Islamic Discussion Corner

[Bratva]

Well if you want to talk about controversial events than you will find not much in our books but why don't we start from incident of Karbala ?

Karbala incidents were the direct result of Muwayyiya rebellion against fourth Pious Caliph Hazrat Ali (RA). A rebellion against A pious Caliph, who is Ahl e bayt, who is in the list of those 10 sahabis who were told on earth they would be granted Jannah. So before Karbala, The civil war should be discussed.

 

[Zarvan]

Karbala incidents were the direct result of Muwayyiya rebellion against fourth Pious Caliph Hazrat Ali (RA). A rebellion against A pious Caliph, who is Ahl e bayt, who is in the list of those 10 sahabis who were told on earth they would be granted Jannah. So before Karbala, The civil war should be discussed.

Sorry what you are saying is based on complete distortion of history. Before civil war martyrdom of Hazrat USMAN RA should be discussed. As for Karbala people fail to mention most Sahabas including Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA and Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas RA and several other Sahabas had done bait of Yazeed. These Sahabas had spent their entire lives in Jihad so they weren't afraid of death.

 

[Bratva]

Sorry what you are saying is based on complete distortion of history. Before civil war martyrdom of Hazrat USMAN RA should be discussed. As for Karbala people fail to mention most Sahabas including Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA and Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbas RA and several other Sahabas had done bait of Yazeed. These Sahabas had spent their entire lives in Jihad so they weren't afraid of death.

Hazrat Hussain RA revolted against Yazeed because of his corrupt practices. His spread of corruption in the land. Remember Hazrat Hassan RA made a pact with Muwaviya that he would yield his claim on Caliphate only on such condition that He should rule Justly then he will waiver the ahl e bayt claim on caliphate.

Yazeed violated that pact. and no matter who did bait of Yazeed did these Sahabas had a distinction over Hazrat Hussain RA based upon what Nabi SAWW said about Hazrat Hussain RA ?

Hazrat Usman killing was the most unfortunate history of our religion. It was mainly due to weak grip of his on his administration. If he ruled with a iron hand like hazrat Umar (RA) he wouldnot have faced revolt from with in the muslims. He made bad choices in regards to appointing governors which cost him his life

 

[Zarvan]

Hazrat Hussain RA revolted against Yazeed because of his corrupt practices. His spread of corruption in the land. Remember Hazrat Hassan RA made a pact with Muwaviya that he would yield his claim on Caliphate only on such condition that He should rule Justly then he will waiver the ahl e bayt claim on caliphate.

Yazeed violated that pact. and no matter who did bait of Yazeed did these Sahabas had a distinction over Hazrat Hussain RA based upon what Nabi SAWW said about Hazrat Hussain RA ?

Hazrat Usman killing was the most unfortunate history of our religion. It mainly due to weak grip of his on his administration. If he ruled with a iron like hazrat Umar (RA) he wouldnot have faced revolt from with in the muslims. He made bad choices in regards to appointing governors which cost him his life

That is exactly where lie is told. Several Sahabas had done bayt of Yazeed. He wasn't corrupt that is why several Sahabas did his bayt. Even the person Imam Hussayn sent to investigate character of Yazeed told him that he found Yazeed to be regular in prayers and was neither a drinker nor womanizer.

 

[Bratva]

That is exactly where lie is told. Several Sahabas had done bayt of Yazeed. He wasn't corrupt that is why several Sahabas did his bayt. Even the person Imam Hussayn sent to investigate character of Yazeed told him that he found Yazeed to be regular in prayers and was neither a drinker nor womanizer.

So why Hazrat Hussain revolted against Yazeed ? was rule of Yazeed resembled anything like rule of Umar bin Abdul Aziz ?

 

[VCheng]

So why Hazrat Hussain revolted against Yazeed ? was rule of Yazeed resembled anything like rule of Umar bin Abdul Aziz ?

It all depends on whether one believes that leadership after Muhammad PBUH was supposed to be inherited within his family or chosen by consensus among his colleagues.

 

[Zarvan]

So why Hazrat Hussain revolted against Yazeed ? was rule of Yazeed resembled anything like rule of Umar bin Abdul Aziz ?

Well no but yes son becoming after father was not good thing but that also has a background Hazrat Muawiya RA belonged to same tribe as Hazrat USMAN RA so they clearly remembered what happened to Hazrat USMAN RA. As for Imam Hussayn he was warned by every one and told not to do this but he had promised people of Kufa and went. Main master mind of Karbala was Ibn Ziyad not Yazeed

 

[Dubious]

And isnt this happening since the Killing of Hazrat Usman (RA) ?

It was also happening when Prophet was alive....2 people had claimed to be prophets! United they will never..They rather die as a transgressor or one who divides for small advantages than to unite!

 

[Sinnerman108]

As far as I know, the prophet died in debt.
That debt was paid off after this death by his companions.

It seems unlikely that the prophet had any property to his name then ?

 

[I.R.A]

Narrated `Aisha:

Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (ﷺ) sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and will dispose of it as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to do."

O People who Believe! Whoever among you reneges from his religion, so Allah will soon bring a people who are His beloved ones and Allah is their beloved, lenient with the Muslims and stern towards disbelievers - they will strive in Allah’s cause, and not fear the criticism of any accuser; this is Allah’s munificence, He may give to whomever He wills; and Allah is the Most Capable, the All Knowing. [Maidah 5:54]

Mohammed is the Noble Apostle of Allah; and his companions are stern with the disbelievers and merciful among themselves - you will see them bowing and falling in prostration, seeking Allah’s munificence and His pleasure; their signs are on their faces, from the effects of their prostration; this trait of theirs is mentioned in the Taurat; and their trait is mentioned in the Injeel; like a cultivation that sprouted its shoot, then strengthened it, then thickened and then stood firm upon its stem, pleasing the farmer - in order to enrage the disbelievers with them; Allah has promised forgiveness and a great reward to those among them who have faith and do good deeds. [Fath 48:29]

You will not find the people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, befriending those who oppose Allah and His Noble Messenger, even if they are their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their tribesmen; it is these upon whose hearts Allah has ingrained faith, and has aided them with a Spirit from Himself; and He will admit them into Gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding in them forever; Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him; this is Allah’s group; pay heed! Indeed it is Allah’s group who are the successful. [Mujadilah 58:22].

And the Muslim men and Muslim women are the friends of one another; enjoining right and forbidding wrong, and keeping the prayer established and paying the obligatory charity, obeying Allah and His Noble Messenger; these are upon whom Allah will soon have mercy; indeed Allah is the Almighty, the Wise. [Taubah9:71]

Should I believe in this Hadees that was most probably written after 2.75 centuries of departing of Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him), based on I heard it from this, this heard it from that, and that heard it from those, or Quran which is clearly telling me about Companions of messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? I am sinful person, weak in his faith, materialistic, but I refuse to accept running commentaries and this business of associating lies towards Companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) and sometimes his wives and messenger (Peace be upon him) himself. May ALLAH guide me and forgive me because I refuse to accept that Hazrat Umer did not like Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed. And I refuse to accept that Companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) started fighting soon after his departure from this world. I refuse because these running commentaries don't make any sense to me, these commentaries are deprived of any logic, and negate Quran.

 

[Bratva]

That is exactly where lie is told. Several Sahabas had done bayt of Yazeed. He wasn't corrupt that is why several Sahabas did his bayt. Even the person Imam Hussayn sent to investigate character of Yazeed told him that he found Yazeed to be regular in prayers and was neither a drinker nor womanizer.

So you would say Hazrat Hussain and Abdullah Ibn e Zubair rebellions against Yazeed were unjust ? Make sound arguments why would you say that keeping in mind the stature of both People !

Should I believe in this Hadees that was most probably written after 2.75 centuries of departing of Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him), based on I heard it from this, this heard it from that, and that heard it from those, or Quran which is clearly telling me about Companions of messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? I am sinful person, weak in his faith, materialistic, but I refuse to accept running commentaries and this business of associating lies towards Companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) and sometimes his wives and messenger (Peace be upon him) himself. May ALLAH guide me and forgive me because I refuse to accept that Hazrat Umer did not like Hazrat Khalid Bin Waleed. And I refuse to accept that Companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) started fighting soon after his departure from this world. I refuse because these running commentaries don't make any sense to me, these commentaries are deprived of any logic, and negate Quran.

You are in denial now. Thats why Quran and Ahaadess says nobody beside Prophets were totally clean from sins. Sahabas were at best humans. People of today had has raised their stature up so far that we think they couldnt have sinned. But they did, they had their human weaknesses. But their Taqwa was strong. There tauba hold Merit. They were shining examples of following deen as it is.

These running commentaries are vetted thoroughly. You cant dismiss these because they dont match with your beliefs. The killing of Hazrat Usman (RA) and the civil war that follow is testament to the fact.

 

[I.R.A]

You are in denial now. Thats why Quran and Ahaadess says nobody beside Prophets were totally clean from sins. Sahabas were at best humans. People of today had has raised their stature up so far that we think they couldnt have sinned. But they did, they had their human weaknesses. But their Taqwa was strong. There tauba hold Merit. They were shining examples of following deen as it is.

These running commentaries are vetted thoroughly. You cant dismiss these because they dont match with your beliefs. The killing of Hazrat Usman (RA) and the civil war that follow is testament to the fact.

Buddy my beliefs related to my faith ended the day Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) departed this world, after that day there is nothing written by others that is part of my faith and neither I am required to believe each and every hearsay. I am trying to highlight the contradictions these commentaries carry, conduct of companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) with each other cannot be against the teachings of Quran and I would sternly believe in Quran and what makes sense and is logical rather than some dubious historian(s) who carry their own narratives and riwayat. History is either to be accepted or denied and during my learning of history I intend to deny and reject every historical account that is not logical.

 

[Zarvan]

So you would say Hazrat Hussain and Abdullah Ibn e Zubair rebellions against Yazeed were unjust ? Make sound arguments why would you say that keeping in mind the stature of both People !



You are in denial now. Thats why Quran and Ahaadess says nobody beside Prophets were totally clean from sins. Sahabas were at best humans. People of today had has raised their stature up so far that we think they couldnt have sinned. But they did, they had their human weaknesses. But their Taqwa was strong. There tauba hold Merit. They were shining examples of following deen as it is.

These running commentaries are vetted thoroughly. You cant dismiss these because they dont match with your beliefs. The killing of Hazrat Usman (RA) and the civil war that follow is testament to the fact.

Yes the majority Sahaba had done bait of Yazeed so he was not that corrupt as promoted by Shias secondly I also know the stature of Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA and Hazrat Abdullah bin ABBAS RA and several other Sahabas

 

[Bratva]

Yes the majority Sahaba had done bait of Yazeed so he was not that corrupt as promoted by Shias secondly I also know the stature of Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar RA and Hazrat Abdullah bin ABBAS RA and several other Sahabas

Well if you keep parroting these lines, I would suggest you to gonna open up the history books. Islamic history books written by sunni scholars and read over what kind of Zulam Yazeed did and how wide spread it was.

If those sahabas didnt raised voice against yazeed zulam, then they were wrong. They didnt fulfill their duty. Simple is that and they will be answerable to Allah for there misdemeanors

Did you know Son of yazeed refused to accept the throne after the death of yazeed because He said It was right of Ahlul Bayt and My father did the wrong thing ?

Buddy my beliefs related to my faith ended the day Messenger Muhammad (Peace be upon him) departed this world, after that day there is nothing written by others that is part of my faith and neither I am required to believe each and every hearsay. I am trying to highlight the contradictions these commentaries carry, conduct of companions of Messenger (Peace be upon him) with each other cannot be against the teachings of Quran and I would sternly believe in Quran and what makes sense and is logical rather than some dubious historian(s) who carry their own narratives and riwayat. History is either to be accepted or denied and during my learning of history I intend to deny and reject every historical account that is not logical.

You are a lone wolf in the Islamic world who held this belief. Schism exist in Islam because of these incidents. Sahabas were afterall normal human beings. You can not say for 100 percent surety they would have acted 100 percent according to quranic teachings.


We think Shiaism is a recent phenomena. No Shiasm began right after the death of Hazrat Hussain RA. If there was a schism. It was because of these acts and incidents. The household of Hazrat Hussain and Hassan RA further cemented and recorded these narrations.

 

[Zarvan]

Well if you keep parroting these lines, I would suggest you to gonna open up the history books. Islamic history books written by sunni scholars and read over what kind of Zulam Yazeed did and how wide spread it was.

If those sahabas didnt raised voice against yazeed zulam, then they were wrong. They didnt fulfill their duty. Simple is that and they will be answerable to Allah for there misdemeanors

Did you know Son of yazeed refused to accept the throne after the death of yazeed because He said It was right of Ahlul Bayt and My father did the wrong thing ?



You are a lone wolf in the Islamic world who held this belief. Schism exist in Islam because of these incidents. Sahabas were afterall normal human beings. You can not say for 100 percent surety they would have acted 100 percent according to quranic teachings.


We think Shiaism is a recent phenomena. No Shiasm began right after the death of Hazrat Hussain RA. If there was a schism. It was because of these acts and incidents. The household of Hazrat Hussain and Hassan RA further cemented and recorded these narrations.

I have and I also How many of them had shia influence on them and one is considered Shia still if you read Shia books Imam Hussain was warned and told be every one not to do this. The person he sent to check Yazeed also told that Yazeed is neither drinker nor womanizer and also regular in Salah and consults scholars. Those Sahabas all their lives have fought for Islam you are wrong not them. Those Sahabas would have never done bait if Yazeed would have been that corrupt. Your thrash talk against Sahabas show How successful Shias are in their false propaganda .

Well if you keep parroting these lines, I would suggest you to gonna open up the history books. Islamic history books written by sunni scholars and read over what kind of Zulam Yazeed did and how wide spread it was.

If those sahabas didnt raised voice against yazeed zulam, then they were wrong. They didnt fulfill their duty. Simple is that and they will be answerable to Allah for there misdemeanors

Did you know Son of yazeed refused to accept the throne after the death of yazeed because He said It was right of Ahlul Bayt and My father did the wrong thing ?



You are a lone wolf in the Islamic world who held this belief. Schism exist in Islam because of these incidents. Sahabas were afterall normal human beings. You can not say for 100 percent surety they would have acted 100 percent according to quranic teachings.


We think Shiaism is a recent phenomena. No Shiasm began right after the death of Hazrat Hussain RA. If there was a schism. It was because of these acts and incidents. The household of Hazrat Hussain and Hassan RA further cemented and recorded these narrations.

Sahabas acted according to Islamic teachings and RASOOL SAW clearly said who ever resents his Sahabas in fact resent him