An on-line book on Ali ibn Abi Talib

[porus]

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... /index.htm

The book, The Voice of Human Justice, is by a Christian from Lebanon.

The following are a couple of quotes from the Chapter on accountability.

"Wealth, small or large, was not lawful in the eyes of Ali until it was acquired by lawful, means. It should not have been acquired by hoarding, or by exploiting the people or by taking undue advantage of one's position as a ruler."

"According to him (Ali) oppression was a curse in whatever shape it might be, but the worst oppression was that exercised by the powerful on the weak, by the hoarder on the public, and by the ruler on the ruled."

[Ala maqaam]

TRUE he was the Imam of Justice.

[Ala maqaam]

અલી કી શાન આલા હીન અલી કી શાન આલા હીન
હરેક મીઝાન મેઈન તોલા,હરેક મીઝાન મેઈન તોલા



મુશ્કિલ સે દિલ નાં ઘબરા મુશ્કિલ કુસા અલી હીન

ઇમદાદ વોહ કરેંગે,ઇમદાદ વોહ કરેંગે,હજાત રવા અલી હીન

મુશ્કિલ સે દિલ નાં ઘબ્ભ્રા

[anajmi]

Ala,

I don't think the reason for porus' post was so that you could display your desire to worship Hazrat Ali. I think it was to show how much he hated oppression of the weak by the powerful. Something your Dai, who has acquired his wealth by taking undue advantage of his position as a Dai, should think about!

[Ala maqaam]

Ala,

I don't think the reason for porus' post was so that you could display your desire to worship Hazrat Ali. I think it was to show how much he hated oppression of the weak by the powerful. Something your Dai, who has acquired his wealth by taking undue advantage of his position as a Dai, should think about!

i know for what reason porus have post this thread...

how have i worship Ali?

it is really mind boggling to see hadith coming true with my own eyes...

o Ali,none will envy u but munaafiq and none will love you but momeen.

[Ala maqaam]

जहन्नम माँ हज़ारो साल जलसे आपना दुश्मन

[anajmi]

Actually, I believe that hadith is a shia created fairy tale. As per the Quran, a munafiq is one who disbelieves in Allah and his prophet (saw). Hazrat Ali is not mentioned as a criterion for munafiqism.

Besides, pointing out that you worship Hazrat Ali doesn't constitute hatred or envy of Hazrat Ali in any case. This is an accusation created out of thin air to stop people from pointing out your idol worshipping ways lest they be accused of hating Hazrat Ali himself. But believe you me, that is not going to deter me from pointing it out every opportunity I get.

[Ala maqaam]

Imam Ali says..

if i give away whole of earth to munafiq he wont love me,and if i hit momeen on his nose bone even then he wont stop loving me.

so u are free to do ur job...which is envy and hate against haq.

[anajmi]

That looks like a fake saying attributed to Hazrat Ali. Why is Hazrat Ali asking people to love him? He should be asking people to love Allah and his prophet (saw) as per the Quran and not himself!!

We muslims refer to christians as idol worshippers of prophet Isa (as) but have we ever been accused of been haters and envious of prophet Isa (as)? Ofcourse not. Why is that? Because christians are out in the open. Mushriks like yourself, hide behind "love"!!

[porus]

Imam Ali says..

if i give away whole of earth to munafiq he wont love me,and if i hit momeen on his nose bone even then he wont stop loving me.

That looks like a fake saying attributed to Hazrat Ali. Why is Hazrat Ali asking people to love him? He should be asking people to love Allah and his prophet (saw) as per the Quran and not himself!!

Does Ali actually say "Love me" in that quote? Of course not.

However, Rasulullah, in his address at Ghadeer-e-Khum, took Ali's hand in his and raised it above those who had gathered there. And he said this:

"man kuntu mawla-hu, fa aliyyun mawla-hu
wa man kuntu waliyyu-hu, fa hadha aliyyun waliyyu-hu wa ameeru-hu
allahumma wali man walaa-hu, wa aadi man aadaa-hu
wa nasru man nasra-hu
wa-khdhul man khadha la-hu
wa-adiri al-haqqa ma’a-hu haythu daara"

Translation:

"To whom I am mawla, so Ali is his mawla
And to whom I am wali, then this ali is his wali and his ameer
O Allah, love those who love him, and be an enemy to those who are his enemies
And help those who help him
And desert those who desert him
And send truth with him wherever he goes."

What Rasulullah did was to ask Allah to love those that love Ali.

[anajmi]

Does Ali actually say "Love me" in that quote? Of course not.

Well, Hazrat Ali is smart isn't he? He declares those who don't love him as munafiqs but at the same time he doesn't put a condition for him to be loved. That he leaves to the prophet (saw). Wow!! He should've been a politician in the 21st century. Shias would've been in crazy love with him!!

O Allah, love those who love him

And the shia criteria for loving him is?
Sing his praises more than praises of Allah and prophet Muhammad (saw) combined.
Consider themselves to be the lovers of Ali more than the lovers of Allah or his prophet (saw).
Become enemies to other sahabas of the prophet (saw) who preceded Hazrat Ali in khilafat and who have been honored in the Quran.
Become enemies to the wife of the prophet (saw) who has been honored by Allah in the Quran.

And anyone who doesn't follow these unIslamic rules is automatically his enemy. Love for Hazrat Ali comes with hatred for others attached to it. I do not care much for such love. I don't think Hazrat Ali or prophet Muhammad (saw) did either.

[porus]

Imam Ali says..

if i give away whole of earth to munafiq he wont love me,and if i hit momeen on his nose bone even then he wont stop loving me.

Well, Hazrat Ali is smart isn't he? He declares those who don't love him as munafiqs.....

No. Ali does not declare those who do not love him munafiqs. Who do you take Ali for?

In the quote, he sactually says that munafiqs will not love him. Do you see the difference?

And who declared them munafiq? Have you read Yusuf Ali translation lately?

[anajmi]

No. Ali does not declare those who do not love him munafiqs. Who do you take Ali for?

I have to give it to the shias. They are pretty good when it comes to semantics. They are much better than the politicians of today. They keep throwing these Hazrat Ali sayings to you, but keep reminding you that it is not Hazrat Ali that is saying these things. Brilliant.

No. Ali does not declare those who do not love him munafiqs. Who do you take Ali for?

In the quote, he sactually says that munafiqs will not love him. Do you see the difference?

And who declared them munafiq? Have you read Yusuf Ali translation lately?

Now the shias are truly trapped. As per porus, after he has split a single hair into a million pieces length wise, is that, no love for Hazrat Ali doesn't make you a munfiq. If you are already a munafiq then you won't love Hazrat Ali. What makes you a munafiq? Please refer to Yusuf Ali.

"man kuntu mawla-hu, fa aliyyun mawla-hu
wa man kuntu waliyyu-hu, fa hadha aliyyun waliyyu-hu wa ameeru-hu
allahumma wali man walaa-hu, wa aadi man aadaa-hu
wa nasru man nasra-hu
wa-khdhul man khadha la-hu
wa-adiri al-haqqa ma’a-hu haythu daara"

This quote from the prophet (saw) again displays how well the shia have understood the prophet (saw). Would the prophet (saw) ask Allah to be an enemy to the people that he has honored in the Quran?

[Muslim First]

br anajmi

It is fruitless to argue with shia and it will be endless debate.

Here is some stuff on Gadhir which is part of this post
Ghadir Khumm http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/ ... dir-khumm/

Fabricated Additions
The common Shia tactic to fool the Sunni layperson is to first state that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is in Bukhari and the most trusted books of the Sunnis (oftentimes impressing Sunnis with long references), and then they go about quoting the variant versions from obscure and unreliable sources that depict Ghadir Khumm in a very different manner than is actually stated in the authentic books. This tactic of fooling people is called “acceptance by association.”
In fact, there are only two additions to the Hadith which are considered authentic and that too only by some scholars. For the purpose of debate, however, we shall accept them as authentic. Again, these two additions are not in the Sahihayn but rather they are in the variant narrations in other books. As the student of Hadith knows, Hadith have various gradings; as for the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm, what is most authentic is that which is in Sahih Bukhari as reproduced above. However, there are other variant versions which have two additions:
1) The first addition is: “Man Kuntu Mawla fa `Ali Mawla.” (Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.)
2) The second addition is: “Allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah.” (O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.)
The first addition is generally accepted, and the second one is weaker but some scholars do consider it authentic. As far as any other additions are concerned, these are not contained in the authentic books and are “mawdoo” or fabricated. Generally, the Shia are content in basing their arguments upon these first two additions, but no doubt after they are refuted, they will oftentimes then resort to using obscure sources to produce further additions such as the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saying Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is his Wasi, Caliph, Imam, etc. These are all fabrications, and historically the Shia has been manufacturers of fabricated Hadith. The Shia are able to produce lengthy lists of obscure references about Ghadir Khumm because they themselves have been responsible for the multitude of forgeries in regards to Ghadir Khumm.
We have already seen the version of Ghadir Khumm in Sahih Bukhari and how it does not contain the addition of “Mawla”. However, this addition of “Mawla” can be found in this variant of the Hadith:

Buraida narrated: “I invaded Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; so when I came (back) to the Messenger of Allah and mentioned Ali and criticized him, I saw the face of the Messenger of Allah change and he said: ‘O Buraida, am I not closer to the believers than they are to themselves?’ I said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allah.’ He (then) said: ‘Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”
(Musnad Ahmad [v5 / p347 / #22995] with a Sahih chain of transmission and all trustworthy [thiqa] narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Nisa’i in Sunan al-Kubra [v5 / p45 / #8145]; al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak [v3 / p119 / #4578]; Abu Nu`aym; Ibn Jarir and others)

In a slightly different version:

Buraida narrated: “The Prophet sent me to Yemen with Ali and I saw coldness from his part; when I returned and complained about him to the Messenger of Allah, he (the Messenger of Allah) raised his head towards (him) and said: ‘O Buraida! Whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla.’”
(Sunan al-Kubra, v5, p130, #8466; a similar report can be found in Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba [v6, p.374])

In other narrations, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said: “allahummu wali man walaah wa `adi man `adaah”, which translates to: “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.” Some scholars have doubted the authenticity of this statement, but we shall hereby accept this second addition as authentic.

These are the only two additions to the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm that can be considered authentic, and therefore these are the only two we will deal with. The Shia propagandists will often add various narrations from weak and obscure sources, but this is not a valid methodology of debating. Oftentimes, these references are impossible to verify and many times they do not exist at all or are dramatically taken out of context. What is odd and a bit amusing is that the Sunnis oftentimes quote from Al-Kafi, the most authentic book of Shia Hadith, and yet the Shia will outright reject these Hadith as a basis for argumentation. If this is the attitude of the Shia towards their most authentic book of Hadith, then why do the Shia expect us to accept narrations from obscure and unreliable sources? In any case, in order to be fair, the only two additions we will discuss will be: (1) …This Ali is also his Mawla…, and (2) …befriend whosoever befriends him…

The Definition of the Word “Mawla”

The Shia claims that the word “Mawla” here means “master.” It is based on this erroneous translation of the word that they claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor. In fact, the word “Mawla”–like many other Arabic words–has multiple possible translations. The Shia lay-person may be shocked to know that indeed the most common definition of the word “mawla” is actually “servant” and not “master.” A former slave who becomes a servant and who has no tribal connections was referred to as a Mawla, such as Salim who was called Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah because he was the servant of Abu Hudhayfah.
One only needs to open up an Arabic dictionary to see the various definitions of the word “Mawla.” Ibn Al-Atheer says that the word “Mawla” can be used to mean, amongst other things, the following: lord, owner, benefactor, liberator, helper, lover, ally, slave, servant, brother-in-law, cousin, friend, etc.
Now let us examine the Hadith again:

“Whosoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla. O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosoever is hostile to him.”

The word “Mawla” here cannot refer to “master”, but rather the best translation of the word “Mawla” is “a beloved friend”. It is clear that “Mawla” here refers to love and close relation, not Caliphate and Imamah. Muwalat (love) is the opposite of Mu`adat (enmity). This definition of the word “Mawla” makes most sense due to the context, because the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) immediately says “O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him.”
The Shia may refuse to believe that Mawla here means “beloved friend” but the reality is that it cannot be translated in any other way when we take into account that the very second addition is about befriending him, not about being ruled by him or anything like that. It is in fact unbelievable that the Shia can translate it to mean Caliph and Imam when the context has nothing to do with that.
Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah:

“The word Mawla is frequently mentioned in the Hadith, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbor, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favor. Most of these meanings are referred to in various Hadith, so it is to be understood in the manner implied by the context of the Hadith in which it is mentioned.”

Imam Shafi’i said with regards to Mawla in this particular Hadith of Ghadir Khumm:

“What is meant by that is the bonds (of friendship, brotherhood, and love) of Islam.”

Allah says in the Quran:

“So today no ransom shall be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your beloved friend (Mawla) and an evil refuge it is.” (Quran, 57:15)

No translator on earth–not even the staunchest Shia–has ever translated this to mean “Imam” or “Caliph”, as that would make the verse meaningless. The Hell-fire above is referred to as Mawla to the disbelievers because of their extreme closeness to it, and it is this definition of Mawla that is being referred to in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm (i.e. extreme closeness to the Prophet, Ali, and the believers). Indeed, the word “Mawla” comes from “Wilayah” and not “Walayah”. Wilayah refers to love and Nusrah (help and aid), and is not to be confused with Walayah, which refers to the leadership.

Allah says in the Quran:

“That is because Allah is the Mawla (i.e. protecting friend, patron, etc) of those who believe, and because the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them.” (Quran, 47:11)

This verse is not referring to Caliphate or Imamah, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend. Otherwise, the verse would make no sense. The Shia commentators seem to ignore the second part of this verse in which Allah says: “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them”. Does this mean that the disbelievers will have no leader? Of course the disbelievers have a leader, such as today the American disbelievers have George Bush as their leader. This fact is mentioned in the Quran itself:

“Fight the leaders (imams) of kufr.” (Quran, 9:12)

“And We made them leaders (imams) who call towards the Fire.” (Quran, 28:41)

And so when Allah says “the disbelievers shall have no Mawla for them”, this refers to a protector of extreme closeness, not that they don’t have a leader. This verse is not using Mawla to mean Imam or Caliph at all, but rather it is referring to a close protecting friend.

The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is meant to be interpreted in the same manner. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was advising the people to love Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and be close to him. And this is exactly what Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) did (i.e. they were beloved friends of Ali). In fact, Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was so beloved to Ali (رضّى الله عنه) that he (Ali) wed his daughter to him (Umar). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) served as a vizier and close confidante for all Three Caliphs, such was the mutual love and admiration between the Three Caliphs and Ali (رضّى الله عنه). In other words, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) nominating Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor, but rather it was for the people to stop criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and to love him.

Allah says in the Quran:

“Certainly your Mawla (beloved friends) are Allah and His Messenger and the believers–those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly. As to those who turn (for friendship) to Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, (let them know that) it is the party of Allah that will be triumphant.” (Quran, 5:55-56)

In this verse of the Quran, Allah refers to all of the believers as being Mawla. How then can the Shia claim that the word Mawla refers to Caliphate or Imamah, unless all of the believers are suddenly Caliphs or Imams? (To this, the Shia will make the outrageous claim that this verse refers to Ali alone, despite the fact that it refers to believers in the plural. No doubt, Ali–like many other righteous believers–was included in this verse, but it cannot refer only and exclusively to him since it is clearly in the plural.) Indeed, the word “Mawla” here refers to love, extreme closeness, and help. In fact, there is not a single instance in the Quran in which the word “Mawla” is used to refer to Imamah or Caliphate.

In another verse of the Quran, Allah says:

“No Mawla will benefit his Malwa on the Day of Judgment.”

Does this mean that “no leader will benefit his leader on the Day of Judgment”? Surely this makes no sense. Rather, we see in this verse of the Quran that Allah refers to two people and calls both to be Mawla; if Mawla were to mean leader, then only one of them could be the leader of the other. But if Mawla means beloved friend, then indeed they could be Mawla of each other and it would be linguistically correct to refer to both of them as Mawla as Allah does in the Quran.

The word “Mawla” is used in the Hadith to mean beloved friend; let us examine Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 715). The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) says:

“The tribes of Quraish, Al-Ansar, Juhaina, Muzaina, Aslam, Ghifar and Ashja’ are my beloved helpers (Mawali), and they have no protector except Allah and His Apostle.”

Does the word “Mawla” here refer to Caliphate or Imamah? Are these various tribes the Caliph or Imam over the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم)? Of course not. It makes more logical sense that they are in extreme closeness and love to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and are thus referred to as Mawali (plural of Mawla).

It is also important to point out that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not say “after me” in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He only said “whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla” without giving any time frame. This means that this fact is timeless. If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had meant “whomsoever’s leader I am, this Ali is also his leader”, which is the meaning that our Shia brothers imply, then there would be a very big problem for the Muslim Ummah. There can never be two Caliphs in the same land at the same time, and there are many Hadith in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) warns against having two Caliphs. Without the words “after me”, it would become a very confusing sentence that would cause a great deal of Fitnah. Of course, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) did not mean it that way and none of the Sahabah understood it that way. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to have more than one Mawla (beloved friend) at the same time. One can love the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and be close to him, and at the same time love and be close to Ali (رضّى الله عنه).
If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) meant to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه), then why would he use such ambiguous phrasing? Instead of saying something vague such as “whomsoever’s Mawla I am, this Ali is also his Mawla”, why didn’t the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) say something clearer such as “I nominate Ali to be the Caliph after I die” or “Ali is my successor and the first Caliph of the Muslims after me.” Surely, this would have cleared up the matter. The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was commanded to be clear in delivering the Message, and none of the Sahabah interpreted his statement at Ghadir Khumm to mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was nominated as Caliph.

To this, the Shia propagandist will make the contradictory assertion, as follows:

ShiaChat Member says:

The prophet (SAW) did in fact say clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) was his successor and the next Caliph and many other clearer things but these hadeeth were not transmitted by the sahaba and the sunnis because they wished to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.). The sahaba and sunnis didnt remove the mawla hadeeth because it could be misinterpreted to deny the imamate of IMAM ALI (A.S.).

Some even say that the prophet (SAW) used intentionally vague wording otherwise people would have tampered his words. Had he used a more direct and clear term, then the sahaba would know that the people would think that it is about the IMAMATE of IMAM ALI (A.S.) and they would then take it out. In fact, in other SHIA hadeeths, the prophet (SAW) did in fact say it clearly that IMAM ALI (A.S.) is the successor and the next Caliph but the Sunnis reject those.

This argument is actually conceding the entire debate. Here, the Shia is saying:

1) The clear sayings of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) were removed by the Sunnis.

2) The Hadith of Ghadir Khumm about Ali (رضّى الله عنه) being Mawla was not removed because it was not as direct and clear about the matter of Imamah or Caliphate.

Well then, isn’t the entire debate over? Was it not the Shia who was arguing this entire time that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm is a clear and definite proof for the Imamah and Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه)? Indeed, this argument is admitting the fact that the Hadith about Ghadir Khumm does not talk clearly about Imamah/Caliphate; the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) saying that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is Mawla of the believers does not in any way prove that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was to be Caliph. In fact, had it been clear, then the Sahabah would not have transmitted it, correct? Therefore, we see–based on this line of thinking–that the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm could not have been clear about the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), otherwise it wouldn’t have been narrated by the same Sahabah who sought to usurp his Caliphate. Indeed, this Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was never interpreted to mean that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was Caliph and instead it was simply in reference to the virtues of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). If the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) praises somebody, this does not automatically make this person the Caliph of the Ummah. As for the Shia Hadith on the matter, those are irrelevant to us because the Shia are known to be liars and mass fabricators when it comes to Hadith.

Conclusion

Contrary to the Shia claims, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm has nothing to do with Caliphate or Imamah. Instead, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was merely refuting a group of people under the command of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who were criticizing Ali (رضّى الله عنه) with very harsh words. Based on this, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) urged people that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the Mawla (beloved friend) of all the Muslims, just like the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) was. Had the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) wanted to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as the Caliph, then he (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) would have done so in his Farewell Sermon in Mecca instead of on his journey back to Medinah in the middle of the desert 250 km away from Mecca and the rest of the Muslims.

Wasalaam

[porus]

br anajmi

It is fruitless to argue with shia and it will be endless debate.

Dear Muslim First Bhai Sahib,

Finally , you seem to be getting it!

But, it is useless to advise br anajmi thus because he shares with you a skin as thick as that of a crocodile. Perhaps, you can take your own advice and stop, once and for all, indulging in fruitless and endless debate with 'shia' (sic).

The rest of your post is an often-refuted anti-Shia tirade which is so well-known that it would be a waste of any Shia's time to respond to it or even read it.

[porus]

"man kuntu mawla-hu, fa aliyyun mawla-hu
wa man kuntu waliyyu-hu, fa hadha aliyyun waliyyu-hu wa ameeru-hu
allahumma wali man walaa-hu, wa aadi man aadaa-hu
wa nasru man nasra-hu
wa-khdhul man khadha la-hu
wa-adiri al-haqqa ma’a-hu haythu daara"

This quote from the prophet (saw) again displays how well the shia have understood the prophet (saw). Would the prophet (saw) ask Allah to be an enemy to the people that he has honored in the Quran?

These are the words of the Prophet. Be mindful of what you imply.

Can you list the enemies of Ali mentioned and, at the same time, honored in the Quran? Please provide surah:ayah reference. Thank you.

[Muslim First]

he shares with you a skin as thick as that of a crocodile. Perhaps, you can take your own advice and stop, once and for all, indulging in fruitless and endless debate with 'shia' (sic).

Br Porus
Eid Mubarak
I am sure your skin is also as thick as that of a crocodile plus skin of Hippo.

Wasalaam

[anajmi]

These are the words of the Prophet. Be mindful of what you imply.

Oh Please. No one plays more with the words of the prophet (saw) more than the shia do.

Can you list the enemies of Ali mentioned and, at the same time, honored in the Quran? Please provide surah:ayah reference. Thank you.

You should attend sabak and then read Yusuf Ali. You might be able to put two and two together. Let me give you just one example. The shia consider Hazrat Aisha to be an enemy of Hazrat Ali. She has been honored in the Quran as the mother of all believers and in other ayahs where the allegation against her was repudiated in the Quran. I am sure if you have a copy of Yusuf Ali, you will be able to find the surah and ayah. Let me know if you cannot and I will refer you to shaikh google.

It is fruitless to argue with shia and it will be endless debate.

Br. Muslim First,

That is precisely what they want. Typing a few words over here isn't a lot of work. I don't think I am going to quit anytime soon.

[Admin]

We believe the intention of this topic was not to start another fruitless shia/sunni debate. Please stop it. Thanks.

[anajmi]

Admin,

I am not sure why people keep saying that it is fruitless. Every time we have this "shia/sunni" debate, we are talking about the Tauheed of Allah. There is "hasana" in talking about it every time. It is never fruitless.

[seeker110]

A reasonable man adapts himself to the world.The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.

[porus]

The shia consider Hazrat Aisha to be an enemy of Hazrat Ali. She has been honored in the Quran as the mother of all believers and in other ayahs where the allegation against her was repudiated in the Quran.

Surprise, surprise! Aaisha pops up again.

Surely, you should honor your mother. But Aisha is not anyone's mother!!

The ayat about "ummul mumineen" is less an honor and more an 'admonishment' to believers to desist from harboring any thoughts about having relations with them. In other words, Prophet's wives were not ever permitted to re-marry. (However, you may refer to them respectfully as 'ummul mumineen').

Also, Aaisha did not live up to the admonishment of the ayat 33:32 and went out on a war footing against Ameerul Mumineen. She became Ali's enemy long after those words of the Prophet. If she was Ali's 'mother', why did she want his blood?

And Ali, chivalrous as ever, forgave her.

As to the ayat supposedly freeing her of the charge of adultery, let me turn the tables on you and MF bhai sahib. Does the ayat refer to Aaisha by name? And even if it did, how does exoneration become honor?

So let me ask again. Is their any enemy of Ali honored in the Quran?

[Muslim First]

Also, Aaisha did not live up to the admonishment of the ayat 33:32 and went out on a war footing against Ameerul Mumineen. She became Ali's enemy long after those words of the Prophet. If she was Ali's 'mother', why did she want his blood?

And Hz Ali had nothing to do why Aisha held grudge against him.

[anajmi]

The ayat about "ummul mumineen" is less an honor and more an 'admonishment' to believers to desist from harboring any thoughts about having relations with them. In other words, Prophet's wives were not ever permitted to re-marry. (However, you may refer to them respectfully as 'ummul mumineen').

This is precisely how the shia have manipulated the words of the Quran. Allah has prevented people from marrying many different categories of women. Nowhere does Allah make them their mothers. Allahs say "Forbidden in marriage to you are such and such women". But when it comes to the wives of the prophet (saw), Allah doesn't say "Forbidden to you are the wives of the prophet" instead, Allah made sure that shia wouldn't be able to weasel their way out on the day of judgement. As Allah says in the Quran - "They plan and We plan and We are the best of planners"!!

Now here is something that brother porus had posted earlier

I do not approve of cursing the Rashidoon Khalifa or Aisha by Bohras or the Shia. I am most certain that in ayat 9:40, Allah has honored Abu Bakr. Similarly, Allah has honored Aisha as Ummul Mumineen in the Quran. Unfortunately, neither Abu Bakr nor Aisha lived up to the great honor that Allah had bestowed upon them.

on this thread - http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtop ... g&start=30

Here is something else that brother porus posted in that same thread.

There are ayats in the Quran which refer to specific episodes in Prophet's life and which clearly refer to specific people. Ayat 9:40 clearly refers to Abu Bakr although he is not mentioned there by name. Similarly there is an ayat ( I do not recall it now) which appears to exonerate Ummul Mumineen, Aaisha, from a charge of adultery following 'her lost necklace' episode. Again Aaisha is not explicitly named.

And we have discussed Surat Abasa, which refers to Usman frowning. Again his name is not mentioned.

However, Prophet's interpretation, if available, must be final for Muslims. And 33:33 refers to Panjatan according to Prophet. Thus, it is permissible to say that Quran defines Ahlul Bayt to be panjatan.

And now the same brother porus is demanding to see names in the Quran? Turning the tables were you? How strong are these shia beliefs that change from thread to thread?

[fearAllah]

Porus bhai,

Thanks for that link to the online book on Moulana Ali (http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... /index.htm).

I am really much enjoying reading it.

Prophet (SAW) rightly said "Ali is the truth and truth is with Ali"

[Ala maqaam]

Ali is the truth and truth is with Ali

those who are with Ali they are with Muhammed those who are with Muhammed

[Ala maqaam]

Ali is the truth and truth is with Ali

those who are with Ali(a) they are with Muhammed(s) those who are with Muhammed(s) they are with Allah(swt)

[feelgud]

When he appointed Muhammad ,son of Abu Bakr ,as Governor of Egypt he instructed him thus:
"I recommend to you to be equitable to the Zimmis, to do justice to an oppressed person, to be severe upon the oppressor and to be indulgent towards the people as far as possible and to be kind to them. It is also necessary that in the matter of truth the far and the near should be equal in your eyes".

[[*] Islam allows freedom of faith to the Jews, the Christians and the Magi. They are called `Zimmis' which means non-Muslims living under the protection of the Islamic government.]

http://www.maaref-foundation.com/englis ... 82-189.htm

[Muslim First]

When he appointed Muhammad ,son of Abu Bakr ,as Governor of Egypt he instructed him thus:

abdes
ali appointed son of abu bakr as governor !!!!!

[fearAllah]

Ali is the truth and truth is with Ali

those who are with Ali(a) they are with Muhammed(s) those who are with Muhammed(s) they are with Allah(swt)

Ala Maqam (TUS)

I know you love Moulana Ali so much as i do.

But it is very hard to understand that you can support Sayedna after being such a die-hard fan of Moulana Ali. No offence but Moulana Ali was totally against such personalities like Sayedna, he dedicated all his life fighting and struggling/reforming against such people. I recommend you to read Naj-al-balgha and this book posted by brother Porus in detail. Moulana Ali didnt even spare his own brother Aqeel when he wanted to use part of the public treasury.

Please see some few lines below from this book.

"Prophet was an extremely abstemious person. He never ate his fill and whatever food he ate was not very rich. He left the world in the manner as mentioned by Abu Zar: "The prophet never ate two kinds of food during one day. When he ate dates he did not eat bread. Often it so happened that food was not cooked in his house for many months consecutively".

It is also true that Ali considered only two sheets of cloth to be sufficient for himself and also contented himself with only two loaves of bread per day. His house also resembled the house of the poor people. The instances of his abstemiousness and contentment are numerous and so well known that it is not necessary to recount them here.

Realizing the responsibility attached to their office they considered a very small quantity of food and other necessities to be sufficient for themselves and remained contented. However, every person cannot be like them and cannot endure the hardships which were endured by them, nor can that light, which illuminated their hearts and made them active, kindle in every heart. Furthermore, they were so much concerned about the welfare of their followers that they did not pay much heed to their own food, dress and comfort"

http://www.malumaat.com/media/images/14 ... kbs-01.jpg

Ala Maqam (TUS), just by praying Salats, growing beard and giving sermons doesnt make you a Muslim or a Muslim leader. Remember even Muawiya used to do this all but Moulana Ali fought against him, just think why? Why did he reform against Muawiya? Muawiya had hundreds of thousands of followers who were also muslims in Syria but why did Moulana Ali still chose to oppose him?

Muawiya used to live in palaces, eat luxurios food and lived an extravagant life by usurping rights and souls of Muslims.