Question for Wahabis/Salafis/Kharajites/sunnis on Najh-ul-Balagha ?

[ALBANI2]

I am interested in finding out if anyone from these schools has read the
book Najh-ul-Balagha, who is also knowledgeable on Physics and Astrophysics?

It seems to me that whoever was the author of the book had a good idea on
how to go about creating a modern muslim state. If the author had been a
ruler or an advisor to a strong executive, then a muslims would have
discovered the laws of motion, electromagnetism, heat-conversion, gravity
chemistry, biology, rather than the West. (Now you must teach your
children for all times to come, the names of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein,
euler, descartes, leibnitz, Dalton, Lechatlier, Fermi, Plank, Schrodinger
and so on, if you must give them the education on maths physics and
chemistry. As you can see that the muslim names rank in minority. If you
quote Abdus salam, remember that he was qadiani.)

This was my profound feeling on reading the book. Again, it was my
profound feeling that the Muslims would have discovered the modern
science, if the author of Najh-ul-balagha and his clones would have been
the Amir-ul-momineen. Atleast, I could say that if my high-school
education had been supplemented by that book, I would have achieved much
more, and my conviction in Islam would have been stronger all along than
it was.

The sermons and letters in the book seem to have the blue-print for the
development from the Medina-city-state-of-Islam to a modern scientific
state. It also betrays a very good understanding of the author on how the
universe was created.

I wonder who the author was, and if the book was written before the
expansion of the universe (ie red shift) was discovered. I am willing to
take a position of doubt on the authorship of the book and welcome
salafis/wahabis/kharajites to BRING the best of their religious material
to match this book, that CAN be ascertained in terms of the present
knowledge. It is important that all the material that the Non-Shias bring
must be FALSIFIABLE. The theories propounded in Najh-ul-Balagha on the
creation of the universe, although only descriptive, ARE clear enough to
be falsifiable. Similarly, with reference to the past history of the last
1400 years, it seems that the author of the book had a very good idea how
to create a modern state. If the author is Hazrat Ali, who was a resident
of the city state of Medina, then it is a non-trivial feat of intellect to
have delivered those sermons compiled in the book.

I challenge the Salafis/Wahabis/Kharajites/Sunni to bring the best of
their material and compare it with Najh-ul-Balagha for their own
enlightenment and also compare it with the present knowledge in the field
of physics, the art of statecraft, and the military science.

I also challenge the Salafis/Wahabis/Kharajites/Sunnis to prove that the
author of the book was not Hazrat Ali. If they cannot do this
conclusively, then I challenge them to prove that the book was written
after the Red shift was discovered. Because if they cannot do that then
atleast the author had some other means of obtaining this knowledge or
"good guesses". The question then is, what was the authors motive in
ascribing the credit for the brilliant outpourings of intellectual ideas
recorded in the book to Hazrat Ali, when he could have taken all the
credit himself.

This challenge to look into these questions is especially directed to Dean
Rice, a physics student from the Sunni Sufi school of Naqshbandi, and
Mahdiyy (ha...@spot.com from the wahabi/salafi/kharajite school. Both are
active on the net. Please take these questions to your Sheikhs and Ulema
and get answers for the international readership on Islamic issues.

The Saudi wahabis can take these questions to Ibn Bazz, and Fahd, and Dr.
Al Massari, that is if they have answers.

The purpose of this thread is NOT to sow any seed of animosity, but to
force people to focus on another school's point of view, fix the ideas of
other schools in their mind so that they can juggle them, and then come
with reconciling answers.

Truth is always found by focussing on what we do not understand rather
than what we do.

[Mehdi]

Hello Tommy,

Back again with a new name Huh. You tried before to be friendly
to the sunnis on the expense of the salafites/wahhabites as you
call them. It did not work. Now you lump every one together, and
call us also kharijites - I will tell yu some of the traits of the
kharijites and you tell us whom it applies to more:

1. The kharijites believe the Quraan is created - shia also do.
2. The " believe the blood and honour of sahabah is dispensible
(They killed Abdullah Ibn Khabab - radia Allahu ANhu) with
cold blood.
Crezenski is not very responsible when it comes to the honour
of the sahabah - and if he gets a chance at their blood,
I do not think he will hesitate.
3. The Khawarij call the muslims kafirs, when they commit a sin
less than dibelieving in Allah. You are practically doing the
same when you call the sins of the first generation as kufr.

Now to your big challenge, it falls a part for a simple reason. The
knowledge the muslims have from the Quraan was already surpassing
the then contemporary knowledge, so if a muslim scholar or writer
concludes something like that and puts in a book, it is not a big
deal.

Secondly, Alii radia Allah Anhu may have written some of the sermons
in Nahju ALbalaghah. The author of this was was a grand-grand .. son
of his and there may have been some truth to the otherwise sectarian
slanted bulk of the book.

The author himself was a philosopher/poet/politican. His name was
alshareef alradiyy. He did not even disclaim the authorship of the
book. The point of dispute however, is whether the whole book was
the sayings of Aliyy - or that much of it was of the creation of Alshareef
alradiyy himself?

Our inclination is to the second opinion. There is a problem here which
that you do not talk Arabic. If you did you will find discrepency in
the style between one khutbah and another. I know it because I can
speak and read Arabic fluently. I suggest that you make some
effort to get a good ahndle on Arabic, and then read Nahjul Balaghah
and find that for yourself.

About the matter that there are scientific knoweldge that Ali might have
conveyed - I have no quarrel with that. I am even the more too happy,
because we Ahlusunnah love all the sahabah including ALi. And if you
prove that he said somethig of this nature, I will be proud of 'OUR'
khalifah and Sahabi ALi who used to drink from the fountain of prophethood,
and who is the son-in-law of the Prophet (peace be upon him) - just
like the other Sahabi (Othman) that you love to hate.

Wassalam Ala Man Ittaba Alhuda

--
----------------______________--------------------________________
_=asd0g jf kdfjg 9f-f\\ ukjfghsfg 0==0gh -
Mahdiyy ------ Sleep never increases age <> Nor
does lack of it decreases age ....

[Thomas Crescenzi]

Mehdi wrote:

> Back again with a new name Huh. You tried before to be friendly

actually, i did not start this thread.. i don't even recall replying in
it.. or are you assuming that anyone who is anti-wahhabi is me? wake
up.. the wahhabiyya movement is hated by many muslims, sunni and shi`a..
not just me..

> 2. The " believe the blood and honour of sahabah is dispensible

> Crezenski is not very responsible when it comes to the honour
> of the sahabah - and if he gets a chance at their blood,
> I do not think he will hesitate.

no, i would not seek out sahaba to kill.. but you can be sure that if i
saw talhah or `a'isha leading a charge against `ali, i wouldn't hesitate
for a second to shoot an arrow right through their skull.. the
difference is that you would kill me for reciting sura-e-hamd at a
gravesite or performing namaz slightly differently..

> 3. The Khawarij call the muslims kafirs, when they commit a sin
> less than dibelieving in Allah. You are practically doing the

you're kidding me, right? this, if nothing else, is THE reason the
wahhabis became (in)famous!! the ummah has never seen such carnage as
what was carried out by the wahhabis against shi`a and sufis, not to
mention sunnis who dared visit the graves of their imams! nothing else
in islamic history, except perhaps kerbala, could compare to the
bloodshed at the hands of the wahhabis!!

> book. The point of dispute however, is whether the whole book was
> the sayings of Aliyy - or that much of it was of the creation of Alshareef
> alradiyy himself?

i seriously doubt that al-razi wrote the sermons and letters in nahj
ul-balagha, for the simple reason that he is very careful to offset his
own words from the text he is commenting on.. why would he make such a
distinction if the sermons and letters were his own?

> that you do not talk Arabic. If you did you will find discrepency in
> the style between one khutbah and another. I know it because I can
> speak and read Arabic fluently. I suggest that you make some

so tell me, is there also a difference in the arabic used by al-razi in
his commentary from the arabic of the actual sermons and letters
themselves?

reza
w...@cris.com

[m a m]

Thomas Crescenzi wrote:

> you're kidding me, right? this, if nothing else, is THE reason the
> wahhabis became (in)famous!! the ummah has never seen such carnage as
> what was carried out by the wahhabis against shi`a and sufis, not to
> mention sunnis who dared visit the graves of their imams! nothing else
> in islamic history, except perhaps kerbala, could compare to the
> bloodshed at the hands of the wahhabis!!

Ummm, let me think about it.. hypotheticaly if the followers
of Abdulwahab did what accuse them by ..

Wasn't their a country that existed earlier in the Islamic
history who killed the Muslims in Makkah..in the Holly
Mosque.. around the Ka'abah..

oh ya, I think they have demolished the Ka'abah too ..

and if my memory hasn't failed completly I think they
took the Black Stoon for more than 20 years to a place
called .. oh God, what was the name of that place ..
oh ya, Al-qateef in the Arabian Peninsola ..

My God what was the name of that group ... for sure
thy're not Wahabies, thy were a lot earlier in History ..

oh now it's coming back to me; they are ...
Al-qarametah ( SHIA'AH )
there leader is ...
Abdullah Attaher (who really be called Annajess) ..
and there capital was ..
Al-qateef (which still 100% shia'as till now in Saudi Arabia) ..
and they where defeated by the great Muslims ..
Assalajeqah ..
who ofcours were Sunnies, and took back the Black Stoon to Makkah.

Alhamdu LELLAH! and some one thoat that we lost our memory.

{want another example .. the Shia'at helped the mongools take over
Baghdad with out any obistacles or fighting .. and there happend
what could be the worst genocid in human history .. thankx to the
Shia'as under the leadership of the trader Attusi}

majed

[D A Rice]

In article <5fnmgg$3...@shell3.ba.best.com>, Alb...@cris.com (ALBANI2) writes:
> I am interested in finding out if anyone from these schools has read the
> book Najh-ul-Balagha, who is also knowledgeable on Physics and Astrophysics?

I don't know about this book, and haven't read it.

What is it?

> I also challenge the Salafis/Wahabis/Kharajites/Sunnis to prove that the
> author of the book was not Hazrat Ali.

I don't know of this book, and I never read of Hazrat Ali (r.a.)
having written a book, though some of his sayings have been preserved
for us, to my knowledge.

Sunni Muslims accept Hazrat Ali (r.a.) as the 4th rightly guided
Khalifa (we do not reject Ali (r.a.) as you seem to think).

Those on the Sufi path recognize Ali (r.a.) as one of the two paths of
transmission of knowledge of Tasawwuf (the other chain was through Abu
Bakr (r.a.)).

> This challenge to look into these questions is especially directed to Dean
> Rice, a physics student from the Sunni Sufi school of Naqshbandi,

Well, I don't know of the book, so I can't give any opinion about it
one way or another. If in this book there is presented great
knowledge of science, then alhamdulillah. However, since I haven't
seen it, I can't say anything.

By the way, most Sufi schools trace their lineage through Ali (r.a.),
so would have no problem with the notion that Ali (r.a.) had great
insight and knowledge. The Naqshbandi tariqa is one of the few
(perhaps the only) tariqa which traces its lineage through Abu Bakr
(r.a.).

As for me, while I have attended the Naqshbandi dhikr, alhamdulillah,
I have not yet made bay'at to a Shaykh, so I am not yet properly a
"Naqshbandi," though my heart turns strongly in that way.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Fariduddien Rice

[ALBANI2]

In article <5g1f2p$b...@shell3.ba.best.com>,

Thomas Crescenzi <w...@cris.com> wrote:
>Mehdi wrote:
>
>> Back again with a new name Huh. You tried before to be friendly
>
>actually, i did not start this thread.. i don't even recall replying in
>it.. or are you assuming that anyone who is anti-wahhabi is me? wake
>up.. the wahhabiyya movement is hated by many muslims, sunni and shi`a..
>not just me..

My purpose in starting this thread was to have an in-depth public
discussion between the schools of Islam. The discussion would
disintegerate if we fail to focus on this objective, and get into
accusing each other, or fail to respect each other. We need to focus
on issues, and the respective positions, rather than personalities.
We need to back up our assertions from the commonly accepted premises
and sources among all muslims, shia, sunni, wahabi, sufi and ismaili.
The correspondence of these or any disputed sources with the laws of
nature, or later historical unfolding serves to credit or discredit the
source of dispute if the claims are falsifiable. I hope that at the end of
this thread we emerge with greater unity, and I urge myself and others to
keep this in mind.

Pointing to facts for the sake of bringing a fact, such as the one above
in which Thomas says that the wahabis are generally disliked by sunnis in
Pakistan, Malaysia and in Europe/USA, all of the four are neutral to a
large extent is not a statement of hatred. It is actually a reflection of
the fact that the system there is so primitive, the rights of people are
so poor that enormous oil wealth has not helped their growth as much as it
should have. The three way war, saudi/kuwait/iraq with 150 billion loss is
a glaring testimony to the stupidity. I know that in saudi they used to
give saudi Riyal 25000 to every citizen as in incentive to get a BS
degree. Now they have even cut the medical treatment to non-citizens. All
resulting from stupidity. I would not talk of these political issues, but
for the fact that these are intimately related to religion, and the
wahabi philosophy conducive to dictatorships. By focusing on
particularisms it divorces the religion from the more important goals. The
result is that pornographic literature is freely available in saudi while
it clamps hard on other freedoms and sharing of governing power among
people. By denying citizenship to muslim people from elsewhere who have
lived there, or even dual citizenship, it has created an apartheid
situation, that benefits none including the local citizen except the
ruling class. These facts are well known and I am not the first to say
them. More of these in reply to Mahdi's post later.

We grow by finding our own mistakes/flaws and correcting them. Many a
times we need others to point out the flaws. Allah has created social
political, intellectual evolution to favor those nations who are willing
to progress (ie correct the flaws). After all, progress (for which
intellect was given and distinguishes from mighty creatures like the
gorillas and monkeys) is Allah's will for mankind and the reason for
subordinating angels to us. I hope that this pointing out of faults does
not become a tit-for-tat, for those parents who always scold their
children are not usually effective, even though the advice is meant out of
good intentions.

[Thomas Crescenzi]

the qaramites were ghulaat.. shi`a have always condemned the ghulaat..
anyone who claims godship of any person or places any human being in
higher rank than muhammad ibn `abdillah is not a shi`a.. plain and
simple..

reza
w...@cris.com

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

m a m wrote:
>
> Thomas Crescenzi wrote:
>
> > you're kidding me, right? this, if nothing else, is THE reason the
> > wahhabis became (in)famous!! the ummah has never seen such carnage as
> > what was carried out by the wahhabis against shi`a and sufis, not to
> > mention sunnis who dared visit the graves of their imams! nothing else
> > in islamic history, except perhaps kerbala, could compare to the
> > bloodshed at the hands of the wahhabis!!
>
> Ummm, let me think about it.. hypotheticaly if the followers
> of Abdulwahab did what accuse them by ..
>
> Wasn't their a country that existed earlier in the Islamic
> history who killed the Muslims in Makkah..in the Holly
> Mosque.. around the Ka'abah..
>
> oh ya, I think they have demolished the Ka'abah too ..
>

Arguments like these get us nowhere.
I can go back to even earlier in history and name a Caliph who
according to some would be an Ollel-Amr (The one with authority)
who called Medina and what/who is in it halal for his army and
ordered his army to do what they want for days. The tragedy was
so great that for 20 years, people would not expect the new brides
to be virgins.
The same army then went to Mecca, did another bloodshed, and
oh yes, destroyed Kaaba as well. (I think burned it, if memory
serves right).

How are you feeling now? any better? I sincerely doubt so. But fair
is fair. an eye for an eye.
The fact is atrocities have happened. But with the new attention
that Islam has received in the west for the past decade or so, it
becomes even more imperative to set our differences aside.
Remember, Good and Evil can not avoid confrontation. It has always
been like that. And it will always remain that way.
It is high time for us to spread some tolerance. To think of the
glass as half full instead of half empty. For God's sake, dont we
have anything in common? Arent we first muslims and then
shia or sunni?
If we indeed opened our eyes, it would be pretty clear who is trying
to divide us, who could benefit from it, and who would conquer.

Set the minor issues aside, there are more important things in life
to attend to.

Regards,
Shahryar

[Mehdi]

Shahryar Razmafrooz <sha...@acel.net.au> writes:

>Arguments like these get us nowhere.
>I can go back to even earlier in history and name a Caliph who
>according to some would be an Ollel-Amr (The one with authority)
>who called Medina and what/who is in it halal for his army and
>ordered his army to do what they want for days. The tragedy was
>so great that for 20 years, people would not expect the new brides
>to be virgins.
>The same army then went to Mecca, did another bloodshed, and
>oh yes, destroyed Kaaba as well. (I think burned it, if memory
>serves right).

I hate to say this - but I would like to impress on you brother
Shahryar [regarding of the authenticities] of the detail of
waq3at al-harrah in the time of Yazeed, that in that instance
and in the instance of Baghdad, we were on the receiving end
in both cases.

In the first case, AHlusunnah were violated by Al-Nawasib,
and the second case by the Shia supported Hulagu. In both
cases we were not the oppressors. Ahlusunnah are actually the
followers of Ali and his son after him Hasan who opted to
unite the majority of Muslims who are neither Naisibi's nor
Rafidi's.

The nawasib are those who killed Imam Husain and some of his
family, or were pleased with that. The rawafidh are those who
claimed Tashiyyu` to Ali and his proginey but when
push came to shove, they reversed their shields toward them,
and rejected him! and rejected his son Hasan and called
him "The blackner of the faces of the believers" and rejected
Husain and tricked him into his the massacre at Karbala`.

It is interesting to note that those who showed most treachery
to Husain were thought to be stout followers of Aliyy in his
time by the admission of shia. They also were the killers of Uthman.

It is interesting to note that most of the Muslims of that time
were leaned neither way, but were moderate. The very reason
why Madinah was sacked by the army of Yazeed is this moderation
and following the "Nasb" path by Yazeed, which is nothing but a byproduct
of Ghuloww. It is interesting that Khawarij, Rawafidh, and all
kinds of unweildly groups did not come from the masses of the muslims
but from the minority that decieved Aliyy and his sons in the first
place. Hasan realizing that after many years knew for sure that
his supposed shia are nothing but treacherous ground off which he needs
to get.

The killers of Husain are ex-shia (shamr and the rest of the gang).
The true sympathizers of Husain were Ahlu Almadinah who were
sacked, his family (like Ibn Abbas) who advised him not to go
to Iraq like he advised his father.
Those who attempted assasinating Hasan were his own shia.
Those who killed Aliyy were Ex-shia (Khawarij).
The father of Ubaidillah Ibn Ziyad (Ziyad Ibn Abeeh) was a
stout shia of Aliyy.

My point is: do not say that Ahlusunnah accept Yazeed as a just
Imam of AHlusunnah! To the contrary we believe a muslim Imam
can be Jaeir (meaning trangressing) and the best Jihad is
to confront him with advice - that was what got Ahlul Madeenah
in trouble - and Allah knows best.

Your brother,

Mahdiyy Al3rabiyy Alsuniyy
We think the sacking of Madeenah and the sacking of Baghdad
are similar crimes dones by those who do not fear Allah. That
makes the shia who claimed Hulagu an IThna Ashariyy Muslim in the
same camp with Yazeed - How do they like that?

>Regards,
>Shahryar

[Hazem Nasereddin]

In article <5g401c$e...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
m a m <ma...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

>oh ya, I think they have demolished the Ka'abah too ..

>My God what was the name of that group ... for sure
>thy're not Wahabies, thy were a lot earlier in History ..

>oh now it's coming back to me; they are ...
>Al-qarametah ( SHIA'AH )

Asslamau Alaikom

You forgot to mention that while they were killing the Sunni muslims
in Ka3ba they wer sayying to them "you say in your book that Allah
sends birds with stones in their mouths to kill those who threaten
his house, where are they now? (fa ayna al-tayr al-ababeel, wa ayna
al-7ijaratu min sijjeel?)"

and that their leader was shouting "ana billahi wa billahi ana,
aqtulu al-nasa wa o7yihim ana!!!!!" which the least we can say about
is kufr.

Let us also quote what another shia poet Ibn Hachem Al-Andalusi said
in praising Al-7akim Bi amr Allah Al-Fatimi which was hailed an
incarnation of Allah by the shi3a in egypt :-

Ma shi'ta anta la ma sha'at Al-Aqdaru
O7kom fa anta al-wa7idu al-qahharu!!!

(what you want will be not what the fate wants, rule you are the one
and the defeater - which are names of Allah)

Wal-3iyath Billah min hatha al-kufr.

wassalam
--
-=<<( ht...@ee.mcgill.ca )>>=- ,=====================.
-=<( http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/~htana )>=- | HaZeM T. NaSeRedDiN |`.
`====================='`:
`--------------------`'

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

Well, I learned my history lesson for today. Isn't Internet great?
I guess I owe an apology to all the shia brothers to whom my prior
post might have meant an acceptance of what Majid "m a m" claimed
about the Qaramites being Shia.

But my point remains the same. Shia or Sunni, we are all brothers
in Islam. A shia population in Bosnia would not be immune of
genocide the same way that a Sunni population wouldnt.

According to the same logic, a shia population outside Bosnia
would be obligated to help his muslim brothers the same way
that a Sunni population outside Bosnia would.

Kind Regards,
Shahryar Razmafrooz

[Thomas Crescenzi]

Shahryar Razmafrooz wrote:

> According to the same logic, a shia population outside Bosnia
> would be obligated to help his muslim brothers the same way
> that a Sunni population outside Bosnia would.

one thing i want to point out is that bosnian muslims are overwhelmingly
NOT shi`a, yet iran helped them.. but where was the support from all the
"sunni" countries, particularly saudi arabia whose reason for not
getting involved in bosnia probably had a lot to do with the fact that
saudi arabia is officially wahhabi and there is a lot of sufi influence
in bosnia (for anyone who missed some of the threads in this group or
has lived in a cave for a while, wahhabis don't exactly like sufis, to
say the least..)

reza
w...@cris.com

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

Mehdi wrote:
>
> I hate to say this - but I would like to impress on you brother
> Shahryar [regarding of the authenticities] of the detail of
> waq3at al-harrah in the time of Yazeed, that in that instance
> and in the instance of Baghdad, we were on the receiving end
> in both cases.

Define "we"!
There certainly was no distinction between Shia and Sunni at
that time. There was only God fearing muslims and not-so God
fearing ones.
How can you say that the people of Medina were Sunnis? (or
"all" sunnis? I hate generalizing)
And where were "WE", the shiite, in the waq3at al-harrah?
On Yazeed's side???

[Allow me to let other readers know what we are talking about here.
The time is only shortly after the tragedy of Karbala.
The rise of Imam Husain(as) had such effects in the Islamic world
that its echoes were being heard in every corner of Yazeeds
worldly empire. One of the first troublespots was Medina.]

> In the first case, AHlusunnah were violated by Al-Nawasib,
> and the second case by the Shia supported Hulagu. In both
> cases we were not the oppressors. Ahlusunnah are actually the
> followers of Ali and his son after him Hasan who opted to
> unite the majority of Muslims who are neither Naisibi's nor
> Rafidi's.

Where were they then?

Why is it that Hassan(as) says "If I had ten firm followers,
I wouldnt have accepted peace"?

How come Husain(as) has to leave Medina and go to Mecca?

My dear Mehdi, you are playing with terminologies.
Throw these terms in the rubbish bin of History and emphasise
on """OUR""" current problems.

> The nawasib are those who killed Imam Husain and some of his
> family, or were pleased with that. The rawafidh are those who
> claimed Tashiyyu` to Ali and his proginey but when
> push came to shove, they reversed their shields toward them,
> and rejected him! and rejected his son Hasan and called
> him "The blackner of the faces of the believers" and rejected
> Husain and tricked him into his the massacre at Karbala`.

"When push came to shove".

That is the point. May Allah take it easy on us at the time of
OUR test. Can you "Ahlusunnah, follower of Ali and his son after
him Hasan" claim honestly that if you were one of the people in
Medina or Kufa, you would opt to leave your family and fight
on Imam Hassan's side to the last drop of your blood?
You see, Imam Hassan didnt want "moderates"? He wanted people
to kill and die; Even after all those years of civil war.
Think about it. It is no easy choice.

[NB. I am not defending those who left the family of Prophet(sa)
alone. ]

> It is interesting to note that those who showed most treachery
> to Husain were thought to be stout followers of Aliyy in his
> time by the admission of shia.

It is very interesting indeed.

>They also were the killers of Uthman.

I thought Othman was killed by muslims from various lands,
mainly Egypt.

> It is interesting to note that most of the Muslims of that time
> were leaned neither way, but were moderate. The very reason
> why Madinah was sacked by the army of Yazeed is this moderation

Well, "most of the Muslims of that time" may have been wrong!
If moderation was the right option, Imam Husain would have stayed
in Medina and died with THEM.
The event of Karbala is one of the best documented events in Islamic
history. On his way to Karbala, Imam Husain was inviting every
person he would see to go and DIE with him. Some actually joined him.
But when he comes across the reluctance, he says, "just make
sure that you stay far far away from me. Cause if, on the noon
of Ashura, you hear my cry of "Hal men nAseren yansorni?"***, and
not rush to my help, you will be one of them"

***[Translation: Is there anyone who will help me]

> and following the "Nasb" path by Yazeed, which is nothing but a byproduct
> of Ghuloww. It is interesting that Khawarij, Rawafidh, and all
> kinds of unweildly groups did not come from the masses of the muslims
> but from the minority that decieved Aliyy and his sons in the first
> place. Hasan realizing that after many years knew for sure that
> his supposed shia are nothing but treacherous ground off which he needs
> to get.
>
> The killers of Husain are ex-shia (shamr and the rest of the gang).
> The true sympathizers of Husain were Ahlu Almadinah who were
> sacked, his family (like Ibn Abbas) who advised him not to go
> to Iraq like he advised his father.
> Those who attempted assasinating Hasan were his own shia.
> Those who killed Aliyy were Ex-shia (Khawarij).
> The father of Ubaidillah Ibn Ziyad (Ziyad Ibn Abeeh) was a
> stout shia of Aliyy.

Excuse me?

You are insulting the shias of Ali(as) by putting
them in the same group as Ziyad Ibn Abeeh.

> My point is: do not say that Ahlusunnah accept Yazeed as a just
> Imam of AHlusunnah!

I never said that. I said that according to some people Yazeed
would be regarded as an Ollel-Amr (The one with authority).

>To the contrary we believe a muslim Imam
> can be Jaeir (meaning trangressing) and the best Jihad is
> to confront him with advice - that was what got Ahlul Madeenah
> in trouble - and Allah knows best.
>
> Your brother,
>
> Mahdiyy Al3rabiyy Alsuniyy
> We think the sacking of Madeenah and the sacking of Baghdad
> are similar crimes dones by those who do not fear Allah. That
> makes the shia who claimed Hulagu an IThna Ashariyy Muslim in the
> same camp with Yazeed - How do they like that?

The fact that the attraction of Lion of God, Ali(as) and his family
crosses all borders is known to everyone. But there is a difference
between being sympathetic and sacrificing one's own life and family.
I am not saying that the shiites of Kufa did more justice to Imam
Husain or Imam Hassan (as both) than the sympathisers in Medina
(a lot of whom I am sure adored Hassan (as) and Husain (as) and
would indeed go to in great length defending them).
Lets also not forget that the same shia population of the same
infamous city (even to the shia) of Kufa, after the tragedy of
Karbala, became so upset of Husain(as) martyrdom that they
formed two uprisings. One was the famous rise of Mokhtar.
And the other was the less calculated rise of another group
who were so upset that their prime objective was to get killed
in Husain's path.

Another point I would like to mention is the word Sunnah.
After the second Caliph died. The apparent excuse of the
six man council to not accept Ali's caliphate was that when
asked whether Ali(as) would follow AbuBakr and Omar's sunnah,
as well as the Prophet(sa)'s sunnah, Ali(as) said that he would
only follow the prophet's sunnah. THAT was the difference
between shia and sunni at that time.

It is easy to put labels on people and associate others to them.
I know that alot of sunni brothers call the entire shia population
Rafedhi. And the sunni brothers get offended to hear that the shia
curse the first three Caliphs.
But where do these take us? That's what I like to know.

Regards,
Shahryar Razmafrooz

[Raef]

Mehdi <ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU> wrote in article
<5g82lg$5...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...

>.....
[Text Deleted]

AsSalaam Alaikum,

I would like to add on Mehdi's well said words, that we Sunni's
strongly believe that we are the real supporters of Ali.

Even though many were not in the army of Ali, but they supported
him in heart and would have joined him had they had the chance.

Being in the army of Ali did not mean a bit that those people really
supported Ali, as history shows that many of them were first to let
Ali down.

The Sunni's not condemning Muaaweya and specially Yazid as Kafirs
does not mean that they are supporters of what yazid did. On the contrary
there is not one Sunni who would condone what Yazid did, but Sunnis are
damners.

The Majority of muslims having passed such atrocities and black turmoils
had gathered their strength and thoughts and decided to wrap up what
happened as brotherly quarrels. They set certain criteria for referring to

those days and that became the ideals of the Sunni's all of such decisions
depended on the Quran, Hadith and Ijmaa.

Now there will always be extremes on both ends. The Sunnis tried to be
fair and safe.

[m a m]

Thomas Crescenzi wrote:

> one thing i want to point out is that bosnian muslims are overwhelmingly
> NOT shi`a, yet iran helped them..

I wouldn't deny this. I hope Iran will be this good all the time,
but I hope it's not another version of "revolution exportation"!

> but where was the support from all the
> "sunni" countries, particularly saudi arabia whose reason for not
> getting involved in bosnia probably had a lot to do with the fact that
> saudi arabia is officially wahhabi and there is a lot of sufi influence

easier said than proved!

you could claim any thing but when it comes to numbers
the "International Islamic Relief Organization" which
is headed in Jeddah, "WAMY" from Riyadh, "Alhaarameen
Org." from Riyadh and other Public and Private organization
from Saudi Arabia where and are from the top contributors
to the relief activities in Bosnia during and after the
war.

Note: this is not to defend the Saudi government, this
is to defend the Sunnis, to show the real picture, and
to refute the lie that Saudis dose not help other Muslims
because they're Whabies and others are not!

The fact is that "Wahabi Nightmare" is only in your heads.
Back in Saudi Arabia we don't even use the word Wahabi.
And thanks God, we DON'T say "madad ya Abdulwahab" nor
we celebrate his birth, we don't visit his grave (frankly
we don't know where is his grave and we don't even care),
nor we kick our selvs hard on Ashoura because we promised
him support and then let him down when he called us to save
his nick!

We say "madad ya ALLAH", we only celebrate the days
the Prophet Muhammad -s- celebrated, we don't make
a journy to visit any body's grave but when we come
by the Prophet's grave -s- we make salam to him and
pay respect as the Sahabah did, and finally when 10th
of Muharam comes we fast as the Prophet Muhammad -s-
fasted.

Haay! wake up, smell the coffee.

> in bosnia (for anyone who missed some of the threads in this group or
> has lived in a cave for a while, wahhabis don't exactly like sufis, to
> say the least..)

Will! let's put this it way : good believer's (weather they
know Abdulwahab or never heard of him) don't like bad sufies,
nor like sufism.

And for those Shiits who try to play bad politics and try to play on
the disagreements of Sunnis, I'll put it this way : true believers
(including moderate Sufis) don't like Shiites either.

Haay! are you still sleepy?

majed

[Mehdi]

Shahryar Razmafrooz <sha...@acel.net.au> writes:

>Another point I would like to mention is the word Sunnah.
>After the second Caliph died. The apparent excuse of the
>six man council to not accept Ali's caliphate was that when
>asked whether Ali(as) would follow AbuBakr and Omar's sunnah,
>as well as the Prophet(sa)'s sunnah, Ali(as) said that he would
>only follow the prophet's sunnah. THAT was the difference
>between shia and sunni at that time.

Agian. This is something you made up. I agree that Ali did not
oblige himself by following the Sunnah of Abi Bakr and Omar,
and Uthman did. May Allah be pleased with them all.
But you made up that this was the difference between the
sunnah and shia. Because, as you said before, the shia (as those
of today) did not exist then. I.e. all were followers of islam
as in Quraan and Sunnah.

Howver, we are here not talking about the Sunnah in the common
sense that we use for example to differentiate between the who
consider the primary sources of tashree` (legistlation) to be
two with no third to them , namely al-Quraan and the Sayings,
deeds, and approvals of the prophet (peace be upon him) the sum
of which is called sunnah, and those who consider the Imams
starting from Aliyy downward to the alleged 12 th imam, or the
seventh imam and continuing (in the case of Ismaeeliyah) or to
the Hakim bi Amri Allah in the case of the shia al-fatimiyyah
(aldurooz nowadays) as the third source of legislation.

The sunnah of Abi-Bakr and Omar that the six-man shura council
was dicussing was something called in Arabic Aqthiyah. In other
words the legal precedences in teh time of Abu Bakr and Omar
and how they treated them and made judgment regarding them in
consultations with other muslims. All the fiqh books actualy
are heavily dependant on Aqthiyah of Sahabah be it Aliyy, or the
other Khaleefs, and even the other Sahabah like Ibn mAsood,
al-ashariyy and the rest of the knowledgable sahabah who worked
at any time in a legislative capacity.

Aliyy did not reject them outright but he felt that he should not
oblige himself by them, even though later on his rule was not
much different than the three preceeding khalifah's.

>It is easy to put labels on people and associate others to them.
>I know that alot of sunni brothers call the entire shia population
>Rafedhi. And the sunni brothers get offended to hear that the shia
>curse the first three Caliphs.
>But where do these take us? That's what I like to know.

Regards,

Mahdiyy Al3rabiyy alsunniyy

And I am not one for playing with words.

>Regards,
>Shahryar Razmafrooz

[Mehdi]

Shahryar Razmafrooz <sha...@acel.net.au> writes:

First of all, I am not playing with words. Rather, when you sighted
Yazeed's attack of madinah, there was the very clear implication
of we and you- which you later seemed to be bewildered of.

>In the name of Him, the most High

In arabic Bismihi Ta`ala

>It is easy to put labels on people and associate others to them.
>I know that alot of sunni brothers call the entire shia population
>Rafedhi. And the sunni brothers get offended to hear that the shia
>curse the first three Caliphs.
>But where do these take us? That's what I like to know.

Calling the shia rawafidh is not nearly as bad as calling the first
three Khaleefah "cursed" which means -- going to hellfire.

The very meaning of rafidh in arabic is rejector, and that
in my opinion is a very accurate description of one who denies
the leaglity of three first khalifs. This word was coined by
Imam Zaid Ibn Aliyy Ibn ALhusain, one of the imams of Ahli-ALbait.

He coined this much later than ALmukhtar and al-khashabiyyah
(a group of shia that attempted to fight the umawiyyeen with
swords of wood and were wiped out -- as Shahryar alluded to).

Now Zaid when faced with these wretched people who ill-treated his
grandfather al-Husain Ibn Aliyy, his uncle Hasan, and his great
rgand father Alii Ibn Abi Talib long before, and by these I mean
the people of Iraq , they said to him:

"What do you think of the three first Khaleefs? he said: I have
not heard from my fathers except every good thing about them, although
we prefered if Aliyy was the khaleefah instead" - they said "we
are not following you except if you curse them." - this is at
a time when they have already brought him close to the Syrian
army. So he asked them:

Are you the migrators from Makkah to Madinah? they said no.
He said are you the ansar who supported al-muhajireen with all that
they have, they said: no. At which point he said: I swear by Allah
that you are not of the third group -- alluding to surat Al-Hashr,
the third groups said: O Allah forgive us and our brothers who
preceeded us in Iman - AND DO NOT MAKE IN OUR HEARTS ILL FEALING AND
HATERED TOWARD THOSE WHO BELEIVE - O Our Lord, you are oft-forgiving,
Merciful.

Then he said: You rejected me, you rejected me, and was killed
a short while after.

NOw the question brother Shahryar, why do you as you said above,
curse the first three khaleefs? it is much worse than the sunnah
calling the shia rafidhah for sure. Do you all have to do that.

If you are not forced to love them, you are not forced to abuse
them. At least this is not the morals of a muslim.

Who among the three first khaleef put on the fancy clothes, silk,
daybaj, and walked over the heads of the people. Who among them
sat behind when Rasool-Ullah called to jihad in the path of
Allah?

If you have so much precious deeds you hope Allah will reward for you,
then do not worry that they will snatch them from you, and if if they
have sins and bad deeds, you will not be burdened by them, they
are a nation that passed away, to them what they gained of deeds, and
to you what you gained. You will not be asked about what they used
to do.

Wassalam,

Mahdiy AL`rabiyy Alsunniyy
>Regards,
>Shahryar Razmafrooz

[ALBANI2]

In article <5gbk15$j...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

>one thing i want to point out is that bosnian muslims are overwhelmingly

>NOT shi`a, yet iran helped them.. but where was the support from all the

>"sunni" countries, particularly saudi arabia whose reason for not
>getting involved in bosnia probably had a lot to do with the fact that
>saudi arabia is officially wahhabi

This is a very valid point, and very well said. It actually points out to
me the good intentions of Iran vis-a-vis muslims by Iranian government.

The wahabis should take a good note of it. But perhaps they will not.
Because it is not in their immediate short term "material" interest. There
are many excuses in the Wahabi philosophy to cover up for this, what one
might term as hypocrisy.

It is for these reasons that I do not base much of my arguments on
theology, but on logic, or common sensical facts. Furthermore, one also
needs to base one's arguments on those sources which are acceptable to ALL
muslims. That does not always include the man made sharia. It does not
include the works of all scholars. One must select those Ayaa of Quran
whose meaning is clear and singular to all muslims.

Futhermore, one must not exclude indisputable historical facts such as the
one above, and also the scientific facts. The creator of the universe and
the Author of Quran are one and the same entity. The will of the author of
the QUran and the will of the creator of the universe is thesame will. The
science reflects and elaborates on Quran. For example, the law of
conservation of energy, which means that you cannot get anything for free
(in the context of it) does apply to many things in life, provided we
understand that one does discover wealth accidentally sometimes.

Ibn Khaldun, the muslim scholar, said that the past is not different from
the present one drop of water another. In this context I see great
similarity of the Yazidi/Muavia system with the one of gulf. The former
thrived on the new found wealth from the booty from the
roman/byzantine/persian empire. That regime silenced people through bribes
and selecting favorites, and infact, that is the way it implemented the
martyrdom of Huseyn. I ask readers to perform a thought experiment to
assume that they are Yazid, and now they have to plan to kill Huseyn. How
will they do it? You will find this thought experiment very instructive
the more you go into detail.

The present regime has found novel ways of bribing the religious people. I
was at a talk by Charles Le Gai Eaton. I found his book extremely
fascinating, because it is very similar to the Ismaili esoteric spiritual
approach to Islam. That was the reason I attended his talk. When I met the
man I discovered a few realities. First he is a chain smoker, that points
to his discipline, because you cannot be a true (true means high quality)
muslim unless you have discipline. Second, he also told us how he
converted to Islam. Well an Arab rich offered him a lot of money (a novel
way of bribing, and buying favorable opinion) if Eaton wrote how he became
a muslim. Well Eaton became muslim through the Sufi Tariqah whose esoteric
approach runs counter to the mechanical automaton, robotic, algorithmic
approach to Islam of wahabis.

Eaton was there "possibly" also to promote his second edition which
contained that story. Anyway, at the end of the talk I caught him and said
to him that I like his approach to Islam, and I found that it was very
similar to the way Ismailis thought, and if he could take the
bridge-building effort. He kind of was shaken and said that if he took the
name of Ismailis, there could be problems. Basically, he said that he
would be thrown out, and his dominant emotion was of fear, perhaps of
losing his position.

During the talk I also saw arabs, especially kuwaitis, making a big
chit-chat, or chuckle out of the Prince charles speech on Islam. Why?
Charles' words help them protray their relations (military collaboration,
and alliance of convenience and acceptance of non-democratic government)
with the west to be acceptable to their public. It detracts from the real
issues. What charles thinks or says will not change the reality on the
ground. middle-east will continue to enter the 2000 as an obsolete system
of government with no real unity, ie closed borders, apartheid, no
scientific and technical development, and concentration of wealth in the
hands of a few. There will be no reconciliation of relgion with the
realities of life in 2000.

It will be a failed system of government incapable of defending itself
individually or collectively against any of its common enemies even. When
the oil goes away, Israel will expand to contain the Middle East, for they
claim that their border extends till Khyber. From a material point of
view, Israel desperately needs labor. There is a very high concentration
of highly skilled technologists and all that they need is labor to
replicate the American experience in the Middle East.

In one talk to a Saudi, regarding apartheid, he said, "you can always
settle in saudi by marrying a saudi women." There are several problems to
this statement. First people find it repugnant to marry for the sake of
citizenship. Second, it is ususally the second generation that
intermarries. In the west we have several saudis, jordanians, iranians,
egyptians, pakistanis, palestinians, and other muslims married to the
other race. Why not this in saudi or elsewhere in the middle-east? because
by design, the laws are aimed to discourage it.

some sneaky person removed the posting of this thread to the alt.saudi and
alt.kuwati newsgroup. please maintain cross-posting there as well.

[ALBANI2]

In this thread, the posting has been non-sequential. The issues are
branching out like a tree. There are many unacknowledge replies as there
are unresponded postings. Please honestly consider each reply. I owe two
replies, one to the original one by Mehdi, and the other to Dean ALfred
Rice. The reply to the former is in preparation with reference material.
The reply is point by point, and quotations if necessary. The reply to
Dean will mainly consist of pointing him the book Nahjul Balagha's
edition, and relevant sections of it.

Similarly I want Mehdi al sunni al arabi al wahabi to achknowledge the
fact that I pointed out , which was that Ibn Khaldun did render services
to the Mongol Tamerlane. Infact, when you are overpowered by non-muslims,
things become very difficult. You can blame each other, but the real
problem lies in the laziness, dishonesty, disunity, BEFORE that time of
destiny, in failing to do the homework. The homework needs not be
physical, but it can be spiritual as well. For example, I see a terrible
future for the Gulf states, and a terrible chaos there, unless they make a
WILLING effor to change the system to a democratic one. It seems that this
will not happen before all the wealth is sucked out.

Yesterday, in the Khutba by Meher Hathout at an Islamic center, he raised
the question, why Quraan is failing to have the impact on our lives that
it had 1400 years ago!

The Quraan is the same. It is a historical fact and not fiction that it
did have an effect. Hence, it si our interpretation that could only be
wrong. "The voltage is there but somehow the current is not flowing." Why?

There are several possible theories:

We do not understand the language. We are perhaps missing something from
it by not knowing the language.

May be we are not understanding the language. Many people conclude this
and spend several years to go and understand the language (the original
arabic).

Dr. Meher Hathout said that this cannot be so, because the greatest
flowering of Islamic civilisation took place when the muslim world
consisted of no more than perhaps 10% arabs. This is a historical fact.

(Now I must mention what I observed. A person stood up right during the
Khutba in front of everyone, to say his sunnat, and I considered in my
mind, this as an extreme displacement of priorities to disregard the
khutba and instead say the sunnat prayer, because the main purpose of
jumma prayer is to get enlightenment from the khutba that perhaps take a
termendous time and thought to be as good and careful as Meher Hathout's
Khutbas are. This person was not alone. Another one popped up right in
front of everyone, blocking the view.)

Then he said that we also do not disregard QUraan, although everyone of us
uses it in a different way. Some read it occasionally, some read it daily,
so do not read it often, some read it on marriage, death, and so on. He
said a thing can have multiple uses, but if you do not use it for its main
purpose and use it for every thing else, then you are not using it
properly.

He said that we use quran for CEREMONIOUS purposes. We neglect its main
function which is to understand it and obey it. The legal code of QUran he
said is very small 10-15 pages and governs the framework of society, but
most of it is "esoteric". Note the word esoteric that he uttered. Then he
quoted an Ayat by QUran that I do not remember, but I will quote it
incorrectly ofr broken as correctyly and if someone recognise please post.

Inallah Ya moru Adli, wal Ihsani _____. Meaning do Adal (justice), then
Ihsaan (perfection, ....) and a third action which I missed. If you slam
me and I slap you, that is Adl. If you slamp me and I say a good thing to
forgive you (without condescension) that is Ihsan.

Let us look it in the context of nations. How Saudi gave money to Iraq to
go to war, make chemical weapons against iran. How then when Iraq turns
against Kuwait, as Allah has justice (delayed but nevertheless there) they
call in US to defend them. It all started with 10 year war to save
kingship and not religion. Where is Adl and Ihsaan? Iran did not invade
Iraq during the Gulf war.

Now let us look at the governmental system. The democtratic system of
balloting has been invented. It is more fair than kingship. If Adl is
applied here, the answer is clear.

Our Imam Aga Khan says in his interviews that if his racehorsing and other
activities are ever in the way of his main office, he will abandon them
immediately (Will the dictators of the muslim world give up certain things
when they become obstacle to progress?). His track record of achieving,
Islamic architecture teaching programs and his hospital/university and
many other successful and cost-effective projects are testimony to the
fact that they are not burdens. Similarly, I must commend at the
Brilliance of late Imam aga Khan 3 at having maintained and increased
them. It is due to these (racehorsing, etc. and the consequent press
coverage) that our Imam has not to go out to beg for attention of the
world, and the world comes to him automatically. Many of his programs
would have failed without this attention. It gives him leverage in dealing
with a world that only respects material success. The real genius is where
to draw the dividing line and our imams' careers shows that they know,
where to draw the line!

Further, the use of the word "esoteric" in Dr. Meher Hathout's Khutba,
says that the Ismaili approach to Interpreting Quran may be correct.

In the end Allah knows all that is right, neither a Ismaili nor
non-ismaili.

[Thomas Crescenzi]

zaid was not an imam of the ithna `ashari shi`a.. zaid was the imam of a
breakaway sect called the zaidiyya, who are prominent nowadays in
yemen.. the imam recognized by the majority of shi`a (later known as the
ithna `ashari because of the twelve imams) was `ali ibn hussayn zain
ul-`abidin..

[Thomas Crescenzi]

correction.. the dispute was not over whether the rightful imam was
zainul-`abidin or zaid (his son).. it was between zaid and abu ja`far
musa al-kadhim, the 5th imam..

[ALBANI2]

In article <5gh2sg$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

m a m <ma...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

Thomas Crescenzi wrote:
one thing i want to point out is that bosnian muslims are overwhelmingly
NOT shi`a, yet iran helped them..

majed replied:

I wouldn't deny this. I hope Iran will be this good all the time,
but I hope it's not another version of "revolution exportation"!

albani2 says:

What revolution are you talking about? why would anyone export revolution.
A controlled response is not possible if there is iron resistance. It was
your own saudis that exploded the bombs. Al saud government is from among
you. You spent 160 billion to aid iraq, to create bloodshed, and then it
came back to you. FACE IT LIKE A MAN! JUST FACE THESE IMMENSE FACTS. WE
ARE TALKING OF UNPROVOKED BLOODSHED, AND YOU TASTED IT, OTHERWISE WHY
WOULD YOU CALL UNCLE SAM AGAINST SADDAM?

Now also talk about oil prices. Why dont you raise prices the
american way. American education which is so over-priced cannot
be afforded by anyone without financial aid. Why cant you raise
oil prices and then give financial aid to the Muslim countries?

>easier said than proved!
>
>you could claim any thing but when it comes to numbers

Actually numbers do not matter, but the percentage, and how
much burden it causes to the donor, in Allah's point of
view. Iran emerged from 10 years war and an embargo. Saud has
a very small indigneous population, and there is large per-capita
oil GNP excess.

>the "International Islamic Relief Organization" which
>is headed in Jeddah, "WAMY" from Riyadh, "Alhaarameen
>Org." from Riyadh and other Public and Private organization
>from Saudi Arabia where and are from the top contributors
>to the relief activities in Bosnia during and after the
>war.
>
>Note: this is not to defend the Saudi government, this
>is to defend the Sunnis, to show the real picture, and
>to refute the lie that Saudis dose not help other Muslims
>because they're Whabies and others are not!

Why can't you convince your government to try to
enter into a modern more "3adaal" system of government,
by retiring the kingship and accept democracy? If you
do not make it a pressure cooker, then it will be a
very admirable evolution. Now is Dr. Al-Massari funded
by Iran? Did Iran bribe Bin-Ladin? Is Bin-Ladin Shia?
Not in the least!

>The fact is that "Wahabi Nightmare" is only in your heads.
>Back in Saudi Arabia we don't even use the word Wahabi.

It is accepted, and internalised well. Frogs of a pond
always assume theirs is the only one. I assume that they
are not aware of the contrast, and they never talk about it.

>And thanks God, we DON'T say "madad ya Abdulwahab" nor
>we celebrate his birth, we don't visit his grave (frankly
>we don't know where is his grave and we don't even care),

but the picture of the Khadim-ul-haramin is in every
shop, and government department and aired with the
"bilaadi" nationalistic songs every day. Now that is
personality cult. Wahabism allows it because it
bows to the existing power, by downgrading the Prophet
to a mere law-giver.

>nor we kick our selvs hard on Ashoura because we promised
>him support and then let him down when he called us to save
>his nick!

>Haay! wake up, smell the coffee.

>And for those Shiits who try to play bad politics and try to play on

>the disagreements of Sunnis, I'll put it this way : true believers
>(including moderate Sufis) don't like Shiites either.

If you had followed this thread, I have constantly urged that
there should be unity among the muslims. You created disunity.
Iran did not beg saddam to invade kuwait, your buddy winked at
him. And you were stupid not to realise that your buddy winked
at him whom you called for help. You were not moral enough to
realise that one should now sow disunity among muslims.

>Haay! are you still sleepy?

will wake you when the oil runs out!

>majed

Seriously: Let me state my conclusion. I have no hatred against the
saudis or wahabis. I only state, all the oil rich countries have a great
potential to help themselves and the rest of the muslim world if they
implement more democratic, and Islamic, (apartheid, against saudi,
"rafeeq", and so on is not islamic) policies. This especially includes
immigration laws. They should give citizenship to muslims from the rest of
the world who are well qualified to contribute to the growth of the
country. Further, they should also learn some wisdom from the west, which
is trying various measures of unity in the european union. Iran has
achieved a democratic government system, not perfect, but better than
before. I do not say revolution, but you should try to progress also.

[Jamshed Nawaz]

In article <5gh3r8$9...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,

ALBANI2 <Alb...@cris.com> wrote:
>In article <5gbk15$j...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
\\
\\\\one thing i want to point out is that bosnian muslims are overwhelmingly
\\\\NOT shi`a, yet iran helped them.. but where was the support from all the

\\
\\This is a very valid point, and very well said. It actually points out to

\\me the good intentions of Iran vis-a-vis muslims by Iranian government.

What intentions does the Iranian govt betray by militarily &
financially supporting the communists against the Muslims in
Afghanistan?

jn

[Ali Abbas]

In the name of the Most High
Assalam o Alaikum!

Mehdi (ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

: The nawasib are those who killed Imam Husain and some of his

: family, or were pleased with that. The rawafidh are those who
: claimed Tashiyyu` to Ali and his proginey but when
: push came to shove, they reversed their shields toward them,
: and rejected him! and rejected his son Hasan and called
: him "The blackner of the faces of the believers" and rejected
: Husain and tricked him into his the massacre at Karbala`.

Certainly this will make Yazid a Nasibi right, but then Yazid is also
counted among the Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah; however with a slight
correction that he was not righteous. What a mockery of the status of
Imamat. Yazid was responsible for the killing of Imam Husayn (AS), and
as such there is enough evidence from the Sunni quarters to dis-credit
what you have shared with us. Well, let us first turn to Yazid's, the
Imam of the Ahlus Sunnah, and his pillage of Medina, and the reasons
why the Medinites rebelled against him,

al Wakidi records with various lines of ascription that Abdullah b.
Handhalah bil Ghasil said, 'by Allah, we did not rebel against Yazid
until we feared that we should be stoned from heaven on account of
a man who would marry slave mothers who had borne children to their
masters and daughters and sisters, and drink wine and abandon the
public prayers.

The same reference, also notes on the sacking of Medina

A large number of the Companions and others were slain in it, and
Medina was sacked and THOUSANDS virigins violated.

Furthermore, he writes,

The apostle hath said: He who intimidateth the people of Medina
the Lord shall put him in fear and upon him be the curse of GOD
and His ANGELS and ALL of mankind. (Muslim relates this).

Sunni ref:

- History of the Caliphs, as Suyuti, p. 213 (Ebglish transl.)
- History, Tabari, vol. 4 p 383
- History, Ibn al Athir, vol. 3 p 316
- History, Ibn Katheer, vol. 8 p 225
- Khilafat o Mulukiyat, Maududi, p. 184

: It is interesting to note that those who showed most treachery

: to Husain were thought to be stout followers of Aliyy in his
: time by the admission of shia. They also were the killers of Uthman.

My amazement to the historical in-consistencies that are imparted to
us, never cease to exist. Who were the killer of Usman, we shall
reveal that in a seperate post, however, there is unanimity among the
Sunni scholars (and their followers want us to believe other wise),
that Yazid was responsible for the killing of Imam Husayn (AS). Among
the list of in-iquties complied by the Sunni Ulama, here are a few

1. His killing of Imam Husayn (AS)
2. The tragic event of the battle of Harrah. Ibn Katheer notes that
in one day alone, 1000 thousand women were raped. It is also
on this very basis, that some Sunni Ulama, make it permissible
to curse Yazid. Ahmed Hanbal, is among one of them, and he sites
Surah Muhammad Verse 22-23 as a proof, when questiond by his son
3. The pillage of Medina as already discussed.

Sunni ref:

- Khilafat to Mulukiyat, Maududi, p. 179-84, with references made to
historical works of Tabari, Ibn Katheer, Ibn al Atheer.

The list is endless, but what is sad is the lack of acknowledgement to
accept what the books have to offer. Perhaps righteosness was never a
criteria for the election of the Caliphs for the Sunnis, what we
witnessed in the post on Saqifa, the words of Umar, that indeed it was
a "faltah", is indeed a witness to it.

More shall be said, when we discuss the Killer of Usman, who was
charged with nepotism, and his abeyance to Marwan was certainly the
cause of his downfall.

Regards

Abbas

[Mehdi]

Thomas Crescenzi <w...@cris.com> writes:

Teh problem with this is that if you claim Ali Zain AL-abedden (RA) is
a ma3soom imam who knows among many things who the next imam is,then there
should not have been any dispute between Zaid and Ja3far on the point of who is imam.

My point is - these were all pious people who never imagined what the shia
of today will come and claim in their names. Zaid chose the path of open
revolution against whom he considered a tyrant Imam while Ja3far chose the
peaceful path of teaching and spreading knowledge. Insha Allah, each of
them is rewarded. Howver, the shia (ithna Ashariyyah) do not look at it
this way, but consider Zaid a dissidant against his brother and family. May
Allah save us from Ghulow, for this is the way of thinking of the Ghulat. You
are either Imam or the worst of .....

You mean Ja3far Ibn Aliyy?! Hay you are in danger because you do not know
your imams, and thisi is one of your 5 pillars of tashiy`.

Of course Zaidiyyah are much closer to Ahlusunnah. They do not consider the
imams as ma3soomeen, and they consider an Imam only he who seeks to lead
against a tyrant Imam and establish his state. That is why throughout history
there were a few Zaidi states around even until very recently.

[Mehdi]

ab...@seas.gwu.edu (Ali Abbas) writes:

>In the name of the Most High
>Assalam o Alaikum!

>Mehdi (ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

>Certainly this will make Yazid a Nasibi right, but then Yazid is also
>counted among the Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah; however with a slight
>correction that he was not righteous. What a mockery of the status of
>Imamat. Yazid was responsible for the killing of Imam Husayn (AS), and
>as such there is enough evidence from the Sunni quarters to dis-credit
>what you have shared with us. Well, let us first turn to Yazid's, the
>Imam of the Ahlus Sunnah, and his pillage of Medina, and the reasons
>why the Medinites rebelled against him,

Stop playing with words Abbas. Imam in Arabic (which should learn) is
leader/governor and Ahlusnnuah do not have mystic meanings for this word
as you do. It is just that a governor or leader.

The prophet (peace be upon him) said: " The master of Martyers is
Hamzah, and a man who stood up against a tyrant Imam (notice how Imam
is used here for tyrant "Ja'ir") and he killed him "

I see the second one applying to Husian (Radia Allahu Anhu), being
a martyer because he stood against a tyrant Imam.

When you say : Yazeed - the Imam of AHlunsunnah you discredit but
yourself because the people can see through your play of words. Yazeed
was Imam of the people of his time. He did some good things concerning the
spread of Islam. He did some very baad things concerning Husain and Madinah.
He will meet his Lord and he will judge him, me and you, and whether he will
be puished or not will raise or decrease little for me and you.

> al Wakidi records with various lines of ascription that Abdullah b.

Al-Waqidi is a shi3i. So his narration is fake.
The ulema said about him "The waqidi [which means the burned one]
is a burned shii." Meaning his narration is very unreliable.

> Handhalah bil Ghasil said, 'by Allah, we did not rebel against Yazid
> until we feared that we should be stoned from heaven on account of
> a man who would marry slave mothers who had borne children to their
> masters and daughters and sisters, and drink wine and abandon the
> public prayers.

>The same reference, also notes on the sacking of Medina

Mehdi Al3rabiyy alsunniyy ..

[a...@scz.ssi1.com]

...deleted

>In both
>cases we were not the oppressors. Ahlusunnah are actually the
>followers of Ali and his son after him Hasan who opted to
>unite the majority of Muslims who are neither Naisibi's nor
>Rafidi's.
>
>The nawasib are those who killed Imam Husain and some of his
>family, or were pleased with that. The rawafidh are those who
>claimed Tashiyyu` to Ali and his proginey but when
>push came to shove, they reversed their shields toward them,
>and rejected him! and rejected his son Hasan and called
>him "The blackner of the faces of the believers" and rejected
>Husain and tricked him into his the massacre at Karbala`.
>
>It is interesting to note that those who showed most treachery
>to Husain were thought to be stout followers of Aliyy in his
>time by the admission of shia. They also were the killers of Uthman.

Al-Tabari states the Ibn Ziyad (Marjanah) the Governor of Bani Umayyah
ordered his forces to ensure not a single drop of water should
reach Al-Hussain Ibn Ali in Kerbala was to not only Kill Al-Hussain Ibn Ali
but also to make him and his family suffer the THIRST as was Califh Usman
was thursty. It was revenge of Usman that was being taken from the progeny
of Ali and Rasool-Allah.
Al-Tabari also states that after the news of Karbala reached
Madina and how Imam Hussain Ibn Ali was martyred on the day of Ashoora,
the Governor of Madina summoned the people and Informed as to what happened
in Karbala and also upon the return of Ahlal-bayt taunted the family of the
Prophet by saying "They should cry and weep on al-hussain ibn Ali
as the family of Usman was made to weep upon his death , as this is
revenge of Usman" (I am quoting from memory, can provide details of
Al-Tabari Text).

Hence one of the slogans of the killers of Al-Hussain Ibn Ali on the Day
of Asoora was "REVENGE of the blood of Usman"

>
>It is interesting to note that most of the Muslims of that time
>were leaned neither way, but were moderate.

Islam had no notion of moderation at any time, In Mecca and Medina during
the time of the Prophet, the people were either muslims or mushrik. Does
Ahl-sunnah have any sahabi during the time of the prophet who was moderate
i.e beleived in Islam and its leadership but was not sure which path to take
and is considered a muslim ? I dont think so.

> The very reason
>why Madinah was sacked by the army of Yazeed is this moderation

>.......deleted

>The killers of Husain are ex-shia (shamr and the rest of the gang).
>The true sympathizers of Husain were Ahlu Almadinah who were
>sacked, his family (like Ibn Abbas) who advised him not to go
>to Iraq like he advised his father.
>Those who attempted assasinating Hasan were his own shia.
>Those who killed Aliyy were Ex-shia (Khawarij)

Yazid had demanded the bayat of Al-Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr ,
Abdullah Ibn Umar. Al-Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr left for
Mecca. Abdullah Ibn Zubayr was taking refuge in Mecca and later declared
his Leadership, after the events of Kerbala suporters of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr
were able to take control of Medina. Bani Umayyah in Madina, Marwan and
others asked Yazid to get his forces to Madina, upon arrival at the borders
the Son of Marwan described to the forces of Yazid on how to Attack Madina.
Madina was attacked and plundered. The forces of Yazid then moved to
Mecca to get Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, they fought for a year in Mecca. Mecca
was burnt/buckled and grounded in the war. When Abdullah Ibn Zubayr was
fighting Bani Ummmayah he asked Al-Muktar (shia) and other Shia leaders
for help and they sided Abdullah Ibn Zubayr in this war. In this war
Abdullah Ibn Zubayr even sought the Help of Kawarij against Yazid. Shia's
are not Kawarij. Kawarij hated Ali Ibn Abi Talib & Bani Ummmayah, dont
keep argueing that they were one time shia, Shaitan was a one time most
pious but became Shaitan and Curse of Allah is upon him.

(accounts from Al-Tabari)

...deleted

>
>The father of Ubaidillah Ibn Ziyad (Ziyad Ibn Abeeh) was a
> stout shia of Aliyy.

The Son of prophet Noah did not follow the path of his father, what are
you trying to prove.

>
>
>My point is: do not say that Ahlusunnah accept Yazeed as a just
>Imam of AHlusunnah! To the contrary we believe a muslim Imam
>can be Jaeir (meaning trangressing) and the best Jihad is
>to confront him with advice - that was what got Ahlul Madeenah
>in trouble - and Allah knows best.
>

Who does Ahlusunnah accept as Imam in RELIGION and STATE affairs. Are the
Imams/Kalifah only rulers/governors in literal Arabic meaning and can do
whatever (unjust) it takes to govern ? or they are considered the highest
authority alive in Islam at that time to implement the rule of Allah (s.w.t)
on earth. A trangressing imam should just be confronted with advice and
muslims should perform jehad with kuffar ? The prior imam of Ahlul Sunnah
Mawwiyya imposes Yazid to Chalifate and muslims should advice him
if he is trangressing and in response to that advice they can be massacared
and Ahlul Sunnah are not confident in the Justice of Allah (s.w.t) as to
what his fate would be ?.
Another Imam of AHlusunnah:
---------------------------
Tabari writes that after the death of Yazid,
Ibn Marjanah advised Marwan to claim Leadership and undermine Khalid Ibn Yazid
by marrying his mother. Marwan marries Khalids mother so that he does not
claim Leadership on account of being son of Yazid. Ibn Marjanah further
sugest Marwan to dis-credit Khalid in presence of others and Marwan calls
Khalid "Here comes Son of Whore"(Al-Tabari), to which Khalid complains his
mother. She suggested Kalid to act normal and on one of Marwan's visit
to Khalid's mother She soffocated him to death with the help of a pillow.

If AHlusunnah claims Abdullah Ibn Zubair to be thier just Imam/Chalifah and
at the same time claim they were grieved on the martydom of Imam Hussain
and they are not a part of it, then Tabari writes that when Al-Mukhtars
movement gained grounds and started taking revenge of the blood of Hussain
and identified his Imam to be Mohammed (Ibn Ali Ibn Abi Talib) Hanafiyyah,
Ibn Hbn Zubair imprisoned Mohammed Hanafiyyah the brother of Imam Hussain and
threatened to burn him alive if he and his followers did not give bayat
(allegience) to him. Al-Muktar raided the place of confinement and released
him, when asked Mohammed Hanafiyyah of retaliation and war he stopped them
due to the sanctity of Kaaba.

The Shia's are again and agin told that it was their people who were also
present in kerbala against Al-Hussain. They were people who did participate
and their actions will take them to Hell, and some later realized and gave
thier life fighting Bani Ummayah. On the other hand The first commander
of Yazid army Al-Hurr who contained Al-Hussain in the desert of Kerbala,
awaiting futher orders and extra help realized on the the day of Ashoora
that he is not on the right path. He defected Yazid's army, came to Al-Hussain
and asked for forgiveness. He was the first ones to attain marthydom from
Al-Hussain side in kerbala. Imam Al-Hussain not only forgave him but assured
that his grandfather Rasool-Allah forgave him too. Shias have a high respect
for Al-hurr.

The criteria of a muslim should be Haqq (truth/rightousness) and
One should stand against Oppressor and be on the side of the oppressed and
fight for attainment of truth and establishment of the rule of Allah (s.w.t)
and, It is unfortunate to see AHlusunnah are still convinced with this notion
being under and unjust ruler whose living example are Aale-Saud.

Mehdi Ali

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

Mehdi wrote:

> First of all, I am not playing with words. Rather, when you sighted
> Yazeed's attack of madinah, there was the very clear implication
> of we and you- which you later seemed to be bewildered of.

All I meant when I said we shouldnt play with terminologies
was that terms like Nawassib, Rawafidh,... may not be so meaningful
in an English public medium. And more importantly I was trying to
change the course of the thread to a contemporary issue (That of
division between followers of the messenger of Allah (sa))

But if you were offended,

MY SINCERE APOLOGIES!

> Calling the shia rawafidh is not nearly as bad as calling the first
> three Khaleefah "cursed" which means -- going to hellfire.

I personally dont like cursing. But when I see a recently posted
article like the [Saqifah 1/4] which bears Sunni references on the
bottom, I dont blindly call it fake.
One of the attractions of Shia methodology to me is the concept
of "aghl" [reason/logic/common sense].
I believe in investigating history. It makes me think when I see
that Abu Hurairah who became a companion of the messenger of Allah(sa)
barely two years before the prophet's passing away has gotten
about 5000 narrations. It also makes me wonder why one of the
Rashedeen Caliphs (the four immediate political successors to
the Prophet (sa)) orders collecting of all narrations taken by
ordinary people and burns them.
I dont like cursing. But I would like to reach faith via doubt.
I want to see the light. and you see the light better if you
are emerging from darkness. (I am speaking metaphorically of course)
So dont be upset with us if we dont just leave people in the
quiet of History. For the unsuall turn of events require us to
investigate more as to WHY things happened the way they did.

> NOw the question brother Shahryar, why do you as you said above,
> curse the first three khaleefs? it is much worse than the sunnah
> calling the shia rafidhah for sure. Do you all have to do that.

> If you are not forced to love them, you are not forced to abuse
> them. At least this is not the morals of a muslim.

The messenger of Allah has asked God to love those who love Ali
and to be enemy with those who are enemies of Ali.
To me that is a general statement.

I am not saying that the first three Caliphs were enemies of
Amirul-momeneen Ali(as).
And believe me the cursing in Shia is, as far as I know, directed
towards the known enemies of AhlulBeit specifically, and
towards the historically unknown enemies of Ahlul Beit generally.

And whoever tries to deepen the gap between Shia and Sunni AND
do false claims and propaganda (I do not mean you brother),
has ill motives.

> Who among the three first khaleef put on the fancy clothes, silk,
> daybaj, and walked over the heads of the people. Who among them
> sat behind when Rasool-Ullah called to jihad in the path of
> Allah?

With that I agree. You see I have no problem with things that
are so clear in History. History tell us that Abu Bakr or
Omar for example did not become attracted by fancy clothes
or silk or daybaj. I have no problem with that.

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

Mehdi wrote:
>
> Teh problem with this is that if you claim Ali Zain AL-abedden (RA) is
> a ma3soom imam who knows among many things who the next imam is,then there
> should not have been any dispute between Zaid and Ja3far on the point of who is
> imam.

I do not know anything about this dispute. Can you elaborate on this?
As far as I know, Ja3far Assadeq(as) was a grand son of Imam Ali Zain
Alabedeen.
Hence if Zaid was the son of Imam Zain Alabedeen, then there is a
generation
between the two.

The next Imam of the Shia after Imam Ali ibn Husain Zain Alabedeen is
Imam Muhammad ibn Ali (Bagherol olum).

If there actually was a dispute between Imam Ja3far Sadeq(as) and Zaid
and if they are brothers, then their father must be Imam Muhammad
Bagher(as).

And in this case, the choice is easy. Imam Ja3far Sadeq(as) had such
brilliance that he was allowed to sit in his fathers classes
when his age was not older than the number of fingers in hands.

And nobody has ever said that Imamat would not see false acclaimers.
History, for example, is full of people claiming to be the
promised Mahdi (as).

> Thomas Crezenzi:

> >zaid was not an imam of the ithna `ashari shi`a.. zaid was the imam of a
> >breakaway sect called the zaidiyya, who are prominent nowadays in
> >yemen.. the imam recognized by the majority of shi`a (later known as the
> >ithna `ashari because of the twelve imams) was `ali ibn hussayn zain
> >ul-`abidin..
>
> You mean Ja3far Ibn Aliyy?! Hay you are in danger because you do not know
> your imams, and thisi is one of your 5 pillars of tashiy`.

There is no Imam named Ja3far Ibn Aliyy.

Kind Regards,
Shahryar Razmafrooz

[HAREB SAEED ALI]

Shahryar Razmafrooz <sha...@acel.net.au> writes:

OK - I goofed. I corrected Redha, but my correction was a mistake itself.
Yes Ja`far (May Allah be pleased with him) was the son of Muhammad al-baqir, the
son of Aliyy Zain Al`abideen Ibn Husain Ibn Aliyy. I knew this in the past,
but my fingers slipped and hence the typo.

Now whether the dispute was between the imamah of Zaid and Muhammad (the two
sons of Aliyy (Z.A) or whether it was between the nephew (Ja`far) and his uncle
Zaid - I am not sure. I know for sure that the people of the House (ahlu Albait)
were at the forefront of "Islah" - corrective effort - and that they argued
whether to do it peacefully (as in Ja`far and his father's case) or by armed
resistance (as in Zaid's case); however, they owed respect for each other -
as true history shows that. Now, to imply that Zaid was a kind of a false
Mahdiyy is only in the minds of shia, because of the belief that an Imam has
to be ma`soom (infallible). This belief has caused many errors and transgressions
from the shia because it required that any one who differs in his opinion or
opposes a ma`soom has to be evil. Point in case, whether Zaid is a true Imam
of the Muslims (as we ahlsunnah and the Zaidis consider him) or whether he is
an imposter (as the 12er shia has to believe based on the infallibility of an Imam
argument).

Wassalam,

p.s. Thanks Br. Shehrayar for being the most considerate and respecting of
the shia brothers who participate in this argument. I got a lot of hate mail
from those other bunch. In one case, a guy curses me calls me Mudhallal (oppisite
of Mahdiyy), and curses Abu Bakr and Ayshah (may Allah be pleased with them)
for no appearant reason.

Mehdi wrote:
>>
>> Teh problem with this is that if you claim Ali Zain AL-abedden (RA) is
>> a ma3soom imam who knows among many things who the next imam is,then there
>> should not have been any dispute between Zaid and Ja3far on the point of who is
>> imam.

>I do not know anything about this dispute. Can you elaborate on this?
>As far as I know, Ja3far Assadeq(as) was a grand son of Imam Ali Zain
>Alabedeen.
>Hence if Zaid was the son of Imam Zain Alabedeen, then there is a
>generation
>between the two.

>The next Imam of the Shia after Imam Ali ibn Husain Zain Alabedeen is
>Imam Muhammad ibn Ali (Bagherol olum).

>If there actually was a dispute between Imam Ja3far Sadeq(as) and Zaid
>and if they are brothers, then their father must be Imam Muhammad
>Bagher(as).

>And in this case, the choice is easy. Imam Ja3far Sadeq(as) had such
>brilliance that he was allowed to sit in his fathers classes
>when his age was not older than the number of fingers in hands.

>There is no Imam named Ja3far Ibn Aliyy.

>Shahryar Razmafrooz

[Mehdi]

a...@scz.ssi1.com writes:

>Al-Tabari states the Ibn Ziyad (Marjanah) the Governor of Bani Umayyah
>ordered his forces to ensure not a single drop of water should

- unsubstantiated stories deleted ...

Al-tabary also states at the begining of his Tareekh that he narrated all
what was related to him, and he did not check the chain of narration, and
warned that as such his history is a raw material and if some part of his
history was defective he said do not blame me but blame those who narrated
the same.

Also al-tabariyy narrated in his history that Husain and Hasan were standing
guard at the house of Ameerul-mu'mineen Uthman when he was surrounded by the
4000 army of killers (make believe Hujjaj) .. why do not you believe this,
and that ALiyy and Uthman have no dispute except in your mind, or you
just like
to pick and chose what yuo want to believe?

> Hence one of the slogans of the killers of Al-Hussain Ibn Ali on the Day
>of Asoora was "REVENGE of the blood of Usman"

I read the History of Al-tabaryy and differnet narrations on the story of
the massacre at karbala'. This is the first I read the above story.

>
>>
>>It is interesting to note that most of the Muslims of that time
>>were leaned neither way, but were moderate.
>Islam had no notion of moderation at any time, In Mecca and Medina during
>the time of the Prophet, the people were either muslims or mushrik. Does
>Ahl-sunnah have any sahabi during the time of the prophet who was moderate
>i.e beleived in Islam and its leadership but was not sure which path to take
>and is considered a muslim ? I dont think so.

> Yazid had demanded the bayat of Al-Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr ,

> Abdullah Ibn Umar. Al-Hussain Ibn Ali, Abdullah Ibn Zubayr left for
> Mecca. Abdullah Ibn Zubayr was taking refuge in Mecca and later declared
> his Leadership, after the events of Kerbala suporters of Abdullah Ibn Zubayr
> were able to take control of Medina. Bani Umayyah in Madina, Marwan and
> others asked Yazid to get his forces to Madina, upon arrival at the borders
> the Son of Marwan described to the forces of Yazid on how to Attack Madina.
> Madina was attacked and plundered. The forces of Yazid then moved to
> Mecca to get Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, they fought for a year in Mecca. Mecca
> was burnt/buckled and grounded in the war. When Abdullah Ibn Zubayr was
> fighting Bani Ummmayah he asked Al-Muktar (shia) and other Shia leaders
> for help and they sided Abdullah Ibn Zubayr in this war. In this war
> Abdullah Ibn Zubayr even sought the Help of Kawarij against Yazid. Shia's
> are not Kawarij. Kawarij hated Ali Ibn Abi Talib & Bani Ummmayah, dont
> keep argueing that they were one time shia, Shaitan was a one time most
> pious but became Shaitan and Curse of Allah is upon him.

I would not argue with the above because it sound reasonable, even though
I do not know about the part about Khawarij and al-mukhtar. I agree that
Yazeed and marwan fought against Ibn al-zubair. Actually when marwan became
the khaleef (for ahlu-sham) he was in such a weak position that he wanted
to relent government to Ibn AL-Zubair; however, later he changed his mind.
It is very sad to learn about the above events. Ahlusnnah are the only
people who did not call kafir any one who participated in the above conflict,
but treated them as ordered in the Quraan :"If two groups of the believers
fight then make peace among them ...." they follow the Quranic direction to
make Peace and Islah, and that is what I mean by modereation, the same
direction that Aliyy gave to his followers:

"Two groups are gone astray because of me : an exageratingly loving person,
and exceedingly hating person" -- Halakj fiyy Ithnan Muhibbun Ghali
wa Mubghidhun Qali"

And this is what I mean by moderation not in Iman or kufr (this is the
way you look at those conflict exactly because of your extremism), but
in regarding the muslims who were the Sahabah of Rasool Allah and for some
reasons got involved in conflicts. Some of them were more pious than
others. Some of those who involved in the fitnah (mostly non-sahabah) were
also pious and good, while others were reckless, but the minority which
was behind all the trouble were people who either were of the children
of Murtaddeen or those who followed Abdullah Ibn Saba.
>(accounts from Al-Tabari)

>...deleted
>>
>>The father of Ubaidillah Ibn Ziyad (Ziyad Ibn Abeeh) was a
>> stout shia of Aliyy.

>The Son of prophet Noah did not follow the path of his father, what are
>you trying to prove.

Exactly -- no body is holy because of his father. Also in spite of the
great regard that we have for Sa3d Ibn ABi Waqqas his son was the leader
of that army.

O Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad - do whatever you do, I can help
you nothing from Allah..

>>
>>
>>My point is: do not say that Ahlusunnah accept Yazeed as a just
>>Imam of AHlusunnah! To the contrary we believe a muslim Imam
>>can be Jaeir (meaning trangressing) and the best Jihad is
>>to confront him with advice - that was what got Ahlul Madeenah
>>in trouble - and Allah knows best.
>>

Unlike shia we do not have marji`s, and we do not have a theocracy
(read wilayat al-faqeeh).

In spite of the wrongly held idea that Ahlusunnah support the tyrants,
most of the succesfull uprisings(and the not so successful) were
carried by the scholars of Ahlusnnah [and yes we consider Zaid Ibn
ALiyy of AHlusnnah].

>Who does Ahlusunnah accept as Imam in RELIGION and STATE affairs. Are the
>Imams/Kalifah only rulers/governors in literal Arabic meaning and can do

Can do does not mean they are allowed to do , but means it is possible that
someone who is Imam, it is possible that he is a bad one.

>whatever (unjust) it takes to govern ? or they are considered the highest
>authority alive in Islam at that time to implement the rule of Allah (s.w.t)
>on earth. A trangressing imam should just be confronted with advice and

No scholars differed on this. The sunnah on one hand, agree on the principle
of the avoiding the worst of the two evils, and try to apply regarding
an armed resistance of a tyrant. On the other hand, the REAL position of
the shia of the 12th Imam conviction is to not deal in any way agianst
the tyrant or non-tyrant governor until the mahdiyy comes since this is
HIS job not ours. Now only th efollowers of khumaini differed in this
principle, but this is another story. Where is Sharee`at Madari? Allah
only knows.

>muslims should perform jehad with kuffar ? The prior imam of Ahlul Sunnah
>Mawwiyya imposes Yazid to Chalifate and muslims should advice him
>if he is trangressing and in response to that advice they can be massacared
>and Ahlul Sunnah are not confident in the Justice of Allah (s.w.t) as to
>what his fate would be ?.

So you know his fate? Ahlusunnah do not place people in Jannah and Nar, and
any one caliming he has this right, let him dispute with ALlah and not me.
As for your principle that Jsutice of Alalh is based on how we perceive
events that happened mroe than 1300 years ago with the conflicting reports
that we have now. it is little beyond me. I believe Allah knows best.
Have you ever heard that Allah forgive sins below Shirk, and only Shirk
he does not forgive (like your worshipping the graves of the imams).

By the way here is a story for your thoughts:

Umar Ibn AbdulAzeez (rahimah Allah) used to ponder the dispute between
Aliyy and Mu3awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them both). He saw a dream
that solved hios dilemma: he saw Mu3awiyah and Aliyy entering what
seemed to be the judgment court in front of ALlah, but he could not see
what was happening. After they both came out smiling, he asked what was
the judgment? At that point Aliyy passed him and said: "Hkima Li" meaning
The dispute was decided for me. Then Mu3awiyah passed and said : Ghufira Li,
meaning I was forgiven.

>Another Imam of AHlusunnah:

You relates wrongs made by muslims and agian attribute them to Ahlusnnah
although the shia were more than active in all these events. For example,
Al-mukhtar himself started good and supportive of Ahlu-albait but later
claimed Godship. What I have to say here is wrongs committed in these story
does not make the shia good --

ANd what you say about Ahlusnnah that they accept the tyrant Imams and
do nothing, you can exactly say the same about the follwoing:

1. Hasan and Muhammad Ibn ALiyy (Ibn Al-hanafiyyah)
2. Aliyy Zain Al-`abideen.
3. Muhammad Ibn ALiyy
4. Ja`far Ibn Muhammad.

If you claim the above are of the shia persusion (albeit the
'aimmah of Tahsiyy` - in your claim -), then why did they accept
all the tyrant rulers in their times? Something to scratch your
hair about.

I have a ready answer for you - taqiyyah.

Mahdiyy Al3rabiyy Alsunniyy

>Mehdi Ali

[Shahryar Razmafrooz]

In the name of Him, the most High

Mehdi wrote:

> First of all, I am not playing with words. Rather, when you sighted
> Yazeed's attack of madinah, there was the very clear implication
> of we and you- which you later seemed to be bewildered of.

All I meant when I said we shouldnt play with terminologies
was that terms like Nawassib, Rawafidh,... may not be so meaningful
in an English public medium. And more importantly I was trying to
change the course of the thread to a contemporary issue (That of

> Calling the shia rawafidh is not nearly as bad as calling the first

> three Khaleefah "cursed" which means -- going to hellfire.

I personally dont like cursing. But when I see a recently posted
article like the [Saqifah 1/4] which bears Sunni references on the
bottom, I dont blindly call it fake.
One of the attractions of Shia methodology to me is the concept
of "aghl" [reason/logic/common sense].
I believe in investigating history. It makes me think when I see
that Abu Hurairah who became a companion of the messenger of Allah(sa)
barely two years before the prophet's passing away has gotten
about 5000 narrations. It also makes me wonder why one of the
Rashedeen Caliphs (the four immediate political successors to
the Prophet (sa)) orders collecting of all narrations taken by
ordinary people and burns them.
I dont like cursing. But I would like to reach faith via doubt.
I want to see the light. and you see the light better if you
are emerging from darkness. (I am speaking metaphorically of course)

> NOw the question brother Shahryar, why do you as you said above,

[ALBANI2]

In article <5gpb3h$4...@shell3.ba.best.com>, <a...@scz.ssi1.com> wrote:

>Al-Tabari states the Ibn Ziyad (Marjanah) the Governor of Bani Umayyah
>ordered his forces to ensure not a single drop of water should
>reach Al-Hussain Ibn Ali in Kerbala was to not only Kill Al-Hussain Ibn Ali
>but also to make him and his family suffer the THIRST as was Califh Usman
>was thursty. It was revenge of Usman that was being taken from the progeny
>of Ali and Rasool-Allah.

[ a lot of good historical
analysis deleted, that would
fall on deaf ears of those
who seek to ignore the facts
of the democratic islam,
because otherwise, how else
yazidi dictatorships can be
justified ]

The armies of yazid had no love for
Usman either. Their main goal was
to win by hook or crook. All other
things were just games and tricks.
Was it not Mu'awiyya who used Quran
first time to win a war? Was it not
saddam who got a recording made of
praying to get the muslim support?
Simlarly we know of khadim ul haramain.

If Usman had lived to transfer khilafat
to Ali, then Mu'awiyya would have found
another way to win.

[ALBANI2]

HAREB SAEED ALI writes:
>Hello Tommy,

Dear Mehdi Al-Sunni Al-Arabi ie HAREB SAEED ALI <ha...@mcm.colorado.edu>,

it would behoove us not to fall to the lowest common denominator and
address each other with respect. You should have said, "Albani2:"

>Back again with a new name Huh. You tried before to be friendly
>to the sunnis on the expense of the salafites/wahhabites as you
>call them. It did not work.

You are assuming too much. because i do not know what you are referring
to.

>Now you lump every one together, and
>call us also kharijites - I will tell yu some of the traits of the
>kharijites and you tell us whom it applies to more:

I will give a short lesson in Venn-Diagrams and logic. If you have two
sets A and B, and you take their union, that does not mean that you have
made them identical. I was trying to take the biggest set of literalists,
or those who do not understand the special status of Hazrat Ali. NOTE:
The great arabs of the past learnt greek geometry and used much logic
before the Salafi/Wahabi/Kharajite political perversion of islam to a
literalist faith for political legitmisation.

>1. The kharijites believe the Quraan is created - shia also do.
>2. The " believe the blood and honour of sahabah is dispensible
> (They killed Abdullah Ibn Khabab - radia Allahu ANhu) with
> cold blood.
> Crezenski is not very responsible when it comes to the honour
> of the sahabah - and if he gets a chance at their blood,
> I do not think he will hesitate.
>3. The Khawarij call the muslims kafirs, when they commit a sin
> less than dibelieving in Allah. You are practically doing the
> same when you call the sins of the first generation as kufr.

The issue here is literalism, and misuse of religion for political
legitimisation. You will now agree that Iran has atleast
rid itself from a dictatorship. But you Arabs cannot even
get unity among yourself. Just recently, you faught a
bloody three way war, SA/Kuw/Iraq. How Islamic do you think
that is? Ofcourse you sowed the seed of treachery in Saddam
and it comes back to you.

>Now to your big challenge, it falls apart for a simple reason. The
>knowledge the muslims have from the Quraan was already surpassing
>the then contemporary knowledge, so if a muslim scholar or writer
>concludes something like that and puts in a book, it is not a big
>deal.

I would tell you to use you brain a little harder. I will
assume that you have greater knowledge of Quraan than I.
Please find out of Quran one verse from where you can deduce
either the expanding universe, or the bigbang as clearly
as it is in the sermon in Nahjul Balagha. If such a novel
idea (not mentioned in Quran or Ahadith) does not wake you, a
logically fallacy will not wake you either. It takes equally acute
perception to discover both.

>Secondly, Alii radia Allah Anhu may have written some of the sermons
>in Nahju ALbalaghah. The author of this was was a grand-grand .. son
>of his and there may have been some truth to the otherwise sectarian
>slanted bulk of the book.

>The author himself was a philosopher/poet/politican. His name was
>alshareef alradiyy. He did not even disclaim the authorship of the
>book. The point of dispute however, is whether the whole book was
>the sayings of Aliyy - or that much of it was of the creation of Alshareef
>alradiyy himself?

It is quite possible there are errors in the book. After all it is not
the Quraan. Furthermore it does not possibly agree with the Ismaili
belief in continued Imamat, but I will not go the wrong way, which
will be to first form an opinion and then go about proving it. Hence,
it is necessary for me to examine the material for various hypothesis,
and suspend my belief (not regarding Allah, but regarding various
sectarian positions) while examining an idea.

ASIDE:
Quite frankly, my basis in Ismaili tariqah comes from the track record
of the Imam and his predecessors of whom I have knowledge. If I am
not wrong, the basis of the earliest muslims' belief was none other
than Prophet's track record and his total personality. None of them
saw Gabriel, nor many lived to see the success of Islam and the many
Quranic predictions that came true. What are the most outstanding
features of Aga Khan are his humanism, his vision, his humility and
you see truth in him, that is if you have met the Imam.

>Our inclination is to the second opinion. There is a problem here which
>that you do not talk Arabic. If you did you will find discrepency in
>the style between one khutbah and another. I know it because I can
>speak and read Arabic fluently. I suggest that you make some
>effort to get a good ahndle on Arabic, and then read Nahjul Balaghah
>and find that for yourself.

Could you kindly try to characterise, or explain as clearly and as
accurately as possible what is your feeling? It would be a great
service for all if you could do a good job in clarifying what you
really feel.

>About the matter that there are scientific knoweldge that Ali might have
>conveyed - I have no quarrel with that. I am even the more too happy,
>because we Ahlusunnah love all the sahabah including ALi. And if you
>prove that he said somethig of this nature, I will be proud of 'OUR'
>khalifah and Sahabi ALi who used to drink from the fountain of prophethood,
>and who is the son-in-law of the Prophet (peace be upon him) - just

First, the issue is not that I doubt your love for Ali. The issue is
that Ali was more exalted than Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman, which you
fail to understand. Why do you not exercise you logic hard. In the
first step, you should understand the point that Nahjul Balagha
is indeed a very brilliant plan for a modern-scientific state, and
it also has a description of how the universe was created. The
description there is falsifiable. I am not aware how much you are
aware of the process of creating science, or how much have you
fiddled with schrodinger equation or feynman diagrams, but if you
have studied the history of how knowldege is created, which unfortunately
is an inductive process (aided by deduction) and is not really taught
in the university courses
and you have to really sit down after learning the frame work of the
theory to understand how it was guessed, then you would realise that if someone
had said in Nahjul Balagha what Ali said, you would run saying
Eureka. Afterall, we all dive in water, but it does take some
affinity for knowledge to understand and reflect on the obvious
and deduce extraordinary conclusions from it, as Archemedes did.
The historical fact that Muslim world produced probably 400 years worth of
scientific knowledge in 1400 years supports that there came to be created a
bluntness in the mental attitude of muslims regarding truth. Anyway
this long argument in short space is intended to provoke your mind
to appreciate the novelty of the ideas in Nahjul Balagha, which are NOT,
to my knowledge, mentioned in the Quraan. If this does not shake you then
I suggest that you read a small book called the character of physical
by feynman to gain some appreciation. Also find this book called
"passion to know" by Mitchel. Just know that much of the
knowledge of science was discovered by intensely focussing on
small discrepancies like the fact that an electroscope will be discharged
only when the UV of a certain frequency falls on the attached
electrode. Now these facts will be considered in stride, and perhaps
hilarious or contemptuous by a shykh whose mind was on his harem,
but this attitude is behind the fact that arabs degenerated to
what they are, as also did Islamic civilisation.

The second point is that we are all matrix of good and bad. You
in your saudi, probably obsequiously talk to the khadimul harmain,
but Umar did not. He had the boldness, that you do not. Infact,
the iranian population had the boldness that you do not have in
saudi, iraq or kuwait. They boldly stood against the tyrant.
You dwell on the particularisms to distract people's attention
from the most important facts and issues of life. You dwell on
particularisms of prayer and outward practice, while you ignore
the fact that Allah cursed Iblees who was more pious than any
of you in prayer. The first precondition of religion is submission
with heart and soul. It also means after that to exalt one's
self to a higher level. Situations change with time, and I am talking
about khilafat to colonialism, and now to dependent nation
states.

Due to the oppressive policies of Al-saud necessary on account of the
political illegitimacy, the life is in low intellectual gear in
saudi. Our neighborhood mosque, had a Mutawwa, we were friendly
with. He taught us good recitation of Quran. He had an easy life and I
found it funny that he was having children from his third wife while
his children were having children. Since there were no sources for
knowledge and no intellectual stimulation, to find outlet for his
excess energy he nevertheless decided to marry a fourth time.

Similarly, there are no stores for electronic parts, transistors,
diodes and so on. You cannot have a creative hobby. Everything is
regulated and channelised in the police state. You cannot even
photocopy anything yourself, and for this reason the cost of a
photocopy is SR1, ie 30cents. Hence, avenues for progress for
all residents is severely limited.

Pornographic storybooks are available in all saudi bookstores. (this is
also the case in Pakistan.) But there is hardly any store in saudi where
you can find books like the science books by Dover, McGraw Hill, Prentice
Hall and so on. Ofcourse, when people have good income, and no creative
outlet for their excess energies, what will happen? The same as with the
Mutawwa. I know a kuwaiti here in the US, whose father had 10 wives at a
time.

>like the other Sahabi (Othman) that you love to hate.

Well, I hope that you have attention span left to comprehend what I am
going to say. Ismailis are out of reach of the dictators, because they
are well established in democracies in East Africa and elsewhere in
countries that are not police states, in a similar way that muslims
migrated to Abysinnia during the time of Prophet to avoid persecution.
For this reason, what I am going to quote is not meant to make you
happy or from fear, but is a statement of fact that you must take as
it was said by Aga Khan 3 in his memoirs. If you take it any other
way, it would be reflection on yourself, as you know how you operate,
but you never met Aga Khan 3, but he was respected by all for honesty
in his time, to get elected to be the present of muslim league and the
league of nations twice. After this, you must change your opinion
permanantly on this issue of cursing vis-a-vis Ismailis otherwise
there is no point of this discussion.

The reference to read is "The Memoirs of Aga Khan 3"p40-46,
especially, p43, where Aga Khan 3 expresses his dislike for the
attitude of cursing the Prophet's companions.

Note that personally, I do rank the companions whom I am familiar with
through the historical literature. Human mind must rank. It is its
innate property to compare, evaluate and form opinions.

>Wassalam Ala Man Ittaba Alhuda
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your pretense of piety by using arabic, knowing that I do not know it
does not impress me in the least. I would appreciate if you could put
down the meaning of your occasional exclamations in english as well,
so that I can really understand what you are trying to say.

SUMMARY:
Your point that the description on the creation of universe in
Nahjul-Balagha is in Quraan has been refuted.

Your point that Shias (Ismailis) hate the first three Caliphs and
Aisha has also been refuted.

You must now explain why the Islamic civilisation lagged behind under
the Sunni majority rule, and why the world that you come from is
governed by the dictators, especially, if your interpretation of Islam
is correct. You must also explain why Allah did not give you the gift
of modern science and technology! Also do not depreciate the value of
this gift, because, when Allah presented Adam to the angels, Allah
showed them that Adams could learn the new names. It must be of value
to Allah (swt) that we can learn new names, concepts, and things like
atoms, waves, and so on. Allah is proud of his creation when we solve
difficult problems, when we figure out what we knew not, and when we
find remedies to disease, and when we use our knowledge for the good
of mankind. As we find new knowledge, and empowerment, we must bow
to him, and thank him in prayer.

In reply to Dean Alfred Rice, I would advise to obtain the book Nahjul
Balagha and read it from cover to cover. I recommend the Askari
Jafari's translation. That would answer your question. If you have
the book, I can suggest page numbers, but continuity will be
necessary, for even in physicis books like that of Kip Thorne's
etc. that has well organised format with definitions, theorems and so
on if you dive in the middle, you will have a hard time appreciating
the subject matter under discussion.

[Ali Abbas]

Mehdi (ha...@spot.Colorado.EDU) wrote:

Mehdi > Stop playing with words Abbas. Imam in Arabic (which should learn)
Mehdi > is leader/governor and Ahlusnnuah do not have mystic meanings for
Mehdi > this word as you do. It is just that a governor or leader.

If I understand, my brothers statement correctly, the word "Imam" is void
of any "righteousness", and this would suggest, that a leader is infact an
"Imam", yet in the sense of governing, but never in the sense of leadership
that transcends modes of spirituality and righteousness. This begs, of us
to refer to the Qur'an and at the same time the commentaries that are
available, to read what the Scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have to
offer:

The Holy Qur'an states:

Recall to mind that when His Lord put Abraham to test, in certain
things and he fulfilled all of them, he said: I am going to make
you the leader (Imam) of mankind. Abraham humbly asked, Does this
promise apply to my descendants also? He replied, My promise does
not apply to the transgressors.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Furthermore, we have

We urged Abraham and Ismail to keep My House pure for those who would
go around it and those who would retire to it for devotion and prayer
and for those who would bow down and prostrate themselves there is
worship. (2:124-125)

Maududi states:

When Abraham prayed to Allah for his descendants with the necessities
of life, he excluded from his prayer the would be transfressors,
because Allah had excluded them from His promise of leadership. Allah
however removed his mis-understanding, as if to say, There is a great
difference between the two things. While the righteous leadership
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
will be bestowed on the true believers only, the necessities of life
will be given to both the believers and the un-believers.

Sunni ref: Commentary, vol. I, p. 112, footnote # 127

Another commentator, states:

Imam: the primary sense is that of being foremost: hence it may mean
(1) leader in religion (2) leader in congretational prayer (3) model
pattern example (4) a book of guidance and instruction (5) a book
of evidence or record. Here meanings 1 and 3 are implied.

Sunni ref: Commentary, Yusufali, p. 52, footnote: 124

Where does this leave your propounded definition of "leader / governor"?

Another verse in the Qur'an that is indeed relevant to the discussion at
hand is as follows:

O Believers, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those entrusted with
authority from among you. Then if there arises any dispute about anything
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you truly believe in Allah and
the Last Day. This is the only right way and will be best in regard to
the end. (4:159)

The explanation offered by the late Maududi adds credence to what the Ahlus
Sunnah have been proposing all along, and the element of obedience that is
made as a reference, bears no dependence on "righteousness". This in my
opinion, is an anti thesis to the very message that the Prophet, peace be
upon him, had expounded during his life time, and the Qur'an itself.

Maududi continues:

In short, all those, who are in any way vested with authority from among
the muslims, are to obeyed, and it is not right to disturb the peace of
the community life of the muslims by entering into conflict with them,
provided that (a) they are from the muslims and (b) they are obedient to
Allah and His Messenger. These two conditions are a prerequisite for
obedience to them, and have been explicitly laid down in the verse and
have also been fully explained by the Holy Prophet.

Then Maududi, adds credence with traditions to the effect that make it
binding to obey and not to fight against them "as long as they offer
salat". He also adds,

The rulers should not only themselves offer salat regularly, but they
should establish salat in the system of government run by them. This
is the minimum condition that makes a government Islamic in principle.
If a government lacks this, it will mean that such a government has
dis-carded Islam and the Muslims shall be justified in overthrowing
it. This has also been stated in another tradition: The Holy Prophet
took a covenant from us regarding certain things. One of these was that
we should not engage in dispute with those invested with authority
unless we see them in clear signs of dis-belief, which may provide us
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with a cogent reason to present before Allah. (Bukhari and Muslim).

Sunni ref: Commentary, vol. II, p. 133-6, footnote # 89

Clear signs of dis-belief? Perhaps, the pillage of Medina and the raping
of women isn't enough of a sign of dis-belief. I begin to wonder, if there
are signs other than the above that suggest clear signs of dis-belief!

And when al Husayn and the children of his father were slain, Ibn Ziyad
sent their heads to Yazid who at first rejoiced their death, but repented
afterwards when the Muslims hated him for it, and the people bore him
enmity and bore him enmity with justice.

Sunni ref: History, as Suyuti, p. 212

In the year 63 it reached Yazid, that the people of Medina had rebelled
against him and deposed him, wherefore he sent against them a large force
and ordered it to attack them and them March to Mecca to engage Ibn u'z
Zubayr. And they set out and there took place the battle of Harrah over
against the gate of Taybah, and what shall make thee understand what the
battle of Harrah was ! Al Hasan mentions it once and says, ' by Allah
scarcely one of them escaped. ' A large number of the companions and the
others were slain in it, and MEDINA WAS SACKED AND A THOUSAND VIRGINS
VIOLATED. Verily we belong to God and Verily unto Him shall we return.
The apostle hath said, ' he who intimadeth the people of Medina, the Lord
shall put him in fear and upon him be the curse of the GOD AND HIS ANGELS
AND OF ALL MANKIND. ( Muslim relates this ).

The reason of his desposition by the people of Medina was that Yazid
became boundless in iniquities. Al Wakidi records with various lines
of ascription, that Abdullah-b-Handhalah-b-il Ghasil said : By Allah,
we did not rebel against Yazid untill we feared that we should be stoned
from heaven on account of a MAN WHO WOULD MARRY SLAVE MOTHERS WHO HAD
BORNE CHILDREN TO THEIR MASTERS AND DAUGHTERS AND SISTERS, AND DRINK
WINE AND ABANDON PUBLIC PRAYERS.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ad Dhahabi says, ' when Yazid had done unto the people of Medina what
he had done, TOGETHER WITH HIS DRINKING WINE AND INDULGENCE IN FORBIDDEN
THINGS, the people became violent against him, and more than one rebelled
against him, and the Lord didnot bless his life and while the army of
Harrah marched to Mecca, the commander of the troops died on the way. But
he appointed over them a chief to succeed him and tye reached Mecca and
besieged Ibn u'z Zubayr and attacked him and launched engines of war
against him, and that in Safar of the year 64. AND FROM THE SPARKS OF
THEIR FIRES, THE COVERINGS OF THE KAA'BAH TOOK FIRE AND IT'S ROOF AND
TWO HRONS OF THE RAM, THE ONE BY WHICH ISHMAEL WAS RANSOMED AND WHICH
WERE IN THE ROOF.

Sunni ref: History, as Suyuti, p. 213

Yet, we have another commentator who considers it binding to follow a
"righteous" Imam:

Uli l amr: those vested with authority or responsibility or decision,
or the settlement of affairs. All ultimate authority rests with God.
Men of God derive their authority from Him. As Islam makes no sharp
distinction between sacred and secular affairs, it expects ordinary
governments to be imbued with righteousness, and stand in the place
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the righteous Imam, and we must respect and obey such authority,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
otherwise there will be no order of discipline ...

Sunni ref: Commentary, Yusufali, p. 198, footonote # 580

It doesnot surpise me that the editions of the Commentary, refering to the
"righteousness" have been striked out. My discussion with those who had
taken the liberty with this doctoring, offered me a statement, to the
effect, "that it was controversial" ??? I marvelled at their choice of
words.

Now if the holders of authority are to be interpreted with the explanation
that the Ahlus Sunnah subscribe to (owing to the corrupted hadiths that were
forged to legitimize the corrupt governments), we find that

1. it will be in contradiction with the parts of the verse that precede
and follow it. For if the ruler issues a command at variance with
God's laws, the first part of the verse affirms that those laws are
must necessarily be implemented and have priority over all else.
Yet, the verse proclaims too that the commands of the Holders of
authority are to be obeyed! It is obvious that the Qur'an can not
enjoin at the same two contradictory things, or both command and
forbid the same things simultaneously.

2. how can one be lead to believe that on the one hand God should have
moblized His prophets to implement divine law, establish justice,
and propagate the essence of religion, even at the cost of their
lives, and that on the other hand He should impose upon the people
the duty of obeying the wishes of the rulers who not only do nothing
to prevent the Ummah and advance it's religious awareness, yet they
also trample and nullify all the strivings of the prophets, and
enthrone tyranny and oppresion in the society

3. how can such a society attain salvation and happiness following
such rulers? Can such a government enable the muslims to attain
power and dignity? Can any one ascribe to God the illegitimate
and FOOLISH view that such rulers deserve obedience?

Mehdi > When you say : Yazeed - the Imam of AHlunsunnah you discredit
Mehdi > but yourself because the people can see through your play of
Mehdi > words. Yazeed was Imam of the people of his time. He did some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Sunni Scholar, Mulla Ali Qari in his Fiq'h work, has added to the
list of the Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah the name of Yazid. This is enough
of a proof!

Mehdi > good things concerning the spread of Islam. He did some very
Mehdi > baad things concerning Husain and Madinah. He will meet his Lord
Mehdi > and he will judge him, me and you, and whether he will be
Mehdi > puished or not will raise or decrease little for me and you.

I would dis-agree with my brother. The Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah have
explicitly cursed Yazid,

Imam Ahmed was asked by his son, Abdullah, if it is permissible to
curse Yazid? He replied: Why should I not curse him (Yazid) whom
Allah has cursed. Then he cited this verse as a proof: Now, what
else can be expected of you than this that if you turned about,
you would again spread mischief in the land and break asunder the
ties of blood. These are they whom Allah has cursed and made them
deaf and blind. (42:22-23)

Sunni ref: al Bidahiya, Ibn Katheer, vol. 8 p 223
Khilafato Mulukiyat, Maududi, p. 183

Abbas > al Wakidi records with various lines of ascription that Abdullah
b.

Mehdi > Al-Waqidi is a shi3i. So his narration is fake. The ulema said
Mehdi > about him "The waqidi [which means the burned one] is a
Mehdi > burned shii." Meaning his narration is very unreliable.

I am also lead to believe that with the same token if the hadith collections
are replete with Shi'a narrators, they are also "fake". What a false sense
of security, that certainly is your personal disposition. Please find the
names of the few Shi'a narrators (of the 100 that I have with me), who have
found their ways into the Sunni works, and this includes the Sihah as Sitta.
Please do not ascribe such a beleif that does not well reflect well on what
the Ahlus Sunnah believe! How-ever, you have the liberty to share your
personal opinion, certainly not in the garb of associating with the Ahlus
Sunnah!

I Jarir ibn Abd al Hamid, al Dabbi al Kufi

Ibn Qutaybah was enumerrated him among well known Shias in his book, Al
Maarif, and Dhahabi has refered to him by abbrevations in his Mizan,
which proves how reliable he is in the opinion of the writes of the
Sahih Books.

Moreover Dhahabi says in his praise : A learned man of Ray, truthful,
considered indispensible by writers of books, and he has related a
concurrence of opinions about his reliability.

There are traditions from him in Bukhari and Muslim which he relates
from Al Amash, Mughayrah, Mansur, Ismail ibn Abu Khalid and Abu Ishaq
al Shaybani and which are related from him by Qutaybah ibn Said, Yahya
ibn Yahya and Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah.

II Hakam ibn Utaybah, al Kufi

Ibn Qutaybah regards him as a Shia and counts him among the Shias in
his Maarif. Bukhari and Muslim have relied upon him, and his traditions
are to be found in their Sahihs from Abu Juhayfa, Ibrahim al Nukhai,
Mujahid and Said ibn Jubayr.

In Sahih Muslim his traditions are reported through Abd al Rahman ibn
Abu Layla, Qasim ibn Mukhaymara, Abu Salih, Dharr ibn Abdullah, Said
ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Abzi, Yahya ibn al Jazzar, Nafi the slave of Ibn
Umar , Ata ibn Abu Ribbah, Ammarah ibn Umayr, Arak ibn Malikm, al Shabi,
Maymun ibn Mihran, Hasan al Arni, Musab ibn Sad and Ali ibn al Husayn.

In the Sahih Bukhari, his traditions have been reported by Abd al Malik
ibn Abi Ghuniyah, and in the Muslim ( in particular ) by al Amash, Amir
ibn Qays, Zayd ibn Abu Anisah, Malik ibn Mughul, Aban ibn Taghlib,
Hamzah al Zayyat, Muhammad ibn Junadah, Matraf and Abu Awanah.

III Khalid ibn Mukhlad, al Qutwani Abu al Haytham al Kufi

A Shaykh of Bukhari as mentioned in his Sahih. Ibn Sad mentions him in
part 6 of his Tabaqat as follows : He was a Shia and died in Kufah in
the middle of the month of Muharram 213 A.H, during the reign of Caliph
Mamun. He was excessively zealous in his adherence to Shiasm.

Bukhari contains his traditions from Al Mughayrah ibn Abd al Rahman and
the Sahih Muslim from Muhammad ibn Jafar ibn Abu Kathir, Malik ibn Anas
and Muhammad ibn Musa.

As regards his traditions derived from Sulayman ibn Bilal and Ali ibn
Mushir, these are to be found in the two Sahihs and Bukhari has taken
traditions from him through Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Karamah. Muslim has
taken traditions from him through Abu Kurayb, Ahmad ibn Uthman Al Awdi,
Qasim ibn Zakariya, Abd ibn Hamid, Ibn Abu Sahybah and Muhammad ibn
Abdullah ibn Namir.

IV Abdullah ibn Umar, ibn Muhammad ibn Iban ibn Salih ibn Umayr al
Qarashi al Kufi, known as Mishkdanah

He was a teacher of Muslim, Abu Dawud and Al Baghawi, and many other
writers of their generation have derived their knowledge of the traditions
from him. Dhahabi says in his Mizan, that he was truthful and a narrator
of traditions. Abu Hatam states about him that, he was truthful and that
he was a Staunch Shia.

Muslim and Abu Dawood have invented abbrevation for his name because of
their constant and repeated references to his traditions. In Muslim his
traditions are to be related by Abdah ibn Sulayman, Abdullah ibn Mubarak,
Abd al Rahman ibn Sulayman, Ali ibn Hashim, Abu al Ahwas, Husayn ibn Ali
al Jufi and Muhammad ibn Fudayl.

V Abd al Razzaq ibn Hamam, ibn Nafi al Hamiri al Sana'ani

He belonged to the elite among the Shias and was oen of the virtous men
of older generations. Ibn Qutaybah in his Maarif lists him among the
Shias and Ibn Athir on his Tarikh Kamil ( v 6 p 137 ) records his death
events that happened at the close of 211 A.H, saying

In that year, Abd al Razzaq ibn Hamam al Sana'ani died. He was a
Muhaddith and a teacher of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and he was a Shia.

Al Muttaqi of India has also referred to him in the course of his
discussion in Tradition 5994 ( Kanz al Ummal ) and has verfied that he
was a Shia.

Dhahabi says in his Mizan that ' he was one of the authorities and a
man of great erudition. He wrote many books and he was the author of
Jami al Kabir, which is a treasure house of knowledge and people used
to come from far and wide to learn from him. Dhahabi also writes, that
when Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked hwether he had known a better reporter
than Abd al Razzaq, he said ' NO '

VI Ubaydullah ibn Musa, al Abasi al Kufi

Teacher of Bukhari as he himself acknowledges in his Sahih. Ibn
Qutaybah mentions him among the authorities of tradtions in his Maarif
and expressly mentions that he was a Shia as does Ibn Sad in his Tabaqat
that he was a Shia. ( v 6 p 279 )

Ibn sad says : He was an authority on the Quran. Ibn Athir mentions his
death among the events which took place towards the end of 213 A.H, and
says

Ubaydullah ibn Musa, al Abasi was a jurist and a Shia, and he was
one of the teachers of Bukhari as mentioned in his Sahih.

Dhahabi states in his Mizan at the end of his account of Matar ibn Maymun
that Ubaydullah was a trusthworthy man and a Shia. The Six authorities
and others have all depended on his books.

The Sahih Bukhari contains his traditions from Al Amsah, Hisham ibn Urwah
and Ismail ibn Abu Khalid. He also takes traditions directly from him and
also through Ishaq ibn Ibrahim, Abu Bakr ibn Abu Shaybah, Ahmed al Ishaq
al Bukahri, Mahmud ibn Ghilan, Ahmad ibn Abu Sarij, Muhammad ibn al Hasan
ibn Ishkab, Muhammad ibn Khalid al Dhahli and Yusuf ibn Musa al Qattan.

Muslim has taken traditions from him through Israil, Hasan ibn Salih and
Usamah ibn Zayd, Hajjaj ibn al Shair, Qasim ibn Zakariya, Abdullah al
Darimi, Ishaq ibn Mansur, Ibn Abu Shaybah, Abd ibn Hamid, Ibrahim ibn
Dinar and Ibn Namir.

VII Muhammad ibn Muslim, ibn Taifi

He was one of the foremost disciples of the Imam Abu Abdullah Jafar
al Sadiq ( May Allah be well pleased him ).

His traditions concerning wudu ( ablution ) as derived through Amr ibn
Dinar is to be found in Sahih Muslim and Waki ibn al Jarrah, Abu Naim,
Man ibn Isa and others have learned traditions from him.

VIII Nuh ibn Qays, ibn Ribah al Hadani al Tahi al Basri

Dhahabi in his Mizan calls him a good reporter; he states further that
Ahmad and Ibn Muin regard him as trustworthy and Abu Dawood says that he
was a Shia while Nasai says that there is nothing with him.

Dhahabi has coined an abbreviation for him denoting that Muslim and the
writes of Sunan have incorporated his traditions in their authentic
works. A tradition related by him is quoted on the subjecy of Drinks in
Sahih Muslim which he relates from his brother Khaild ibn Qays. His
traditions are handed down in Sahih Muslim through Nasr ibn Ali and in
other books through Abu al Ashath and others of that generation. Nuh
has them from Ayub, Amr ibn Malik and others.

IX Hisham ibn Ammar, ibn Nasir ibn Maysarah Abu al Walid

According to Al Zafari al Dimishqi, he was a teacher of Bukhari, and
is admitted as such in his Sahih. Ibn Qutaybah enumerates him anong the
Shia reporters in his Maarif; Dhahabi also takes a note of him in his
Mizan, describing him as a leader of the prayer, an orator, a reciter
of the Quran, a prolific reporter of traditions, a scholar and a
truthful man.

Bukhari has repeated traditions learned directly from under the heading
Sales in his Sahih, and also in Wars, Drinks and Qualities of the
Companions of the Prophet.

X Muhammad ibn Khazim

Some writers call him Ibn Hazim, and he is commonly known as Abu Muawiyah
al Darir al Tamimi al Kufi. Dhahabi says about him in his Mizan that
Muhammad ibn Khazim ( Abbarevation Ayn ) al Darir is absolutely authentic,
I have never heard anything at all against him. He is one of the foremost
of the learned men and Hakim says that the two Shaykhs ( Muslim and
Bukhari ) have depended on his traditions, and his excessive zeal in
respect of his Shia beliefs was widely known.

Hence this proves that the author of the six Sahihs books, all have
relied on him, and Dhahabi has coined an abbreviation for him.
His traditions can be found in Bukhari and Muslim from more than one
authority, including al Amash and Hisham ibn Urwah. In Sahih Muslim
his traditions are related through Ali ibn al Madini, Muhammad ibn Salam,
Yusuf ibn Isa, Quraybah, Musaddad, Said al Wsti, Said ibn MAnsur, Amr al
Naqid, Ahmad ibn Sinan, Ibn Namir, Ishaq al Hanzali, Abu Bakr ibn Abu
Shaybah, Abu Kurayb, Yahya ibn Yahya and Zuhayr. Musa al Zaman related
traditions which are both in the Sahih al Bukhari and Muslim.

XI Atiyah ibn Sad, ibn Junadah al Awfi, Abu al Hasan al Kufi

He was a famous Tabi'i. Dhahabi has mentioned him in his Mizanm stating
on the authority of Salim al Muradi that Atiyah was a Shia. Ibn Qutaybah
has mentioned him among the reporters of traditions and scholars. Ibn
Qutaybah himself being a pupil of Atiyah's grandson, Husayn ibn Hasan
ibn Atiyah al Awfi al Qadi says that Atiyah ibn Sad was a jurist and a
scholar at the time of Hajjaj and he was a Shia.

Ibn Sad has also mentioned about him in his Tabaqat ( v 6 p 212 ), in
terms which prove his firmness of his grounding and staunch support
of the Shia tenents. Atiyah's father, Sad ibn Junadah, was a companion
of Imam Ali ( as ). One day he went to Imam Ali ( as ) at Kufah and he
said : O Commander of the faithful, a son has been born to me, so please
suggest a name for him. Imam Ali ( as ) replied, He is a gift from God
so name him Atiyah ( which means gift ).

Tirmidhi and Abu Dawood have relied upon him in taking traditions, and
his traditions derived through Ibn Abbas, Aby Said, Ibn Umar and Abdullah
ibn al Hasan, who relates upon the authority of his father, Imam Hasan,
who in turn relates it from his mother, Hazrat Fatima ( as ), daughter
of the Prophet ( pbuh&f ), Cheif of the Women in Paradise, have found
their place in the Sunan of Abu Dawood and Sahih of Tirmidhi.

XII Adi ibn Thabit, al Kufi

Ibn Muin mentions him, describing him as an extremist Shia; Darqutni
refers to him as a rafidi zealot, but reliable. Juzjani says that he
was biased in his endeavours, and Masudi says that : I have not come
across any one more outspoken as regards his Shia beliefs than Adi ibn
Thabit.

Dhahabi mentions him in his Mizan saying, He was a learned Shia and a
true man from among them; he was also a Qadi and a leader of the prayer
in a Shia nosque, and if all Shias were like him, their mischief would
subside.

Dhahabi has also coined abbrevation for his name as the Sahih books of
the Sunni have unanimiously admitted the correctness of his traditions.
His traditions are to be found in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as
learned by him from Bara ibn Azib and Abdullah ibn Yazid, who was his
maternal grandfather, and slo form Andullah ibn Abu Awfa, Sulayman ibn
Abu Sard and Said ibn Jubayr.

Moreover, traditions passed on by him from Zar ibn Habaysh and Abu Hazim
al Ashjai are recorded in Sahih Muslim. Al Amash, Musir, Said, Yahya ibn
Said al Ansari, Zayd ibn Abu Unaysah and Fudayl ibn Ghazwan have learned
traditions from him.

XIII Said ibn Khaytham, al Hilali

Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn al Junayd says : Some one asked Yahya ibn Muin
since Said ibn Khaytham was a Shia, what is your opinion about him ?, he
replied , he may be a Shia but he is reliable.

Dhahabi has mentioned him in his Mizan and quotes the same saying of Ibn
Muin as above. Nasai and Tirmidhi have invented abbreviations for his
name, shoiwng that they have taken traditions from him in their Sahihs.
He reported traditions from Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad and Muslim al Malai,
and his brother's son, Ahmad ibn Rashid, has reported from him.

XIV Salmah ibn Kahil, ibn Hasin ibn Kadih ibn Asad, al Hadrami

His surname was Abu Yahya. A group of the learned men from the majority
sect such as Ibn Qutaybah in his Maarif and Shahristani in his Milal wa
al Nihal have counted him among the Shia reporters.

The compliers of the Six Sahih books and others have relied upon him,
in Bukhari : Abu Juhayfah, Suwayd ibn Ghaflah, Shabi, Ata ibn Abu Ribah
and Jandab ibn Abdullah, and in Muslim : Kurayb, Dharr ibn Abdullah,
Bukayr ibn al Ashaj, Zayd ibn Kab, Said ibn Jubayr, Mujahid, Abd al
Rahman ibn Yazid, Abu Salmah ibn Abd al Rahman, Muawiyah ibn Suwayd,
Habib ibn Abdullah and Muslim al Batin. Al Thawri and Shabah have reported
from him in the two books, while in Bukhari, Ismail ibn Abu Khalid has
reported from him and in Muslim Said ibn Masruq, Aqil ibn Khalid, Abd
al Malik ibn Abu Sulayman, Ali ibn Salih, Zayd ibn Abu Anisah, Hammad ibn
Salmah and Walid ibn Harb are those who have reported from him.

XV Zubayd ibn al Harith, ibn Abd al Karim al Yami al Kufi

Dhahabi mentions him as one of the most trustworthy Tabi'in and Shia.
Then he relates a report to the effect that Al Qttan has certified him
as a true reporter and also relates other reports which show his
reliability in the eyes of the leaders if theological investigation and
discussion.

Zubayds traditions are given in Bukahri and Muslim through Abu Wail, Al
Shabim Ibrahim al Nukhai and Said ibn Ubaydah; his traditions reported
through Mujahid are in Bukhari. Those reported through Murrah al Hamdani,
Muharib ibn Ditharm Ammarah ibn Umayr and Ibrahim al Taymi are in the
Sahih of Muslim. Shabah, Al Thawri and Muhammad ibn Talhah have reported
from him in his Sahihs in Bukhari and Muslim, while in Muslim, Zuhayr
ibn Muawiyah, Fudayl ibn Ghazwan and Husayn al Nukhai have reported from
him.

Mehdi > Mehdi Al3rabiyy alsunniyy ..

The works of Bukhari and Muslim are proof that indeed, the Shi'a narrators
were trustworthy in their eyes to find their presence in narrating the
traditions of the Prophet, Blessings on him and his cleansed progeny. I
seriously begin to wonder the definition of 'Shi'a' as found in the works
of the rijal scholars, bears no resemblence to those who rally around
and wish to dis-credit the Shi'a for the sake of criticism. I end my
case.

Regards

-- Abbas

[Mehdi]

Ali Abbas tried to list a long list of men who were trustworthy and
whose narration was considered authentic by the scholars of Hadeeth
and claimed they are shia. Well the problem is here is the definition of
shia. Shia of those time definitly differed from those he came later,
and shia have been in fact evolving radically from age to another since
they thrived in the secrecy which allowed a few of their elite to make
up things like the disappearing mahdiyy - for which there is no evidence
from Quran and sunnah.

Those who claimed to be representatives of the hidden imams are the
ones who coined the existing religion of the shia not the ones who were
loosely called shia in the time of the followers of Sahabah and who
did not know taqiyyah (lies to spread the sect), and thier tashiyy`
was merely a preference for Aliyy and his children without a loss of
reverence to the 3 earlier khalifs nor any outrageous that Aliyy and his
proginy are Imams assigned by God's decree, etc..

I know for certain that the Imam of Yaman Abdulrazzaq was an Imam of Ahlusunnah.
When some of the scholar say that 'he has some tashiyy`' does not mean
he subscribed to the beliefs of current day 12rs shia which were not to be
found until Shiatan Al-Taq, and Hisham Ibn Al-Hakam (the real fathers of
the 12rs shia) started their inventions of the assigned Imam and the
infallibality of the imams.

So Abbas is still using tricks to confuse the people and fool them to
believe that those 'very mild shia' of the times of Aliyy and later
were anything close to the shia of today who had a special name in those
days (the latter times of the generation of tabi`een and in the time
of tabi`i al-tabi`een). They were called rafidhah. Definitely no rafidhi
was allowed in the hadeeth books of Ahlusnnah.

Inshallah I will write about the rijal - important men - of the shia in the
time of Imam Ja3far and later and throw some light to show how they were
imposters - and cursed even by the imams whom they claimed to be thier
teachers. Imam Abdulrazzaq (alsunniyy) is no where similar to those types.

Mahdiyy Al`rabiyy Alsunniyy