3 "Laanatti"

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
mujju20032000
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:01 am

3 "Laanatti"

#1

Unread post by mujju20032000 » Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:14 pm

Bohras and Shias in their Majlis always gives "Laanat" to the 3 Caliphs of Islam, "Abubakar", "Umer" and "Usman", widely called "Laeen Awwal", "Laeen Sani" and "Laeen Soyem".95% of the Muslim world is of Sunni Muslims and they are the true followers of these Caliphs and they have faith in them.
It is the fact that these "Laeens" are burried with prophet "Mohammad" {peace be upon him},and Prophet Mohammad gave "Jannat Ki Basharat" to these Caliphs as their names were in the list of 10 Sahaba Akram who have had the news of Jannat on earth.So why we bohras and Shias are of different opinion from Sunni Muslims.
Mr.Insaaf will you please clarify this sensitive issue in the light of historical books.
I will be very thankful to you because people like me and lot of other bohras don`t know the actual position of this issue, you ask a young bohra, he will pay "Lanat" to them without any knowledge behind it, he only knows that these characters are "Lanatti", Mr. Insaaf it will help us to know about the true fact.

S. Insaf
Posts: 1494
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#2

Unread post by S. Insaf » Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:51 pm

Though in holy Prophet (pbuh)'s time almost entire Arab was had come in the influence of new religion, Islam. But as Qura'n and Traditions of holy Prophet show his total emphasis was on creating a just society and not establishing a state. Otherwise he was accepted by all and no one would have prevented him from clearly nominating his successor, rather than giving indications here and there as claimed by the Shia Muslims.
It is commonly believed that the major schism in Islam apparently took place on question of succession to Prophet Mohammed, splitting Muslims in Sunnis and Shias. One cannot understand this issue just by considering it a matter of mere religious belief and not considering the social, economical and political motives of the time.
Hazrat Ali never had any dispute with earlier three khlifas whom he had given 'Bayat', oath and participated with them in running the affairs of the Islamic state. He was so helpful to them that Khalifa Umar has been reported to say, "If Ali would not have helped me I would have been perished (halak)."
The word 'Shia' was first used by Amir Muawiyah when he formed a body known as 'Shiane-Usman, to demand the punishment to the murderers of Usman who was in the protection of Hazrat Ali when he was killed.
But during battle of Jamal between Amir Mawiyah and Hazrat Ali the supporters of Ali came to be known as Shiane-Ali. But still the split as Shia and Sunni Muslims had not accord.
After the deaths of Hazrat Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain the Umayyads became the sole rulers and their rule was downright repressive. Even when Hazrat Ali was alive the Arabia was divided between Arabi (Arabs) and Ajami (non-Arab). Non-Arabs were mostly of Persian origin. They were mostly slaves captured during wars. More then half the population of Kufa was of mawalis (Persian tribe). The Arabs by then had become very arrogant and they used to hate mawalis, and hence later on mawali became an abuse.
Hazrat Ali's personality had great appeal among the people of Persian origin, as Ali was their savior, as he was known for his simplicity, piety, integrity and scrupulous conduct. He was the one who never discriminated between Arabs and non-Arabs. He again a victim of Umayyad conspiracies as his sons Hasan and Husain were killed by them. Again as Persia was ruled by monarchy where son becomes monarch after father the Shia doctrine of succession of one Imam after another was more appealing to them. Holy prophet had no son so Hazrat Ali as his son-in-law became his successor and earlier three khalifas as usurpers.
Though Mukhtar was a noble Arab but he rebelled against Umayyad with the help of these non-Arab mawalis. He was defeated because his rebellion lacked proper organization as it was spontaneous outburst and not a pre-planned attack.
Learning lessons from this failure a proper network of Dais throughout Umayyad empire was spread. The object of this network was get favour for House of Hazrat Ali. Those who gathered in the support of House of Ali were called Siane-Ali.
More details can be given but it will be too long for our website.

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#3

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 pm

Trouble amongst the muslim ummah had started during the time of Hazrat Ali.

According to one of the traditions, an advisor came to Hazrat Ali and asked him what had gone wrong. He said there was no trouble during the previous three caliphs and why this was happening during his caliphate, insinuating that it was Hazrat Ali's fault.

To this Hazrat Ali replied - "The previous three caliphs had me as an advisor and I have you as an advisor".

Muslim
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#4

Unread post by Muslim » Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:17 pm

The account given above by Mr Insaf is factually inaccurate even from the Sunni standpoint on whom he unfortunately exclusively relies.

rather than giving indications here and there as claimed by the Shia Muslims

Which, presumably you Mr Insaf are not?

Actually both Sunnis and Shia agree on the declaration of the Prophet during his final days "man kuntu mawla..", the difference arises in interpretation of the word "mawla". The Shia view is that the Prophet explicitly and categorically appointed Ali as his heir on several occasions. These have been documented extensively in Shia tradition and to an extent in Sunni tradition.

Hazrat Ali never had any dispute with earlier three khlifas whom he had given 'Bayat'

Again, inaccurate, looking at both Sunni and Shia accounts of history. Ali did not recognise Abu Bakr as caliph for 6 months whilst Fatima was alive. Fatima had also refused to speak to Abu Bakr until her death. The events nearly led to civil war when Abu Sufyan and several companions including Ibn Abbas and the entire Bani Hashim were prepared to swear their allegiance to Ali and to start war on his behalf. In the Sunni accounts this entire episode would rather be forgotten.

Secondly, by Ali's own words in Nahjul Balagha, he considered Abu Bakr as usurper to the Caliphate yet he preferred that peace prevail rather than the ummah be fractured by in-fighting:

>> In a passage in Nahj-ul-Balagha, Ali is said to have expressed his reaction to the election of Abu Bakr in the following terms: "The son of Abu Qahafa has assumed the mantle of the caliphate forcibly although he knew that I was essential for the caliphate as the handle is for the grinding stone which moves it. In Islamic learning I excel everyone else, and the caliphate should have come to me as a matter of course. At this disregard of my right I became confused. I began to think whether I should assert my claim, or whether I should practice forbearance and patience after a good deal of thinking I decided to adopt the later course". <<

Thirdly, it is an often forgotten fact that Ali was offered the caliphate on Umar's death on condition that he upheld the precepts of Abu Bakr and Umar. He refused, inferring that he did consider himself bound by many judgements that the two had passed which he did not approve of. Thus the caliphate was given to Uthman.

The word 'Shia' was first used by Amir Muawiyah when he formed a body known as 'Shiane-Usman, to demand the punishment to the murderers of Usman who was in the protection of Hazrat Ali when he was killed.

The word Shia was in common usage in the Arabic language well before that and is mentioned in the Qur'an for the followers the prophets Noah and Moses (37/83, 28/15).

Secondly, the Prophet is reported to have used the word in reference to the followers of Ali, in a hadith mentioned in Fadhail as-Sahaba by the Sunni Imam, Ahmad bin Hanbal.

Only someone wholly ignorant of Islamic history and Arabic usage would claim the word 'Shia' was first used by Amir Muawiyah. By the way, the "Amir" Muawiya doesn't come in the scene and become "Amir" (other than of Syria) until after the death of Ali and the ascension of Hasan. The initial confrontation of the Battle of the Camel was with Aisha.

But during battle of Jamal between Amir Mawiyah and Hazrat Ali the supporters of Ali came to be known as Shiane-Ali. But still the split as Shia and Sunni Muslims had not accord.

The battle of Jamal (the camel) was between Ali and Aisha, not Muawiyah. Ali and Muawiya fought in the Battle of Siffin.

Please get your facts straight.

After the deaths of Hazrat Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain the Umayyads became the sole rulers and their rule was downright repressive.

The Ummayad episode didn't begin after Husain's death, Muawiyah (who was related to Uthman) himself was from the Bani Ummayah and he fought Ali.

Again as Persia was ruled by monarchy where son becomes monarch after father the Shia doctrine of succession of one Imam after another was more appealing to them.

Absurd comparison, when the Sunni monarchs followed the exact same pattern. The Ummayad caliphs were all hereditary and so were the Abbasids. Using Mr Insaf's logic the Persians should have found them more appealing. At least they were actual monarchs with real political power (none of the Twelver Shia imams had political power apart from Ali and none aspired to it).

Secondly and more importantly the Persian-Shia connection, convenient as it may seem, lacks historical accuracy because Iran was predominantly SUNNI until the 16th century (the rule of Shah Ismail). Some of the most influential Sunni scholars and imams hailed from Persia including Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Hanifah and al-Nisai. On the other hand the Shia of Iraq were during Ali's time and still are mostly of Arab origin.

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#5

Unread post by anajmi » Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:05 pm

True, however the Sunnis revere Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatima, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein just as much as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. It is the Shias that insist on fighting and cursing!!

tahir
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#6

Unread post by tahir » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:11 am

Indian Sunnis are actually not very particular about it. The slogans they used to raise in moharram processions were:

Nara E Taqbeer Allah hu Akbar
and
Hussain Hussain, Imam Hussain

However, after the 92 communal riots, they felt a need to bond with Shias and particulary Bohras who gave them food and shelter during the riots. Consequently they added one more slogan for ashura:

Eik Hi Nara Haidery, Ya Ali Ya Ali

They use this slogan more frequently during the procession of Eid ul Milad un Nabi. (Prophet's birthday)

porus
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#7

Unread post by porus » Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:15 pm

Muslim,

Excellent response to a totally erroneous history lesson from Insaf.

Insaf, your credibility as a student history has taken a serious setback. Please quote the sources of your account. It seems rather fanciful.

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#8

Unread post by spot » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:03 pm

i particularly don't like the use of "all sunni" when refering to those who follow the first 3 caliphs. as tahir mentioned, asian sunnis revere the ahlul bayt as shiahs do...this is because the tariqah sunnis believe in Ali's spirtual mastership only...the imamate as well..thus a spirtual chain of leaders (ie Qadri, Chisti, etc).

it was political power and aspirations that those of bani umayyah cared for. this is why there was a separation of the spirtual from the political by the first three caliphs. rasulallah and maulana ali were imam and caliph together..and this is the correct sunnah of the leader of the ummah.

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#9

Unread post by spot » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:08 pm

mh,
you noted that abu bakr and umar are buried next to the prophet. who put them there? it wasn't ali or fatima or hasan or husayn. fatima disapproved of abu bakr until she died. none of them gave bayah to any of the three. husayn was martyr because of not giving bayah to yazid. why would yazid care if one person didn't give bayah to him? think about!

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#10

Unread post by spot » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:15 pm

anajmi,
the sad part of what you write is what you don't understand it.

"Sunnis revere Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Fatima, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussein just as much as Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman."

is this a good thing? are the sunnis doing the ahlul bayt a favor in revering them to the level of the 3 caliphs. the problem with your statement and what shiah find offensive is that you are bringing all of these people to the same level...when they are not. the ahlul bayt are far, far, far superior than the 3 caliphs. by putting them at the same level...your actually down grading the ahlul bayt!

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#11

Unread post by anajmi » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:55 pm

>> In a passage in Nahj-ul-Balagha, Ali is said to have expressed his reaction to the election of Abu Bakr in the following terms: "The son of Abu Qahafa has assumed the mantle of the caliphate forcibly although he knew that I was essential for the caliphate as the handle is for the grinding stone which moves it. In Islamic learning I excel everyone else, and the caliphate should have come to me as a matter of course. At this disregard of my right I became confused. I began to think whether I should assert my claim, or whether I should practice forbearance and patience after a good deal of thinking I decided to adopt the later course". <<
Maybe the shias should start doing a good deal of thinking, but with all the maatam to their heads, I don't think they are capable of that!!

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#12

Unread post by anajmi » Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:56 pm

Muslim,
Thirdly, it is an often forgotten fact that Ali was offered the caliphate on Umar’s death on condition that he upheld the precepts of Abu Bakr and Umar. He refused, inferring that he did consider himself bound by many judgements that the two had passed which he did not approve of. Thus the caliphate was given to Uthman.
Can you give us some examples of which judgements Hazrat Ali had objections with?

jamanpasand
Posts: 468
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#13

Unread post by jamanpasand » Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:23 pm

A NAJMI CHOOKRA !

I exactly know, who you are, where you are and which jamat khana you go.
Will let the Kothar gondas know what you write against syedna.
Be prepared for their trash.
However, still you have one chance to be spared but on one condition.

STOP YOU STUPID AND NONSENCE POSTINGS HERE.

If you do that then not only you be spared but all readers will then
Tanne, Tara baap ne, tari maa ne ane tara pura khandaan ne..... dua kersay.

AND AND AND

Prayers for your early recovery from this deadly cyber crank disease.

Now take these pills and go to bed.

No lollypops today. Good boy !

mujju20032000
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#14

Unread post by mujju20032000 » Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:24 pm

Dear Brother Muslim,
you had posted a very detailed counter replied to Mr. Insaf`s description, I would like to know the books for references and if possible the websites, it seems that you had very firm grip on Islamic history.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#15

Unread post by Muslim First » Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:45 pm

From http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/ ... round.html

Was the dispute between Ali and Muawiyah religious in nature?

Absolutely not. The conflict started after the murder of the 3rd Caliph Othman bin 'Affan [ra], and the existence of the murderers in the camp of Ali [ra]. However; to answer this question, we'll explore Nahjul Balaghah to see what Ali [ra] himself had to say about it, contrary to what the Shi'a wish to present:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (s) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (s) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they believed in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it."
Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 58, p. 474
http://www.alislam.org/nahjul/letters/l ... m#letter58

Therefore, if Ali [ra] himself does not see the conflict religious nor his political opponents as Kafirs (unbelievers) then the love which Shi'ites claim to have for him and the claim that they follow him, is an unproven claim from their own sources. For if they do indeed love Ali [ra] they will hold his views in this matter too, but they are people of no understanding. Furthermore, Ali [ra] instructed his men as follows:

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O' Allah! save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt may turn away from it."
Nahjul-Balaghah: Sermon 204, or online Sermon 205 (http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/205.htm)

Are the Shi'ites in anyway, form or manner following his instructions? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah [swt] to be the companions of His Apostle [saw].
.

Hyderabadi
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#16

Unread post by Hyderabadi » Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:54 pm

Salaam All

MF & Anajmi,

"Are the Shi'ites in anyway, form or manner following his instructions? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah [swt] to be the companions of His Apostle [saw]."

--- What else can you get from Bukhari & Co. other than forged Ahadees praising people who have done enough harm to Islam.
There is no doubt about the virtues of Ahlebait (Ali, Hasan, Hussain) and all the muslims, irrespective of denomination accept it.

Also there are well accepted sayings of Prophet that the truth is with Ahlebait and whoever betrays them or fights with them are enemies of the Prophet and Islam.

So it is very clear who is worthy of praise and who are cursed.
One can have either Ahlebait or his enemies but not both at the same time

"Maybe the shias should start doing a good deal of thinking, but with all the maatam to their heads, I don't think they are capable of that!! "

The main problem of sunni islam is the closure of the door of Ijtehad, the result being the 'unrest' as seen the world over in the name of Islam.
A little ponder in History will reveal the thought process and the teachings of different schools of thought, their tolerance levels towards fellow muslims and non-muslims.

Compare the likes of Muawiya, Yazid, Umayyads, Abbassids, Ayyubis and the warriors Mohammed Ghori, Ghazni, Saladin, Timur, Chengiz Khan, Babar, Nadir Shah, Ahemad Shah Abdaali, Aurangzeb, Bin Laden WITH the tolerant and just rules of the Fatimids (Africa), Qutub Shahis(Deccan, India) etc.
The shiite rule wherever had been the most tolerant towards fellow muslims as well as non-muslims whereas there has been Murders, rapes, torture and intolerance of all forms by non-shiite rulers.
Even the present day scenario of Triple Talaqs, Shah Bannoo talaq case, Imrana rape case and many such instances are due to wrong interpretations of the sunni schools of thought.

so judge for yourself as to who require thinking and come out of wrong interpretations of Bukhari and the like and stop getting Islam a bad name.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#17

Unread post by Muslim First » Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:32 pm

.
Br. Hyderabadi
AS

You better read my post on this topic. I have not quoted Bukhari. Quotes are from "Nahjul Balaghah".
The shiite rule wherever had been the most tolerant towards fellow muslims as well as non-muslims whereas there has been Murders, rapes, torture and intolerance of all forms by non-shiite rulers.
'Unrest' in Iran Arabic province

Wasalaam
.

Hyderabadi
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#18

Unread post by Hyderabadi » Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:21 pm

Br MF
AS

"You better read my post on this topic. I have not quoted Bukhari. Quotes are from "Nahjul Balaghah".

I was not talking about the quotes..

You have mentioned:

"All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the best men honored and chosen by Allah [swt] to be the companions of His Apostle [saw]."

--- The best men that you talk here are derived from the Ahadees of Bukhari & Co.
How can anyone be best companion when he do not listen to the Prophet (AS) and is on war with his Ahlebait.

" 'Unrest' in Iran Arabic province "

--- The article is from British sources.
Also in the article it is mentioned who is belived to be behind the unrest (Iran's statement).

Muslim
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#19

Unread post by Muslim » Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:32 pm

In response to 'Muslim First's post on Muawiya...

I guess if defending against a man who has no status in Islam, who has a lust for power and wealth and who raises an army to fight the Caliph of Islam, -- if all that is nothing to do with religion, then the conflict wasn't of 'religious nature'.

Nahjul Balagha sermon 58 and letter 205 is quoted. Muawiya's name is not even mentioned in these two tracts. The contents relate to the people of Syria. Ali did not blame the entire Syrian population for the battle and did not want them abused – that would have been common sense to anyone.

On the other hand, there are dozens of letters addressed DIRECTLY to Muawiya before and after the conflict:

Letter 6
O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives.

Letter 9
People have started considering such a person (Mu'awiya) equal to me! He in his whole lifetime never exerted himself in the service of Islam and Allah as I have done at every moment of my life.

Letter 10
O Mu'awiya! Were you ever entrusted with the noble status of dispensing peace and justice to mankind? Have you the necessary knowledge for the work? Do you really know the canons of equity and justice as laid down by Islam? You and your ways of government! May Allah protect me from and may withhold me from behaving towards mankind the way you have behaved and from tyranny, exploitations and murders that you commit. Take care! You are being madly driven by the lust of wealth, power and vicious indulgence, you are behaving hypocritically against man and Allah. You shall be damned forever.

Letter 28
The false status you have tried to grasp is not going to enhance your prestige (before Allah or the people). Can you not think of remaining at the place where you old hostility towards Islam and the Holy Prophet (s) has kept you? How is the lower status or defeat of one class or a person of that class, to whom you do not belong going to harm you and how is the success or higher status of the other going to do you good? You have gone astray from the straight path and from the real teachings of Islam.

Our sincerity in Islam and our services to its cause are the facts of history and history cannot deny your enmity against Islam and the Holy Prophet (s).

Letter 32
You have misguided the whole generation of men around you. Having no faith in the truth of Islam you have led others astray. You have thrown them in the depths of ignorance. You have enticed them towards the abyss for unenlightenment and illiteracy. They were out to reach truth but they cannot reach it now, because of you. They have lost the true path of religion. They are becoming sceptics and most of them are returning to infidelity of pre-Islamic days.

Letter 37
Allahu Akbar! How hopelessly you are engulfed in your inordinate and sinful desires, how mercilessly you are swept by such vicious and unholy cravings which misguide you in this life and will bring you to a sad end. You have forsaken the cause of truth and justice and have arrogantly spurned the arguments which are agreeable to Allah and were unacceptable to man.

Letter 48
You invited me to let the Holy Book act as an arbitrator [bbut you never believed that Book to be the Word of Allah.[/b] I, therefore, did not accept your invitation though I always accept the commands of that Book.

Letter 55
You began by misinterpreting the Holy Qur'an and on the basis of these misinterpretations you started grasping power and wealth and began oppressing and tyrannizing the people.

Letter 64
The condition now is that we are faithful and staunch followers of Islam and you have revolted against it. Even your original acceptance was not sincere, it was simple hypocrisy. When you saw that all the big people of Arabia had embraced Islam and had gathered under the banner of the Holy Prophet (s) you also walked in (after the Fall of Makkah.)

By Allah, I know you too well to argue with you or to advise you. Apostasy and avariciousness have taken a firm hold of your mind, your intelligence is of inferior order and you cannot differentiate what in the end is good for you and what is not.

Remember that I still hold the sword which has sent your maternal grandfather, maternal uncle and your brother to the same resting-place, the Hell.

Letter 65
It will be a great misfortune for Muslims if you become their despotic ruler after me, be it the whole Islamic State or any small part of it. May Allah protect them in such a calamity. Allah forbids that I appoint you a governor of any province or willingly allow you to control destinies of Muslims of any part of the State.

Letter 73
Beware that Satan has made you incorrigible, it has made you blind to good things as shown by the Holy Prophet (s) and deaf to his teachings.

Hopefully you found something above of "religious nature" that Ali had to say about Muawiya from the other 99% of Nahjul Balagha you didn't bother to read.

P.S. It's a waste of everyone's time for someone to copy-paste entire pages of anti-Shia rhetoric off the Internet. I can do the same too, but then there won't be much of a debate involved. It shows the person is incapable of any original thought or original research.

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#20

Unread post by anajmi » Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:35 pm

Muslim,

I need you to clarify a few things for me. I picked these quotes from a sunni web site but they are attribute to Hazrat Ali in the nahjul balagha. Can you verify.

91

"With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah's hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf."

179. I praise God for what He has ordained ...
"By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it."

226. So and so did good for God's sake ...
"Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism."

trance
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#21

Unread post by trance » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:41 am

how about these three Lanatis

Injiniyar
Insaaf / gansaaf
tehro taahheero

Zeal
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#22

Unread post by Zeal » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:16 pm

They are getting blessed by Allah .

Atleast I know abt Injiniyar (Engineer) :)

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#23

Unread post by anajmi » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:13 pm

spot,

Your posts would've carried more weight if you hadn't been following a corrupt leader and a corrupt leadership!!

Hyderabadi
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#24

Unread post by Hyderabadi » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:18 pm

salaams,

Yet another follower of Bukhari & Co. issued a senseless fatwa and gave media a chance to tarnish the entire community.

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=58041

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#25

Unread post by anajmi » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:48 pm

Hyderabadi,

And why is it senseless?

Hyderabadi
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#26

Unread post by Hyderabadi » Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:33 am

Anajmi,

It is senseless because it is not what the actual shariat of Islam says.Moreover, muslims living in india cannot talk against the judiciary which furthur will alienate them from the mainstream.

When muslims of west follows the country's laws and do not/cannot complain for obvious reasons, they should have no objections to follow indian laws or else migrate to some islamic country (where they cannot even think of talking against anything).

anajmi
Posts: 13417
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#27

Unread post by anajmi » Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:56 pm

Part of the indian law states that in civil cases, each religion can follow it's own law. That is the reason why RSS wants a Uniform Civil Law in India. Till then, shariah is what you have to follow.

Even in Islam a women has the right to ask for divorce, albeit the process has been made more difficult for them, otherwise my wife would've divorced me about 25 times in the last 4 years!!

So the women can go to the priest and give him the reasons she wants to get divorced and prove her case. Inshaallah justice will be done.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#28

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:36 pm

.
I think whole thing about this Fatwa is overblown by the press.

Fatwa only states that Quote “following an appeal against the divorce decree by Anwar Khan, who, according to Islamic Shariat, was still the husband of Arjumand.â€

Muslim
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 5:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#29

Unread post by Muslim » Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:59 pm

Originally posted by MH:
Dear Brother Muslim,
you had posted a very detailed counter replied to Mr. Insaf`s description, I would like to know the books for references and if possible the websites, it seems that you had very firm grip on Islamic history.
MH,

A good place to start would be 'A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims':
http://al-islam.org/restatement/

Also, the book 'Spirit of Islam' by Syed Ameer Ali gives a good general introduction to Islam as well the life of the Prophet and if I remember correctly the early history too. I don't believe this book is available online.

Let me know if you want any specific references or send me a private message.

Muslim First
Posts: 6893
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 4:01 am

Re: 3 "Laanatti"

#30

Unread post by Muslim First » Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:15 pm

Br. Musli
AS

I will repeat Br. Anajmi's question

Can you give us some examples of which judgements Hazrat Ali had objections with?

.