o nabood kar rahey hein apne aslaf ki meeras ko parwan charha rahey hein.
Takfiri/salafi /deobandi muftis have promised 72 virgins to these poor people and these bombers are too horny to get blown. How are they going to get nailed? their fate is to burn here and hereafter as you can see the above person is half burnt like a rotten toast in a toaster already.
Yes the sectarian violence needs to be controlled.
It is disappointing that the media called the Shaheed Amin Hussain, as “Jaan-bahaaq” – there is bias even in this reporting. He is a Shaheed, who died protecting hundreds! and sending to hell this animal, even the language of the media smacks of discrimination and lacks respects
@ Nusa naqvi bro agree with u r comments
sorry Musa naqvi
Mera Khial Hay Kay Bus Kafi Ho Chuka Hay.Jab Tak Hamary Muhafiz In logo Ki Sarparasti Karna NAhi Chodte Pakistan Kay Kisi Bhi City MAi Aman Possible Nahi Hay.
Pakistan Doob Raha Hay Khuda Kiliye Pakistan Ko Bachao.
Hum Shiio Ka Tu MAt Poocho Likn Kia doosray sect walay Insan NAhi HAi Kia? Wo Bhi Kisi Maa Kay Ladlay Hai….Aye Din INsano Ko JAnwaro Kitarah MAr Diye Jarahay Hai…….BAsssssssssssss
Anyone who thinks that the bomber is a non-Muslim or a CIA, Mosad, RAW, or MI6 Agent, etc. need only study the violent Islamic history and investigate the religion and ideology of the group who fought battles against Ali (AS) and Husayn (AS). Also do some research and identify the killers of the direct decedents and the progeny of our Holy Prophet (S). Were they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, or Buddhist?
There is no doubt that they all professed to the Islamic Kalima and that they were very particular about daily prayers, Zakat, Saum (Roza), Hajj, etc. They had organized clergy including muftis on state salaries, etc. They called themselves to be the Ummat of the Holy Prophet (S).
But there were, are, and will be two types of Muslims – one who sacrifices for Islam and one who slaughters “in the name of Islam”.
I DON’T KNOW THIS MAN & HIS RELIGIOUS BUT LOOK HIS FACE SO HAPPINESS LIKE SHADAAT.
AGAIN I SAID I AM NOT SURE HIS RELIGIOUS.
SCHERAY PER ITMINNAAN KITNA HAI……. ZARA GHOR KAROOO
Which man? the guard or the terrorist?
Itmenan of having severed hands, severed head, and burnt body like fresh charcoal. Itmenan of going down like a fighter by committing suicide (a Haram mout under all circumstances).
Would you like to have the same itmenan when you die?
Dua go houn k
Allah pak tumhey bhi martey waqat aisa hi itminan baksh chehra atta farmaye (Ilahi Ameen)
Ilahi Ameen!
yes this is the problem of illiteracy but no doubt that these suiciders are encouraged against us bcz of our negative attitude towards islam as v abuse sahabah and umhatulmomineen which can b visible on youtube and our books so till these crimes from shia doesn’t stop this killing btween 2 sects cant stop by any force only our tolerance and respect towards ashab nabi and ahlulbait can defuse this fire.
We can never even think of abusing the great Sahaba. However not everything in the world is black and white. If it were so then there would not be a surah in the Quran called Surahe Munafiqeen.
During Dawate Zulasheera, our Holy Prophet (S) said that whosoever helped him that day in spreading the word of God would become his vicegerent tomorrow. Then in Khyber he (S) reiterated the same policy. Furthermore at Hajjatul Wida, he finally declared in front of the biggest gathering thus far that whosoever considered him (S) his Moula would have to profess Ali (AS) as his Moula. Now some Ashab accepted this declaration as a word of God and some decided to ignore it and made their own Moula. How can these two groups, i.e. one accepting the Messenger’s (S) will and the other rejecting his will, be considered the same?
It is rather the mainstream Islam who abuse those Sahaba who accepted the will of the Messenger (S) and continued to propagate his (S) will to the Ummat. A few examples of such Ashab are Abu Zar (R), Miqdad (R), Salman (R), Ammar (R), Hujr bin Adi (R). Are these Sahaba not worthy of even mentioning by the mainstream group? Do some research on why the mainstream has such scorn towards these Sahaba even though the mainstream profess that all Sahaba (without exception) are praise-worthy.
I’ll give you some hints – Abu Zar (R) was forcefully exiled and Hujr bin Adi’s (R) grave was recently desecrated. Both these people are great Ashab.
We have great respect for the Ummahatul Momineen (R) also but the history and the saying of the messenger (S) should not be concealed. The messenger clearly said that Haq is with Ali (AS) and Ali (AS) is with Haq and that if you find every child of Adam (AS) on one side and Ali (AS) on the other even then you should stay with Ali (AS) because he will never let you astray. The messenger (S) did not make any exceptions. Now it is up to the ummat to do some impartial research and find out every single person who fought battles against Ali (AS). We can infer from the Messengers (S) words that fighting Ali is fighting Haq and therefore whosoever fights Haq is a Batil. Thats all. We have nothing against Sahaba, and how can we when there are such majestic names in the list.
Even if one does not agree to this logic by saying that I have made all this stuff up and therefore still thinks that we are selective in our praise of the Sahaba then I would say that the mainstream group is guilty of the same – see examples above.
their v caught this is what we are doing eccepting only 18 sahabs as good while all others are under our abuse u want to give me the reason while i know ur all reason who is just one sided fake stories as my 1 ques is enought for u if all sahabah especially khulfa was out of the deen so y ali make baiaat on their hand?? y either he was lion of god or either he was a coward .n.billah y did he gave his daughter to umar y did rasolullah as our shia blv that imam knows what is in sky and on earth what is from the begining to jugment day so y did rasollulah prey for umar y rasolullah make abobaker the imam of prayer while he was in sick.and did rasullah was a winner or loser n.billah that just by his wisal from this world all his sahabah turn over from what rasulullah teaching was except 18 or 20 is it what rasulullah achieved . by the way is surah munafiqoon mention or their names who were those y only the ones v dout y not the ones on wich v trust may b they were munafiqs n.billah. by the way at any cost v r dividing islam v r the ones who splitting islam from its beginning by criticizing the pillars which include kalma quran sahabah and umhatulmomineen so this is what the retaliation comes.
It does not matter if it is 18 or 20 or even 1. Haq is always in minority. I already quoted a saying of the prophet (S) about who to side with even if the whole of mankind takes one sides while Ali (AS) takes the other. If majority were the golden principle then our great prophet (S) would never have said that.
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the Quran that the ‘whole mankind is in loss’ except those who do good deeds and preach Haq and Sabr. Allah also says that he will reveal truth even if ‘the majority of mankind’ turns diabolical.
Majority is usually wrong therefore it is forbidden in Islam to turn to Jamhoor (the masses) for advise or to gauge truth. Intellect is always in minority. Note that it is very easy to change the majority’s perception on anything by propaganda or by media or by advertising. This trick is very prevalent these days with omnipresent media with deep pockets controlled by hidden people.
I’ll give you two examples on how easy it is fool the masses: During Muavia’s rule, full state machinery was used to propagate that Ali (AS) had denounced Islam and that he never visited mosques and that he never prayed and therefore it is the duty of every citizen to curse him (AS) in every prayer. Most but not all people fell prey to this deception. During Yazeed’s rule, the masses were led to believe that group of people his forces killed in the battlefields of Karbala and the women and children captured there were traitors. Again most but not all fell prey to this deception.
Furthermore Ibless said that he would delude all mankind except Gods committed people. When the final Imam appears, there will only be 313 sincere people with him out of the whole humanity.
Do you still think that the agreement of majority can be used as a criteria to gauge truth?
It is a deception that Ali (AS) gave his Baiat to anyone. When Ali (AS) became the 4th ruler, he said that the Haq had returned to the Mimbar of the Rasool Allah (S). He also refused to follow the sunnat of the Shaikhain (the first 2 rulers) and the changes made by them to the deen when he was asked to do so. You can also read his sermon of Shaqshaqiya in Nehjul Balagha to get an idea of what Ali (AS) felt on the events occurred after the wafat of our Prophet (S). You have to do some research on your own to get to the truth.
It is absolutely haram for a Syed girl to marry a non-Syed boy. This is a policy of our Prophet (S) and therefore not open for argumentation like it is a policy that Zakat and Sadqa cannot be given to the Syeds. If someone thinks that it is discrimination so be it. Go apply the same argumentation of discrimination (if you dare) on the fact that 11 out of 12 Imams are the descendents of Ali (AS) and Fatima (AS). Today you can witness that Syed families are so careful in finding match for their daughters. How can Ali (AS) marry his Syed daughter to a non-Syed, that too her grandfather. Is it allowed in any religion for a grandfather to marry his granddaughter? Hazrat Umme Kulsum (AS) was Hazrat Umer’s granddaughter by the relationship of Hazrat Hafsa to Rasool Allah (S). Furthermore a policy was given by Rasool Allah (S) to Ali (AS) to marry the children of the family of Abdul Muttalib only within themselves. How can Ali (AS) go against the policy and the wish of the prophet (S).
Pillars of Islam are not those that you listed. Suppose if one does not like any Sahaba for whatever reason, does be become a non-believer? Will he be answered for this liking or un-liking on the day of judement? Does he become wajibul qatl? Does he become worthy of abuse and violence by the other group? On what principals? Note that ONLY the crime of Toheene Risalat is punishable by death and that too by State only, not by a mob. This policy of condemnation does not extend to any other person.
The pillars of Islam are (not all inclusive):
1. Adle Ilahi
2. Touheed
3. Risalat
4. Imamat
5. Rajat
6. Qayamat
7. Amr bil Maroof and nahi anil Munkir
Please don’t hide behind a Shia name. I know that you are not a Shia so stop acting like one. A Shia would never believe in marrying a Syed girl to a non-Syed boy. I’m also sure that the pillars of Islam I listed above will be a revelation to you as you never heard of them before! Usoole-deen are the main ingredients of a Mazhab. You don’t even believe in the Shia Usoole-Deen and still call yourself a Shia? If you don’t agree to Shia Usoole Deen then you simple following some other Mazhab and deceiving yourself.
The fact that Shias are being killed is proof enough that the killers do not have strong argument to make their point otherwise they would sit and talk in a peaceful environment and listen to other opinions. You can also refer to several historic Manazra and find out which group consistently wins by argument and which group resorts to violence when their arguments fall flat. Resorting to violence is the sunnat of Namrood when he threw Ibraheem (AS) into fire but only when Namrood ran out of arguments against Ibraheem (AS) and became furious.
What do you mean by retaliation? Retaliation for not confirming to someone’s beliefs means death sentence? What kind of logic is that? For all I care you don’t have to accept my beliefs or you don’t need to respect my heroes but I would never preach violence.
There is no compulsion in religion. Enough said.
u r very fool smart as u changed my all questions wdout ans and put it on majority
while its fact that if majority was munafiqs from those to whom quran give certificate of jannah so its better for a muslim to blv in quran not on 1 sec ideology.
2.my ques was as u blv as a shia that all ilmghaib was known by rasullullah so how come he gave his 2 daughters to usman how come ali gave his daughter to omer how comes raolullah make immam for prayer abubakr how comes ali shair khuda take bait on the hand of 3 khulfa????????????
while ur ans is that ali said that haq came after rasullah now when i came means he was nauzubillah cowards take baith on the hand of batils???? is he shair khuda ???
its clearly shows that all of debate is on fake taqyah nauzubillah which is clearly a shame charge on all imams.bcz if taqiyah was a good thing so imam hussain would never b martyred .
the shahadet of imam hussain is the answer of all ur unlogic debate that if imam hussain just for the haq gave his live but didnt make bait of batil then how comes rasulullah and ali can practise the coward act of taqyah nauzbillah
Answer to all your questions can be found in my post if you are patient enough to read it. You keep posing same questions over and over without reading the answers. If you don’t want to believe, I can’t make you because you will always come up with some excuse to deny the truth even if the truth speaks for itself. However you are not the only one with this behavior. Most people are very narrow-minded and not open to hearing other point of views.
There had been several people in the history who refuse to accept truth even if presented with robust arguments. Example is Abu Jehal who asked for very peculiar types of miracles from the prophet (S) but even after witnessing everything that he asked for, he still refused to accept the truth and gave the ‘excuse’ that whatever he witnessed was simply magic.
If things were clear as black and white and if everything were written clearly in the Quran with names and dates and lists of munafiq people and momin people then there would be no test and everyone would go to heaven and then the value of heaven will be reduced just like printing money reduces its value. Heck there would be no need for any messenger as God would have hard-wired Haq into our brains, or wait God would have put all of us in heaven directly or may be God would not have created anything and He could have remained a hidden treasure for no one to recognize or worship.
No, Rashul Allah (S) did not have 4 daughters. People are deceived by ibless into believing that the 3 other women that are attributed to the Rasul Allah (S) were actually among the Kaneez (for household work) brought by Ummul Momineen Hazrat Khadijatul Kubra (AS) when she came to the house of Rasool Allah (S) after wedding. If the 3 other women were indeed daughters of Rasool Allah (S) then who were their mothers? Which year were they born? Why is history so quiet on 3 of the 4 daughters and only 1 daughters gets all attention like mother of 11 Imams, Tasbeehe Fatima, Khatoon-e-Jannat, Haq-e-Shifaat, inheritance of Fadak, etc.? What was the fault of the other 3 daughters? Why were they discriminated against?
No, Ali (AS) absolutely did not give Bayat to the “Shaikhain” or anyone else for that matter. The “Shaikhain” continued to rule without Ali’s (AS) will and Ali (AS) did not fight back because Ali (AS) fights only for God (not for kingdom) as witnessed by a popular event where Ali (AS) spared a person when he spit on Ali’s (AS) face. The reason Ali (AS) spared that person was that Ali (AS) used his sword only for God and if he had killed that person then Ali’s (AS) anger would have been involved in the killing which would have diluted his dedication to duty.
No, Ali did not marry his Syed daughter to a non-Syed ‘grandfather’. This is argument enough for a sane person.
Where did Quran give certificate of Jannah? I can’t find that verse. Even the popular so-called Hadith of Ashrae Mubashirra is fake. I know you will have a great difficulty in believing it. Old habits die hard specially those who are comforting or those who furthers self-fulfilling prophesies. If you are sincere in finding truth, then you need to sit with an unbiased scholar – both Shia and Sunni. I am no scholar. But I can help you start your search for truth. Read these two books:
1. Yanabee’ al-Mawadda, vol 3, page 399 by Al-Qanduzi al-Hanafi (Hanafi Sunni)
2. Fara’id al-Simtayn, vol 2, page 132 by Al-Hamawayni (Shafi’i Sunni)
Both books above mention that Rashool Allah (S) said that there will be 12 Imam after him. There are many Sunni books where they talk about the 12 Imams, like 12 Disciples of Jesus (AS), 12 sons of Ishaq (AS), 12 sons of Abdul Mutallib (R), but the interesting thing in above mentioned Sunni books is that the names of all 12 Imams are also clearly mentioned. You have to start at some point so here it is.
Again I can’t make you believe and I am least interested in it. I only thing we should agree on is that you remain on your beliefs and let others remain on their beliefs and let God (SWT) be the judge and furthermore we should agree on this one principle – i.e. debates should only be peaceful and academic and there should be no violence and compulsion in religion.
ans for ur no no is same my all ques ur ans is he is not while all ur debate is on no u can ans bcz u dont have the facts and the history is written no one can scape
Sayyiduna Rasulullah (s) had children from only two of his wives. They were Sayyida Khadijah (r) and Sayyida Maria Qibtiya (r).
Sayyida KHADIJAH (r)
Sayyida Khadijah (r) had 6 children. They were:
A. Sayyiduna Qasim (r): He was the eldest son and passed away in infancy.
B. Sayyiduna Abdullah (r): He was born during the period of Prophethood and was called “Tayyab” and “Taahir.” He also passed away in infancy.
C. Sayyida Zaynab (r): She was the eldest daughter. She married Sayyiduna Abul Aas (r) who only accepted Islam just a year after she passed away in 8 A.H. She passed away from a wound she received while on the Hijrah to Madinatul Munawwarah. She had two children – Sayyiduna Ali (r) and Sayyiduna Umama (r).
D. Sayyida Ruqayyah (r): She was first married to Utba, son of Abu Lahab. She did not live with him and he divorced her. She then married Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (r) and migrated with him to Abyssinia and finally settled in Madinatul Munawwarah. They had one son, Sayyiduna Abdullah (r) who passed away at the age of 6. She passed away in 2 A.H. after an illness.
E. Sayyida Umme Kulthum (r): She was first married to Utaibah, another son of Abu Lahab. She did not want to live with him and he divorced her. In 3 A.H. she married Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (r). His first wife, Sayyida Ruqayyah (r), passed away. She passed away in Shabaan of 9 A.H.
F. Sayyida Fathima (r): She was the youngest daughter of Sayyiduna Rasulullah (s). She married Sayyiduna Ali (r). They had 3 sons and 2 daughters. Sayyiduna Imam Hassan, Sayyiduna Imam Hussain, Sayyiduna Mohsin, Sayyida Umme Kulthum and Sayyida Zainab (r). She passed away a few months after Sayyiduna Rasulullah (s) left this world. She is considered to be “Sayyidatun Nisaa min Ahlil Jannah” or “Leader of the Women of Paradise.”
and now u lie is broken from u r books u said ali didnt take baiat and he was against other khulfa now see these were the real love between them
its shia book
Proove from Nahjul Balagha
1st
Nahjul balagha
Sermon: 226
[About a companion who passed away from this world before the
occurrence of troubles]
Hazrat Ali r.a UMAR r.a ke mutalliq farmatey hain,
‘INHON NE jitne fitne uthe unhein seedha kiya, bari kamiyab siyasat ki, sunnat ko zinda rakha, deen ke khilaf saazishon ko khatm kia, woh dunya se paak saaf hokar gaye, inhon ne kher ko haasil kiya aur shar se mehfooz rahe aur Allah ki ata’at aur taqwa ka haq ada kia’
Note:
[Sharh Nahj al-balagha, vol. 14, pp. 3-4 by Ibn Abi’l-Hadid]
He has written in that ‘INHON NE’ se muraad the second Caliph ‘Umar’ hain.
2nd
Nahjul balagha
Sermon: 133
[Delivered when Caliph `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir almu’minin about himself, taking part in the march towards Rome ( Byzantine Empire ).]
Jab hazrat UMAR r.a ne hazrat Ali r.a se roomiyon ke saath jihad mei apni shirkat ke mutalliq mashwara kia to hazrat Ali r.a ne jawab diya,
‘Aap khud tashreef na le jaayein balke kisi tajurba kaar shakhs ki sippa salari mei lashkar rawana kardein, agar Allah ne galba ata farmadiya to yahi aap ki khuwahish hai aur agar khuda na khuwasta shikast hogaye to aap ka wajood musalmano ke liye hosle ka baa’is hoga. Aap ki adam mojudgi mei KOI AISI SHAKHSIYAT NAZAR NAHI AATY JO MUSALMANO KE LIYE MARJA’ KE HESIYAT RAKHTY HO’
3rd
Nahjul balagha
Sermon: 145
[Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu’minin
about taking part in the battle of Persia.]
Is se bhi ziada wazahat is khutbe mei hai, Hazrat Ali ne UMAR r.a se farmaya,
‘musalmano ki fatah o shikast qillat o kasrat mei nahi balke yeh Allah ka wada hai ke who deen e islam ko galba ata farmaye ga aur Allah ka yeh wada pura hokar rahe ga. Aap khud tashreef na le jaayein kyunke Aap ki hesiyat HAAR KE US DHAAGE KI TARAH HAI JIS MEI MOTIYON KO PIROYA JATA HAI AGAR DHAGA TOOT JAAYE TO MOTY BIKHAR JAATEY HAIN. Musalmano ki ta’dad agar cha kam hai magar inhein eman ki quwwat hi kaafi hai. Aap CHAKKI KA QUTUB HAIN JIS KE GIRD CHAKKI GHOOMTY HAI, AAP QAAIM RAHENGE TO CHAKKI GHOOMTY RAHEGI. Agar aap binafse nafees medan e jang mei shirkat ke liye chale gaye to dushman yeh soch sakta hai key yeh musalmano ki bunyaad aur markaz hain, inehin khatam kardiya jaaye to musalmano ko asaani se shikast de jaasakty hai aur woh yeh soch kar aap per puri shiddat se hamla aawar honge is liye mera mashwara hai ke aap ka madene mei rehna medan e jang mei jaane se behtar hai’
4th
Nahjul balagha
Sermon: 163
Hazrat Ali r.a ne hazrat USMAN bin AFFAN r.a ko farmaya,
‘LOGON NE MERE AUR AAP KE DARMIYAN IKHTILAAF O NAFRAT PEDA KARNE KI KOSHISH KI HAI. Inhon ke aap ki khilaaf mukhtalif shikhayaat ki hain, magar mei aap se kiya kehsakta hun, JO HAM JANTEY HAIN WOH AAP BHI JAANTEY HAIN, hamare pass koi aisi imtiyazi cheez nahi hai jis se aap ko ba khabar karne ki zarurat ho, JO KUCH HAM NE SUNA WOH AAP NE BHI SUNA, JO HAM NE DIKHA WOH AAP NE BHI DEKHA, jis tarah ham Rasool s.a.w ke sahabi hain usi tarah aap bhi hain, aik lihaaz se aap ko Abu bakr o Umar r.a se bhi ziada fazeelat haasil hai aur who yeh ke Aap ko Rasool s.a.w ke damaad hone ka sharf haasil hai, jab ke un dono ko yeh sharf haasil nahi hosaka’
Note:
So after reading this sermon few points are highlighted:
1- Usman r.a knows what Ali r.a knows.
2- They both accompanied the Prophet p.b.u.h & both learned from him what they saw & heard.
3- Prophet p.b.u.h did not teach Ali r.a anything in secret so that he may tell Usman r.a about it nor does he have divine hidden secret knowledge (which the Prophet p.b.u.h entrusted only to him as shia claim)
4- Abu bakr r.a & Umar r.a both did righteous deeds ‘bi amal al-haq mink’ but Usman r.a is entitled to do more since the Prophet p.b.u.h married him two of his daughters.
Prove from sharah nahjul balagha
1st
(al-Murtada, ash-Shafi fil-Imamah, p. 231 & Ibn Abil Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah, vol. 4)
Ali’s saidرضّى الله عنه)
“I am ashamed before Allah to overturn something that was prohibited by Abu Bakr and continued by Umar.”
2nd
(Sharh Nahjul-Balagha;; Vol.1, p.132)
Ali ibn Abi Talib said to Zubair: “(Although) we got angry momentarily at the time of consultation (i.e. Saqifah), we can now see that Abu Bakr is the most deserving of the Caliphate: He was the companion of the Messenger of Allah in the cave. We know of his life and we know that the Messenger of Allah had ordered him to lead the prayers.” And then he (Ali) gave his Baya’ah (to Abu Bakr).
Get your facts straight. Nahjul balagha, Sermon: 226 is about Malik ibn al-Harith al-Ashtar not Umer.
Amir al-mu’minin has praised Malik repeatedly such as in his letter to the people of Egypt sent through Malik when he was made the governor of that place, and like his utterances when the news of Malik’s assassination reached him, he said: “Malik! who is Malik? If Malik was a stone, he was hard and solid; if he was a rock, he was a great rock which had no parallel. Women have become barren to give birth to such as Malik.” Amir al-mu’minin had even expressed in some of his utterances that, “Malik was to me as I was to the Holy Prophet.” Therefore, one who possesses such a position certainly deserves such attributes and even beyond that. (Sharh Nahj al-balaghah, vol. 14, pp. 374-375)
===============================================
Now read Sermon 3 known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1) and find out for yourself how Ali (AS) felt about the ‘Shaikhain’!
SERMON 3
Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1)
Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)(2) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.
Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.
(Then he quoted al-A`sha’s verse).
My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.(3)
It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.
Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group (4) and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth(5) like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.
At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:
That abode in the hereafter, we assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones. (Qur’an, 28:83)
Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.
===============================================
You twisted the facts on Sermon 133. Here is commentary on this sermon:
(1). About Amir al-mu’minin, the strange position is adopted that on the one hand, it is said that he was ignorant of practical politics and unacquainted with ways of administration from which it is intended that the revolts created by the Umayyad’s lust for power should be shown to be the outcome of Amir al-mu’minin’s weak administration. On the other hand, much is made of the various occasions when the then Caliphs consulted Amir al-mu’minin in important affairs of State in the matter of wars with unbelievers. The aim in this is not to exhibit his correctness of thinking and judgement or deep sagacity but to show that there was unity and concord between him and the Caliphs so that attention should not be paid to the fact that in some matters they also differed and that mutual clashes had also occurred. History shows that Amir al-mu’minin did have differences of principles with the Caliphs and did not approve every step of theirs. In the sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah he has expressed in loud words his difference of opinion and anger about each regime. Nevertheless, this difference does not mean that correct guidance should be withheld in collective Islamic problems. Again, Amir al-mu’minin’s character was so high that no one could imagine that he would ever evade giving counsel which concerned the common weal, or would give such counsel which would damage public interests. That is why, despite differences of principle, he was consulted. This throws light on the greatness of his character and the correctness of his thinking and judgement. Similarly, it is a prominent trait of the Holy Prophet’s character that despite rejecting his claim to prophethood the unbelievers acknowledged him the best trustee and could never doubt his trustworthiness. Rather, even during clashes of mutual opposition they entrusted to him their property without fear and never suspected that their property would be misappropriated. Similarly, Amir al-mu’minin was held to occupy so high a position of trust and confidence that friend and foe both trusted in the correctness of his counsel. So, just as the Prophet’s conduct shows his height of trustworthiness, and just as it cannot be inferred from it that there was mutual accord between him and the unbelievers, because trust has its own place while the clash of Islam and unbelief has another, in the same way, despite having differences with the Caliphs, Amir al-mu’minin was regarded as the protector of national and community interests and as the guardian of Islam’s wellbeing and prosperity. Thus when national interests were involved he was consulted and he tendered his unbiased advice raising himself above personal ends and keeping in view the Prophet’s tradition to the effect that “He who is consulted is a trustee” never allowed any dishonesty or duplicity to interfere. When on the occasion of the battle of Palestine, the Caliph `Umar consulted him about his taking part in it himself, then, irrespective of whether or not his opinion would accord with `Umar’s feelings, he kept in view Islam’s prestige and existence and counselled him to stay in his place and to send to the battlefront such a man who should be experienced and wellversed in the art of fighting, because the going of an inexperienced man would have damaged the established prestige of Islam and the awe in which the Muslims were held which had existed from the Prophet’s days would have vanished. In fact, in the Caliph `Umar’s going there Amir al-mu’minin saw signs of defeat and vanquishment. He therefore found Islam’s interest to lie in detaining him and indicated his view in the words that:
“If you have to retreat from the battlefield, it would not be your personal defeat only, but the Muslims would lose heart by it and leave the battle-field and disperse here and there, because with the officer in command leaving the field the army too would lose ground. Furthermore, with the centre being without the Caliph there would be no hope of any further assistance from behind which could sustain courage of the combatants.”
This is that counsel which is put forth as a proof of mutual accord although this advice was tendered in view of Islam’s prestige and life which was dearer to Amir al-mu’minin than any other interest. No particular individual’s life was dear to him for which he might have advised against participation in the battle.
===============================================
Again, you twisted the facts on Sermon 145. Here is commentary on this sermon:
(1). When some people advised Caliph `Umar to partake in the battle of al-Qadisiyyah or Nahawand, he finding it against his personal inclination, thought it necessary to consult Amir al-mu’minin, so that if he advised against it he would plead before others that he had stayed back on Amir al-mu’minin’s advice, but also if he advised partaking in the battle some other excuse would be found. However, unlike others, Amir al-mu’minin advised him to stay back. The other people had advised him to join in fighting, because the Holy Prophet did not send only others to fight but took part in it himself as well, keeping his close relations also with him. What Amir al-mu’minin had in view was that `Umar’s presence in the battle could not be beneficial to Islam, but rather his staying back would save the Muslims from dispersion.
Amir al-mu’minin’s view that “the position of the head of government is that of the axis around which the system of the government rotates” is a point of principle and does not concern any particular personality. Whether the ruler is a Muslim or an unbeliever, just or despotic, virtuous or vicious, for the administration of the state his presence is a necessity, as Amir al-mu’minin has explained elsewhere at greater length:
The fact is that there is no escape for men from a ruler good or bad. Faithful persons perform (good) acts in his rule while the unfaithful enjoys (worldly) benefits in it. During the rule, Allah will carry everything to its end. Through the ruler tax is collected, the enemy is fought, roads are protected and the right of the weak is taken from the strong till the virtuous enjoy peace and are allowed protection from (the oppression of) the wicked. (Sermon 40)
The words which Amir al-mu’minin uttered in his advice are not indicative of any quality of Caliph `Umar except his being the ruler. There is no doubt that he held worldly authority, irrespective of the question of whether it was secured in the right way or wrong way. And where there is authority there is centring of people’s affairs. That is why Amir al-mu’minin said that if `Umar would go out the Arabs would follow him in large numbers towards the battlefield, because when the ruler is on the march the people will not like to stay behind. The result of their going would be that city after city would become vacant, while the enemy will infer from their reaching the battlefield that the Islamic cities are lying vacant, and that if these people were repulsed no assistance would reach the Muslims from the centre. Again, if the ruler were killed the army would disperse automatically, because the ruler is as its foundation. When the foundation is shaken the walls cannot remain standing. The word “aslu’l-`Arab” (the root chief) of Arabia has not been used by Amir al-mu’minin as his own but he has taken it from the Persians. Obviously in his capacity as the head of the State, Caliph `Umar was, in their view, the chief of Arabia. Besides, the reference is to the country, not to Islam or Muslims, so that there is no suggestion of any importance for him from the Islamic point of view.
When Amir al-mu’minin pointed out to Caliph `Umar that on his reaching there the Persians would aim at him, and that if he fell into their hands they would not spare him without killing, although such words would have touched the brave to the quick and would have heightened their spirits, `Umar liked the advice to stay back and thought it better to keep himself away from the flames of battle. If this advice had not been in accord with his personal inclination he would not have received it so heartily and would have tried to argue that the administration of the country could be maintained by leaving a deputy. Again when other people had already advised him to go out, what was the need for consulting Amir al-mu’minin except to get an excuse to stay back.
===============================================
Now some real treat for you. Commentary on Sermon 163:
(1). During the Caliphate of `Uthman when the Muslims were weary of the oppression of the Government and its officials collected in Medina to complain to the senior companions of the Prophet, they came to Amir al-mu’minin in a peaceful manner and requested him to see `Uthman and advise him not to trample on the Muslims’ rights and to put an end to the troubles which were proving the cause of the people’s ruin, whereupon Amir al-mu’minin went to him and uttered these words.
In order to make the bitterness of the admonition palatable Amir al-mu’minin adopted that way of speech in the beginning which would create a sense of responsibility in the addressee and direct him towards his obligations. Thus, by mentioning his companionship of the Prophet, his personal position, and his kinship to the Prophet as against the two previous Caliphs, his intention was to make him realise his duties; in any case, this was obviously not an occasion for eulogising him, so that its later portion can be disregarded and the whole speech be regarded as an eulogy of his attainments, because from its very beginning it is evident that whatever `Uthman did, he did it wilfully, that nothing was done without his knowledge or his being informed, and that he could not be held unaccountable for it because of his being unaware of it. If the adoption of a line of action which made the whole Islamic world raise hue and cry in spite of his having being a companion of the Prophet, having heard his instructions, having seen his behaviour and having been acquainted with the commandments of Islam can be regarded as a distinction, then this taunt may also be regarded as praise. If that is not a distinction then this too cannot be called and eulogy. In fact, the words about which it is argued that they are in praise are enough to prove the seriousness of his crime, because a crime in ignorance and unawareness is not so serious as the weight given to the seriousness of the commission of a crime despite knowledge and awareness. Consequently a person who is unaware of the rise and fall of a road and stumbles in the dark night is excusable but a person who is aware of the rise and fall of the road and stumbled in broad day light is liable to be blamed. If on this occasion he is told that he has eyes and is also aware of the rise and fall of the way, it would not mean that his vastness of knowledge or the brightness of his eye-sight is being praised, but the intention would be that he did not notice the pitfalls despite his eyes, and did not walk properly, and that therefore for him, having or not having eyes is the same, and knowing or not knowing is equal.
In this connection great stress in laid on his being a son-in-law, namely that the Prophet married his two daughters Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum to him one after the other. Before taking this to be a distinction, the real nature of `Uthman’s son-in-lawship should be seen. History shows that in this matter `Uthman did not enjoy the distinction of being the first, but before him Ruqayyah and Umm Kulthum had been married to two sons of Abu Lahab namely `Utbah and `Utaybah, but despite their being sons-in-law, they have not been included among people of position of pre-prophethood period. How then can this be regarded as a source of position without any personal merit, when there is no authority about the importance of this relationship, nor was any importance attached to this matter in such a way that there might have been some competition between `Uthman and some other important personality in this regard and that his selection for it might have given him prominence, or that these two girls might have been shown to possess an important position in history, tradition or biography as a result of which this relationship could be given special importance and regarded as a distinction for him? If the marriage of these two daughters with `Utbah and `Utaybah in the pre-prophethood period is held as lawful on the ground that marriage with unbelievers had not till then been made unlawful, then in `Uthman’s case also the condition for lawfulness was his acceptance of Islam, there is no doubt that he had pronounced the kalimah ash-shahadatayn (there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger) and had accepted Islam outwardly. As such this marriage can be held a proof of his outward Islam, but no other honour can be proved through it. Again, it is also not agreed that these two were the real daughters of the Messenger of Allah, because there is one group which denies them to be his real daughters, and regards them as being the daughters of Khadijah’s sister Halah, or the daughters of her own previous husband. Thus, Abu’l-Qasim al-Kufi (d. 352 A.H.) writes:
“When the Messenger of Allah married Khadijah, then some time thereafter Halah died leaving two daughters, one named Zaynab and the other named Ruqayyah and both of them were brought up by the Prophet and Khadijah and they maintained them, and it was the custom before Islam that a child was assigned to whoever brought him up.” (al-lstighathah, p. 69)
Ibn Hisham has written about the issues of Hadrat Khadijah as follows:
“Before marriage with the Prophet she was married to Abi Halah ibn Malik. She delivered for him Hind ibn Abi Halah and Zaynab bint Abi Halah. Before marriage with Abi Halah she was married to `Utayyiq ibn `Abid ibn `Abdillah ibn `Amr ibn Makhzum and she delivered for him `Abdullah and a daughter.” (as-Sirah an-nabawiyyah, vol. 4, p. 293)
This shows that of Hadrat Khadijah had two daughters before being married to the Prophet and according to all appearance they would be called his daughters and those to whom they were married would be called his sons-in-law, but the position of this relationship would be the same as if those girls were his daughters. Therefore, before putting it forth as a matter for pride the real status of the daughters should be noted and a glance should be cast at `Uthman’s conduct. In this connection, al-Bukhari and other narrators (of traditions) and historians record this tradition as follows:
Anas ibn Malik relates that: “We were present on the occasion of the burial of the Prophet’s daughter Umm Kulthum, while the Prophet was sitting beside her grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. Then he said, ‘Is there any one among you who has not committed a sin last night?’ Abu Talhah (Zayd ibn Sahl al-Ansari) said, ‘I’, then the Prophet said, ‘Then you get into the grave,’ consequently he got down into the grave.”
The commentators said about ‘committed sin’ that the Holy Prophet meant to say ‘one who had not had sexual intercourse.’ On this occasion the Holy Prophet unveiled the private life of `Uthman and prevented him from getting down into the grave, although it was a prominent merit of the Prophet’s character that he did not disgrace or belittle any one by making public his private life, and despite of knowledge of others’ shortcomings, ignored them; but in this case the filth was such that it was deemed necessary to disgrace him before the whole crowd.
Since `Uthman did not show any regard for the demise of his wife (Umm Kulthum) nor was he moved or felt sorry (for this event), and paid no heed to the cutting off his relationship with the Holy Prophet (for being his son-in-law), he (`Uthman) had sexual intercourse on the same night, therefore the Holy Prophet deprived him of this right and honour. (al-Bukhari, as-Sahih, vol. 2, pp. 100-101, 114; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 3, pp. 126, 228, 229, 270; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, vol. 4, p. 47; al-Bayhaqi, as-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 4, p. 53; Ibn Sa`d, at-Tabaqat al-kabir, vol. 8, p. 26; as-Suhayli, ar-Rawd al-unuf, vol. 2, p. 107; Ibn Hajar, al-Isabah, vol. 4, p. 489; Fath al-bari, vol. 3, p. 122; al-`Ayni, `Umdah al-qari, vol. 4,p. 85; Ibn al-Athir, an-Nihayah, vol. 3, p. 276; Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-`Arab, vol. 9, pp. 280-281; az-Zabidi, Taj al-`arus, vol. 6, p. 220).
===============================================
Your two points from Shara of Nahjul Balagha are totally ridiculous. They are contradictory to the Hadith of the Prophet (S) that Ali is with Haq and Haq is with Ali (AS). Furthermore ‘Sharas’ are writers own words so your shara can be differnt and my shara can be different just like Shia tafseere Quran is differnt from Sunni tafseere Quran.
Now you need to answer following questions:
1. What was the fault of the other 3 daughters that they didn’t get any inheritance or rewards from Allah. Was it a case of discrimination?
2. Can a non-Syed great-grandfather mary her Syed great-granddaughter (by relation)?
3. Would it suit Ali to fight for Kingdom when in Ali’s words, ‘this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat’? If he did, you guys would have problem with that act too!
4. Do you still believe in the so-called ‘GOLDEN’ principle of majority or jamhoor or ijmah where Allah (SWT) and His Rasool (S) clearly disregard the majority.
5. Why was Abu Zar (R) forcefully exiled when he refused to accept the authority of the first caliph to collect Zakat and then sided with Ali (AS) as the rightful successor of the prophet (S) as mentioned previously at least 3 times in the life of the prophet (S).
6. If Ali had given Bayat to the ‘Shaikhain’, why would he show such strong resentment towards the caliphs in the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah? Why did Ali and his companions kept reminding the caliphs and the people about the will of the Rasool Allah (S) given at the time of Hajjatul Wida?
7. When most if not all Sunni books say that there are 12 Imams after Rasool Allah (S), can you name them? If the names are found in Hanafi and Shafai books, why don’t you accept them?
8. There is a popular Hadith which says if a person dies without identifying his/her Imam, then that person dies an ignorant death (Jahilana Mout). The Imam needs to be successive from Rasool Allah (S) and should be alive. You can’t make a person from past your Imam. For some people, their current kings and rulers are Imams (e.g. Wahabi). Have you identified your Imam yet?
9. If Ali has such great relationship with the caliphs, then why was Ali cursed from the mimber of Muavia and why was Rasool Allah’s (S) grandson violently killed by maximum pain from the back of the neck using knife which was coarsed by repeatedly hitting the rocks and then horses were run on the lifeless body of Husayn (AS) to desecrate him? Was the intention to pain the Rasool Allah (S) or Ali (AS) or Fatima (AS) the most?
10. Why did Khatoone Jannat Fatimatuz Zehra (AS) was made to stand in a court for several hours while the ghulams rested on confortable seats? Why was her inheritance of Fadak forcefully snatched from her? Who was the person who tore the judgement of Fadak and spit on it and put it under his feet?
11. Who was responsible for the rib injury of Khatoone Jannat Fatimatuz Zehra (AS) when the door of her home was forcefully broken and then then burnt down? Why did she specifically ask Ali (AS) to bury her in darkness of the night and to not let the Shaikhain attend her funeral at any cost? Why did Ali broke down when he gave ghusal to the Khatoone Jannat Fatimatuz Zehra (AS) when he saw her bloodied and broken ribs?
12. If Sunni arguments are so strong, why turn to violence? How did Shias survive this long even under extremely oppressive rulers who tried to kill every single Shia and why are Shias still being singled out in the sectarian killings? Wouldn’t it be better if Sunni scholars tried to peacefully convince Shias with strong arguments and try to convert Shias to Sunnis instead of silencing them by killing?
all urs comments which clearly shows the want to manupolate the nahjatulblagha according to ur faith while the words of ali is clear to understand to whom he point.
1..its in ur view not in ours we distribe the whole as ahkbaith as it by it means anounce ..ghar walay..means all those belong to rasulullah r ahlbaith and the same honour for them
2. its not the relation of blood only relation of blood is haram..and now ques to u to which syed family ali maried after fatima of hasan and hussain they married wd non syeds
3.when it comes to khilafa its not kingdom its the issue of ummah if according to u a nonmuslim was ameer how could ali sittin home while hussain act was against it means shair khuda cant sitt if they were not on haq.
4.bcz abuzar was not as same fighter as ali was so they opoint ali and abuzar ask leave,
5.ali reaction was shown by ur books which i quote rest is ur ppls lie on him.while shairkhuda was from those whose comments was listening in all forum their for at any stage he give his advices.
now other all ur quotes r weak wd all manipulated ahadith which in sunnah books also mentioned as zaef no need for ans as it was injected ahadith by ibnsabah who call ali as nauzubillah god son in retaliation ali burn him.
and ur quotes of nauzbillah zulm on bibi fatima all created stories on her as it is indirectly blame on ali as her wife was humilated and beaten and shair khuda was watching ufffff zauzubillah didnt u ppl ever think that u r not criticising others it direct hot on shairkhuda
I just copied and pasted from Nahjul Balagha but you still claim that I made manipulations. WOW! You are now getting really desperate because you have no valid or convincing argument anymore. Furthermore, I want to point out that when you look at the history of Munazras (formal academic debates) between Shia and Sunni, that Shias have always won by virtue of strong arguments. In fact the whole Shia Mazhab can be proven by ONLY using Sunni books.
I again want to emphasize that turning to violence is evidence enough that you can’t win by argument and therefore you need to kill to satisfy your hunger to get even. This is the way of Namrud (L).
Those who are confident about their faith do not care what others think about them. They don’t go on and become takfiris. There is a popular Hadees of the Prophet (S) that ‘Shak ki ebadat se yaqeen ki neend behtar hai’ (meaning Confident sleep is better than doubtful worship). Since we are the only group since the demise of the Holy Prophet (S), that is consistently confident in the faith even under the harshest of environments, and remained steadfast, hence even our sleep is better than your worship because you don’t even know who your enemy is and therefore you always remain doubtful. At some point, your enemy is Russia, then at another point it is India, then US-Israel, then Qadiani, then Shia, then Barelvi, then Hindus, then Bohris, then Ismailis, then seculars, then again Shia, then Women Polio workers, then school-going girls, then again Shia, then foreign mountaineer tourists, then liberals, then ANP, MQM, PPP, then vote-casting women, then again Shia, then democracy, then Chinese workers who are helping this country, then Abdullah Shah Ghazi and Data Darbar, then Syria, then Bahrain, then again Shia, and the list goes on and on.
We only have one enemy i.e. Nasibis who are the enemies of Allah (SWT), his Rasool (S), and his progeny (AS). Only we can identify those nasibis because we know very well who killed each Imam. Rest assured all the killers had been so-called Muslims that you guys always glorify without fail. Here is the list of murderers of Ahle Bait (AS):
1. Ibne Muljim (L)
2. Muawiya (L)
3. Yazeed bin Muawiya bin Abu Sufian (L)^3
4. Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (L)
5. Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (L)
6. Al Mansur (L)
7. Haroon Rasheed (L)
8. Mamoon Rasheed (L)
9. Al-Mu’tasim (L)
10. Al-Mu’tazz (L)
11. Al-Mu’tamid (L)
The HARAM AULAD of above murders are still taking revenge from the descendents and the mohibs of the Prophet (S) and his descendants.
Wifes are absolutely NOT included in Ahlul Bait. Here are the irrefutable reasons (only for those who ponder):
1. Relationship between husband and wife ends after death and then they both become NA-MEHRAM to each other!!!
2. Husband-wife relationship can be terminated by choice but blood relationships cannot be terminated even if one wants to.
3. There are proofs and examples from the Quranic history that spouses are not always loyal to each other, e.g. the wife of Noah (AS) and the wife of Lut (AS).
Fatima bint Hasan (AS) was married to Imam Ali Zainul Abideen (AS) – both Syeds.
I again want to emphasize and reiterate that it is HARAM and a GREAT SIN for a Syed-girl to marry a non-Syed boy. Furthermore a policy was set and conveyed by the Prophet (S) to Ali (AS) that CHILDREN OF ABDUL MUTTALIB (AS) ARE TO BE MARRIED WITHIN THE FAMILY. IF A FATHER IS UNABLE TO FIND SYED MAN FOR HIS SYED DAUGHTER THEN THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE TO KEEP HIS DAUGHTER UNMARRIED. THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN BY IMAM ALI RAZA (AS).
The so-called khilafa was actually a Kingdom because it is against Islamic principles to initiate a war or to be the aggressors. Islam only allows defensive wars. Furthermore, Jihad can only be sanctioned by the Rasool (S) or the Imams (AS). In the absence of divine sanction, the so-called Jihad becomes Fitna and Qitaal (senseless killing) which can easily be witnessed today. The so-called Islamic khilafa fought aggressive and expansionist wars for land which rightfully gives impression to the outside world than Islam was forcefully spread by the power of sword. Most people think that these EXPANSIONIST WARS were great achievements but God is not interested in QUANTITY, He is only interested in QUALITY. All we have today is quantity but NO QUALITY.
Imam Husain (AS) was killed because he refused to acknowledge rule of Yazeed (L) who was a zani, sharabi, and a waladuz zina (illegitimate offspring of Muavia (L)). Yazeed could have continued ruling his dirty kingdom had he not demanded approval of Husain (AS). Husain (AS) simply told the illegitimate government that there was no way the pure descendants of the Prophet (S) could put the stamp of Islam on it. Husain (AS) even told the then government composed of a bunch of waladuz zinas that he would go outside the boundaries of their Sharabi Kababi kingdom but would never succumb to their demands. So Husain (AS) was killed when the zanis were adamant that they would either take Husain’s (AS) stamp of approval or cut his head. Of course Husain chose to achieve the greatest martyrdom in the whole of universe which is mentioned in the Quran in the words “ZIBHE AZEEM”.
So goes the saying – LIVE LIKE ALI, DIE LIKE HUSAIN.
Neither Ali nor Husain chose to fight rulers of the Kingdom. Ali let the usurpers rule so that the world could understand the difference between the governance of the person appointed by the Prophet (S) and the governance of the person usurping the Kingdom by going against the will of the Prophet (S).
The other reason Ali let the ferocious rulers continue with their cruelty towards the Ahlul Bait specially against Khatoone Jannat Bibi Syeda Fatimatuz Zehra (AS), was the same as that of God where God chose to let Iblees (L) live and do his dirty work even after Iblees (L) refused to obey Gods command to bow before Adam (AS). Allah did this so that His creation could see what had actually been in Iblees’s (L) mind all along. Is Allah (SWT) not the knower of Ghaib? Why didn’t the Almighty kill Iblees (L) right there and then, nipped it in the bud, and got it all over with? The reason is that God actually wants His creation to ponder on all the events and to use their minds to differentiate between good and evil so that judgment can be made as to who deserves His blessings and who deserves His curse.
The same policy was followed by Rasool Allah (S) when he let Abu Sufian (L) go loose even though the Prophet knew (like in case of God) what that guy his cronies would do to his daughter and her children. So your objection on Ali (AS) not talking action is actually an objection on Allah and his Rasool (S) because Ali (AS) always follows the footsteps of his elder brother Prophet Muhammad (S) and the Prophet (S) neither does nor speak anything but that which is commanded by Allah.
Ibn Saba and Abu Huraira (the father of the cat!) are both fictitious characters that were invented to create fake takfiri and nasibi ‘Hadees’. Do some research from your own Sunni books because if I say something, you either won’t like it or you won’t believe it.
In all actuality, takfeeri and nasibi ideology were created by the collusion between the dirty off springs of abu sufian (L) and the Lawrence of Arabia!
Now to end this post, I want to share a great quote from Sunni-Imam Shafai:
“THROUGHOUT MY WHOLE LIFE I COULD NOT FIGURE OUT IF MY RAB IS ALLAH OR IT IS ALI’ – Sunni-Imam Shafai.
1.fist of all my quotes is also from nahtulblagha wich shows clearly repect towards khalifah.
2.u didnt ans to my any arguments just quoting me ur side inventions or some zaeef ahadith which is clearly showed in our books as fake.
3.u cant mention a single debate between sunni and shia in wich shia wons rather then they scape.
4.u r all sources r from taqiya as it is in ur releigon farz which is by itself showing that all of urs quotes r not from the 12 imams it is inovation of ibn sabah.
5.abu huraira was sahabi of rasulullah but in urs books its shows what u said
6. imam hasan mariied with nonsayed families
7.umhatulmomineen r not same as others married womens to others as quran describe them as umhat clearly shows that it was part of ahlbaith as only for them was haram to get married after rasolullah while fatima can marry to any body else if ali ayazbilllah die.
8.and by ur formula ali was also not from the blood of rasullullah so how comes he as a syed bcz sued is for those who r from bloods of rasullullah not from his tribes as also his link was bcz of fatima r.a
9.now as our enemies all those who r against quran and sunnah r our anemies but it dosent means we can kill them yes we can differ from their thaught but yes were they want to strike we have to retaliate
10.but still the ques is un ansarabell from ur side y did rasolullah cant anounce imammats and allah gave him orders as ur faith did he was nauzubillah scared ? if so then it was understood that he knows that my all sahabah r on wrong side y didnt he anounce y did he left his job un done y did is he was a winner or loser nauzubillah
11..same to ali r.a y didnt he retaliate if he was scared or if he was satisfied no other reason can b accepted. as taqiyah means lie and lie is not in hounour of these brave lions job.specially when it comes to the faith of all muslims
conclusion if we see to ur debates it shows that rasolullah was loser n.b ali was loser n.b all their folowers were murtad and quran is changed from 40 to 30 means the real shape of islam was vanished and only urs 20 or 30 socalled folowers was on the right path s
so
y shud a person who have brain accept ur version of demoralisation y not accept the deen of rasolullah wd this conclusion that he showed the right way to all his folowers rather then this that he culdnt change more then 150 ppls as ur concept nauzubillah………….he was not noah or as to others he was rahmatul lilaalameen…he was khatamulnabieen and he was here to changed the world not only 150 persons according to shia ibnsabai…the real takfirri group who didnt forgive rasolullah wifes and his fiends so how can they accept other all musllims as on the path of rasullullah
1. You are relying on shara of Nahjul Balagha, which can be different depending on the tendency of the author. I already told you that Ali’s sermon that you quoted was for Malik ibn al-Ashtar. It was not for Umer.
2. All hadith quoted by me are not zaeef, instead they have a golden chain meaning that they can be traced up to Gabriel (AS).
3. All have been won by shia because strong argument is the only way we have been surviving. For example, see:
a. http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar/
b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshawar_Nights
4. Taqiyya is not farz but Rasool Allah also practiced Taqiyya up to certain age. Before that time, he hid his faith and intentions until the time was right. It’s not like he was made the Rasool after reaching a certain age. He was a Rasool at birth, even before birth, and still is even after martyrdom.
5. Abu huraira (either imaginary or otherwise) has corrupted the whole religion.
6. I never said that a Syed man cannot marry a non-Syed girl. I said that it is haram and a great sin for a syed girl to marry a non-syed man.
7. They were made Ummahatul Momineen because a certain group of people had intentions to marry them after the demise of Rasool (S) therefore an Ayat was revealed in the Quran to prohibit this act. It still does not make a wife part of the Ahlul Bayt because this relationship ends after death. Furthermore, if Rasool Allah (S) had included any wife in the Hadees-e-Kisa, then we would have no issues accepting them as part of Ahlul Bayt. In addition, if you read the tafseer of aya-e-mubahila, you’ll see who the prophet took with him to the group of Christians who wanted to hold a debate with the Rasool (S). Only the people included in the Panjatan went for the Mubahila that Christians wanted. The Christians after seeing the Panjatan immediately took a step back and accepted the superiority of the Panjatan and even said that they were witnessing the type of people who could move mountains with their fingertips.
8. Ali is a syed being the grandson of Hazrat Abdul Muttalib (AS). Furthermore Ali was born in Kaaba and the Kaaba was not washed after his birth! There was no trace of blood or anything that required cleaning or re-doing wudu. Can you image a normal person being born in Kaaba. How much najasat would have been there? Ali started his worldly life from the very house of God. Can anyone else claim this high status? Ali is definitely a Syed. Rasool Allah (S) even said that if Ali was not there, that his daughter Fatima (AS) would have no Kufu (person of equal and worthy status).
9. All those who are against Quran and Sunnah are also OUR enemies. They are called Nasibis and some of their names were listed by me in previous post and they are again listed for your reference.
a. 1. Ibne Muljim (L)
b. 2. Muawiya (L)
c. 3. Yazeed bin Muawiya bin Abu Sufian (L)^3
d. 4. Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik (L)
e. 5. Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (L)
f. 6. Al Mansur (L)
g. 7. Haroon Rasheed (L)
h. 8. Mamoon Rasheed (L)
i. 9. Al-Mu’tasim (L)
j. 10. Al-Mu’tazz (L)
k. 11. Al-Mu’tamid (L)
10. Rasool Allah (S) did announce the Immate at the khutba of Hajjatul wida at Ghadeer-e-Khum. That khutba is also listed in Sunni Sihah-e-Sitta. See below:
al Hakim in Mustadrak ala al Sahihayn vol. iii, pp. 109110;
Al Tirmidhi in his Sahih (Bulaq, 1292), ii, 298;
Sunan Ibn Majah (Matba`at al Faruqi, Delhi), in “bab Fada’il ashab Rasul Allah (S)” from al Bara’ ibn `Azib and Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas;
Al Hakim in Mustadrak (Hyderabad, 1313) from Zayd ibn Arqam (iii, 109, 533), Sa`d ibn Malik (iii, 116), from Rifa`ah ibn Ayas al Dabbi from his father from his grandfather (iii, 371), and from Buraydah al Aslami; (iii, 110; ii, 129);
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, al Matbaat al Maymaniyyah, Egypt, 1313, from al Bara’ ibn Azib (iv, 281), Buraydah al Aslami (v, 347, 350, 358), Zayd ibn Arqam (iv, 372, iv, 368, v, 307), Ibn Abbas (i, 330), Abu al Tufayl (iv, 270) and Ali ibn Abi Talib Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (i, 84, 88, 118, 139, 152, v, 307, 366, 419);
Abu Nuaym al Isfahani; in Hilyat al Awliya (Egypt: Matbaat al Saadah, 1351) iv, 23, v, 26;
Fakhr al Din al Razi; in al Tafsir al Kabir (Dar Tibaat al Amirah) under the verse 5:67;
Al Khatib al Baghdadi, in Ta’rikh Baghdad (Matbaat al Saadah, 1360), vii, 377, viii, 290, xii, 343, xiv, 236;
Al Nasai in Khasa’is (Matbaat al Taqaddum al Ilmiyyah, Egypt, 1348), pp.4, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 40;
Al Muhibb al Tabari, in al Riyad al Nadirah (Matbaat al Ittihad, Egypt, 1st ed.), ii, 169, 170, 172, 203 and Dhakhair al Uqba (Egypt 1356), 86;
Ibn Hajar al Asqalani in al Sawaiq al Muhriqah (al Matba`at al?Maymaniyyah, Egypt; 1312), pp. 25, 26;
`Ali al Muttaqi al Hindi in Kanz al Ummal (Hyderabad, 1312), i, 48, vi, 83, 153, 154, 390, 397, 398, 399, 403,405, 406, 407;
Ibn Hajar al Asqalani in al Isabah (Calcutta, 1853 A.D.), i, part one, 57, 319; iii, part one, 29; iv, part one, 14, 16, 61, 143, 169, 182; vi, 223, vii, part one, 78, 156;
Ibn al Athir in Usd al Ghabah (al Matba`at al Wahbiyyah, Egypt, 1285), i, 308, 367, 368, ii, 307, 233, iii, 92, 93, 321, 374, iv, 28, v, 205, 276, 383;
Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasah (Matba`at al Futuh al-Adabiyyah, 1331), 93;
Al Tahawi in Mushkil al Aathar (Hyderabad, 1333), ii, 307;
Al Manawi in Fayd al Qadir (Egypt, 1356), vi, 218, 358 and Kunuz al?Haqa’iq (Istanbul, 1285), 92;
Al Haythami Majma al Zawa’id (Egypt, 1352), vii, 17, ix 103, 104, 105, 106,107, 108, 119, 163, 164;
`Ali ibn Sultan Muhammad al Qari in Mirqat al Mafatih (al Matba`at al?Maymaniyyah, Egypt, 1309), v, 568.
11. Even the names of the 12 imams are mentioned in following two Sunni books – one is Hanafi and the other is Shafai:
a. Hanafi: Yanabee’ al-Mawadda, vol 3, page 399 by Al-Qanduzi al-Hanafi
b. Shafi: Fara’id al-Simtayn, vol 2, page 132 by Al-Hamawayni
12. This point has already been answered but if you missed it, then here it is again:
a. The other reason Ali let the ferocious rulers continue with their cruelty towards the Ahlul Bait specially against Khatoone Jannat Bibi Syeda Fatimatuz Zehra (AS), was the same as that of God where God chose to let Iblees (L) live and do his dirty work even after Iblees (L) refused to obey Gods command to bow before Adam (AS). Allah did this so that His creation could see what had actually been in Iblees’s (L) mind all along. Is Allah (SWT) not the knower of Ghaib? Why didn’t the Almighty kill Iblees (L) right there and then, nipped it in the bud, and got it all over with? The reason is that God actually wants His creation to ponder on all the events and to use their minds to differentiate between good and evil so that judgment can be made as to who deserves His blessings and who deserves His curse. The same policy was followed by Rasool Allah (S) when he let Abu Sufian (L) go loose even though the Prophet knew (like in case of God) what that guy his cronies would do to his daughter and her children. So your objection on Ali (AS) not talking action is actually an objection on Allah and his Rasool (S) because Ali (AS) always follows the footsteps of his elder brother Prophet Muhammad (S) and the Prophet (S) neither does nor speak anything but that which is commanded by Allah.
1..so either if sharah its known that sharah is written from urs it is evidence enough
2.wow if the have no golden chain it will never call a hadith u shud know it and by the way were comes gebriel hadith is rasolullah sayings not allahs!!! and when u quote it from our books its also in our books that those r zaeeef
3. here ur taqayah comes again from all u scaped not sunnah
4.no never ever its ur buhtaan nauzubillah on rasolullah he never did lie.as it was in 40 age and in cave allah give him order to call all to islam he was alone he went on jabl makkah and announced the kalma and called ppls to islam how can he do taqayah when he got his followers more then 100000s or nauzubillah he cant do his job correctly all goes wrond axcept those 20 30 of urs!!!!!
5. here again ur hatred toward sahabi is clear bcz u need ur things to established not the real deen of rasulullah
6. so this haram has doned by ur imamms it means nauzubillah either they dont know or if they know and do that means u ppls even in ur jealousness even cant hesitate towards ur immams to
7.its very clear quran called them umhat means the mother of muslims and forbidding them from marrying it shows their status and in our hadith has full of evidence.it was ali who need avidence to b part of ahlbaith their for rasulullah pray for him as by any other meaning he culdnt b from ahlulbaith as on ur crieteria if wife dosent belongs to husbend then it same to ali r.a
8.all in ur imagination and creative stories while u want to make him in the place of nabovat but just bcz of khatmnabovat its changed into immamat but with same dafination of nabi or may b more then anbia!!!!!
10. dont need to much dialogue on this issue just show me in that the words of immamat from rasulullah??? while u ppls r champions of manipulation !!
last nor rasulullah neither ali was came for this when in ur views so called islam was manipulating in the hand of sahabas and the let them it happend !!! but ali started fight after he was khalifa if then y not at the same time!!all shows that ur school of thaught just want to make islam rasulullah and ahlulbaith controversial just for the sake of ur faith while v gave them the true respect which allah gave him.and clearly shows by their love towards rasulullah and the brother hood of shabah amongst them.
allah ki lanat un sab pr jo islam ko tabah krna chahtay hai ya us mai tafaruqah dalna chahtai hai
You seem unable to comprehend my responses and keep asking same questions in different ways.
Anyways let’s try another way – this time using all Sunni references from Sihah Sitta صحاح ستہ
You can’t reject hadith from Sihah Sitta صحاح ستہ now can you?
Al Quran – 33:33
==============
And abide quietly in your homes, and do not flaunt your charms as they used to flaunt them in the old days of pagan ignorance; and be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues, and pay heed unto God and His Apostle: God wishes to remove all filth and impurity from you, O People of the House of the Prophet, and to render you utterly free of all pollution.
Who are People of the House of the Prophet (Ahlul Bayt), (with Sunni reference)?
=================================================================
A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel’s hair that there came Hasan b. ‘Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came ‘Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying).
Sahih-e-Muslim – Book 031, Number 5955
Ali’s (who is also your rightly guided caliph) perspective on this Ayah:
========================================================
At the gathering that was convened after the death of Umar in 644 to select a caliph, Ali made the following argument: “Is there any among us apart from myself concerning whom the “purification verse” was revealed?” When they answered “no” he proceeded: “The People of the House are overflowing with abundant virtue, for the Quran says, “God wishes to remove all filth and impurity from you O House of the Prophet, and to render you utterly free of pollution.” (33:33) God has therefore removed from us all evil, outer and inner, and placed us firmly on the path of truth and righteousness.
Hadith-e-Mubahila Further Validates the Members of Ahlul Bayt (with Sunni reference):
===================================================================
This hadith has been narrated. on the authority of Shu’ba with the same chain of transmitters. Amir b. Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his father that Muawiya b. Abi Sufyin appointed Sa’d as the Governor and said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat ‘Ali), whereupon be said: It is because of three things which I remember Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red camelg. I heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) say about ‘Ali as he left behind hrin in one of his campaigns (that was Tabuk). ‘All said to him: Allah’s Messenger, you leave me behind along with women and children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: Aren’t you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses but with this exception that there is no prophethood after me. And I (also) heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: I would certainly give this standard to a person who loves Allah and his Messenger and Allah and his Messenger love him too. He (the narrator) said: We have been anxiously waiting for it, when he (the Holy Prophet) said: Call ‘Ali. He was called and his eyes were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion is this) when the (following) verse was revealed:” Let us summon our children and your children.” Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) called ‘Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family.”
Sahih-e-Muslim – Book 031, Number 5915
Hadith-e-Ghadeer-e-Khum (Sunni reference):
====================================
hadir Khumm is a location some miles from Makkah on the road to Madinah. When the Prophet (s) was passing by this place on 18 Dhu’l Hijja (10 March 632) on his return from the Farewell Pilgrimage, the verse “O Messenger, Proclaim what has been sent down…” was revealed. He therefore stopped to make an announcement to the pilgrims who accompanied him from Makkah and who were to disperse from that junction to their respective destinations. By the orders of the Prophet (s) a special pulpit made of branches of trees was erected for him. After the noon prayer the Prophet (s) sat on the pulpit and made his last public address to the largest gathering before his death three months later. The highlight of his sermon was when, taking Imam ‘Ali (a) by the hand, the Prophet (s) asked his followers whether he was superior in authority (awla) to the believers themselves. The crowd cried out in one voice: “It is so, O Apostle of Allah”.
He then declared: “He of whom I am the master (mawla), of him ‘Ali is also the master (mawla). O God, be the friend of him who is his friend, and be the enemy of him who is his enemy.”
Immediately after the Prophet (s) finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:
Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favor upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Qur’an 5:3)
After his speech, the Prophet (s) asked everybody to give the oath of allegiance to ‘Ali (a) and congratulate him. Among those who did so was ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, who said: “Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the master of all believing men and women.”
An Arab, having heard of the event of Ghadir Khumm, came up to the Prophet (s) and said: “You commanded us to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. We obeyed you. You ordered us to perform the prayers five times a day and we obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan and we obeyed. Then you commanded us to offer pilgrimage to Makkah and we obeyed. But you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by your hand and imposed him upon us as our master by saying ‘Ali is the mawlaof whom I am mawla.’ Is this imposition from Allah or from you?” The Prophet (s) said : “By Allah who is the only deity! This is from Allah, the Mighty and the Glorious.”
What Happen to People who Deny this Hadith:
======================================
On hearing this reply the man turned back and proceeded towards his she-camel saying: “O Allah! If what Muhammad said is correct then fling on us a stone from the sky and subject us to severe pain and torture.” He had not reached his she-camel when Allah flung at him a stone which struck him on his head, penetrated his body and left him dead. It was on this occasion that Allah, the exalted, caused to descend the following verses:
Al-Nasa’I, Al-Khasa’is, Narrated by Sa’id bin Wahhab, from six persons – p. 26 and 40
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Narrated by Zathan, from thirteen persons, vol. 1 p. 84
Sunan ibn Majah, Narrated by Al-Bara’ bin Aazib, vol.1 p. 55
A questioner questioned about the punishment to fall. For the disbelievers there is nothing to avert it, from Allah the Lord of the Ascent. (Qur’an 70:1-3)
Hadith-e-Thaqalayn (two equally weighty things) (with Sunni Reference):
===========================================================
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and ‘Umar b. Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him: Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) listened to his talk, fought by his side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He said: I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali, ‘Aqil and the offspring of ‘Aqil and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of ‘Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.”
Sahih Muslim, 031 : 5923
Are Wives Included in Ahlul Bayt? (with Sunni Reference):
==============================================
Yazid b. Hayyan reported: We went to him (Zaid b. Arqam) and said to him. You have found goodness (for you had the honour) to live in the company of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the hadith is the same but with this variation of wording that lie said: Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of which is the Book of Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, and that is the rope of Allah. He who holds it fast would be on right guidance and he who abandons it would be in error, and in this (hadith) these words are also found: We said: Who are amongst the members of the household? Aren’t the wives (of the Holy Prophet) included amongst the members of his house hold? Thereupon he said: No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a certain period; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and to her people; the members of his household include his ownself and his kith and kin (who are related to him by blood) and for him the acceptance of Zakat is prohibited.
Sahih Muslim, 031 : 5923
Prophet Muhammed (S) and 12 Imams (AS) (Sunni reference)
===========================================
Shaykh Sulayman al-Qanduzi, a famous Sunni scholar, in his book Yanabi’a al-Muwaddah said:
“A Jewish man named Na’thal, went to the Prophet (s) and among the questions he asked who would succeed him. The Prophet (s) said, specifying them, “After me, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and then my two sons, Hasan and Husayn and after Husayn, nine Imams will follow from his children.”
The Jewish man said, Name them.
The Prophet (s) said: “When Husayn leaves this world, his son, ‘Ali, and after him, his child Muhammad and after Muhammad, his son Ja’far and after Ja’far, his son Musa and after Musa, his son ‘Ali and after ‘Ali, Muhammad. After Muhammad, his child, ‘Ali and after ‘Ali, Hasan and after Hasan, his child Muhammad al-Mahdi. These are the twelve Imams.”
Sunni reference:
Yanabi’a al-Muwaddah, p. 431.
I just want to clarify myself before you raise an objection that the last reference is not from Sihah Sitta. It is simply a bonus material for you so you can go and dig further at your own pace.
I want to further clarify that Sihah Sitta is not Hujjat for me. I am simply quoting from them so that YOU can accept them as authentic hadiths.
The purpose of this debate should be to reveal the truth, not to fight. I appreciate healthy debate sans violence. I hope all people in our country become broad-minded and open themselves to healthy debate without any prejudice. We together can make this country a nice place to live again. Sunnis and Shias have no issues between them. We have been living together for centuries. But we need to find a common enemy who sow seeds of discord. They are neither Shia nor Sunni. We can easily identify them. They come from foreign lands with deep pockets running extremist madrasas who teach nothing but hatred. The do takfeers on others and declare them wajibul qatl. Why assume God’s responsibility and become a judge yourself? We should all keep in mind that killing a human being is a great form of SHIRK.