Bekijk volle/desktop versie : Ahl al Sunnah & Ahl al Shi3a



15-03-2007, 01:10
“Ali (AS) is from me and I am from him, and he is the protector of every true believer after me.” Ibn Al-Maghazeli, 69; Yanabi^ Al-Mawda, 125.
“Ali (AS) is the most beloved of God and His Prophet in all of creation.” Kenz Al-Omal, 5/33; Al-Riyadh Al-Nudhra, 2/211; Ibn Al-Maghazeli, 219 “Mentioning Ali (AS) is a form of worship, and looking upon him is a form of worship.” Mustadrak Al-Sahihain of Al-Hakim Al-Nisabori, 3/123; Kenz Al-Omal, 6/156; Al-Tabarani; Ibn Al-Maghazeli, 240, 278; Al-Khawarizmi, 62. “Love for Ali (AS) is a good deed, so don’t ruin it with bad deeds.” Al-Tabarani; Yanabi^ Al-Mawda, 2/3. said, “Ali (AS) holds the position of the Ka'aba.” Mustadrak Al-Sahihain of Al-Hakim Al-Nisabori, 3/122; Musnad Ahmad, 3/82; Al-Tabarani, 6/155; Kenz Al-Omal. “Ali (AS) stands in relation to me as my head to my body.” Mustadrak Al-Sahihain of Al-Hakim Al-Nisabori, 3/141; Al-Jami^ of Al-Suyuti, 1/583; Tarikh Baghdad of Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi, 1/51; HAliyat Al-Awliya’, 1/182; Al-Riyadh Al-Nudhra, 2/219.

15-03-2007, 01:22


Ik zou ook van Ahle sunnat willen zien of ooit zulke dingen tegen Abu bakr, omar of Osman ra is gezegd??? Zouden jullie het willen plaatsen shukran!

15-03-2007, 09:36

Citaat door Al_Jafari:
Alle eerst ga islam en zijn geschiedenis bestuderen voordat je hier praat!

Tentweede ik zal hem tot het eind steunen, want hij spreekt de waarheid!

Jij hebt geen verstand van zaken! Zwijg aub, want wat je allemaal zegt slaat totaal nergens op!
Was Saddam Sunni of Shia?
Is Osama Sunni of Shia
Was Yazid sunni of shia
Zijn de tereur groepen Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihad sunnis of shia? In welk geloof zit haat????

Neem een voorbeeld van Shia zoals Hassan Nasrullah(Hezbollah)
Dikke luie lafaard Arabieren neem een voorbeeld van Iran die 500miljoen dollar aan Palestina steunt en nog eens met wapens voluit!

Over welke haat heb jij het over? Jullie zinken steeds in haat en verkeerde uitleg! Steeds wordt de naam Islam door velen slechte sunni te schande gezet!

"Een moslims is een terrorist" waarom zou zo iets moeten bestaan? "Profeet Mohammed heeft Islam met zwaard verspreid"! Stagfirullah door wie zijn dit ontstaan? Door jullie onwetendheid! Ga een boek lezen en stop met geweld, haat en FITNA er is geen verschil tussen shjiieten en soenniet we zijn allemaal broeders en zusters! Elke dag zijn er bomaanslagen bij shjiietische wijken! Ik denk het is een aqieda en fiqh geworden is in sunni stroming 'dood shjiieten dan zullen jullie de hemel betreden'!






wat grabbel jij??


als je al mijn reacties had gelezen dan ben Ik hier wel degene die erg tegen geweld is. maar goed, jullie shi3a 3alamoel 3ayb..


ik reageer niet meer op jullie, omdat jullie zoooo koppig zijn , ga maar verder met je hoofd tegen de muur slaan, roep Hussayn r.a. maar tot hulp.

hasbya allah wa ni3mal wakiel.

wa salamalaikom wa rahmatoe allah wa barakatoeh.

15-03-2007, 09:42

Citaat door ElOmr:
Beschuldigen jullie de shieeten met dit ?



"Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle used to drink honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and would stay there with her. So Hafsa and I agreed secretly that, if he come to either of us, she would say to him. "It seems you have eaten Maghafir (a kind of bad-smelling resin), for I smell in you the smell of Maghafir," (We did so) and he replied. "No, but I was drinking honey in the house of Zainab, the daughter of Jahsh, and I shall never take it again. I have taken an oath as to that, and you should not tell anybody about it".
Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 434:



In de koran:

Als gij beide (vrouwen) u tot Allah wendt en uw hart is reeds hiertoe geneigd (dan is het wel) - Maar indien gij samenspant tegen hem (de profeet), dan is Allah zeker zijn Beschermer, bovendien zijn Gabriël, de rechtvaardigen onder de gelovigen en de engelen zijn helpers.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]66.4[/SIZE]



Sahih al Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 437:

"Narrated Ibn Abbas: I intended to ask 'Umar about those two ladies who back each other against 'Allah's Apostle . For one year I was seeking the opportunity to ask this question, but in vain, until once when I accompanied him for Hajj. While we were in Zahran, 'Umar went to answer the call of nature and told me to follow him with some water for ablution. So I followed him with a container of water and started pouring water for him. I found it a good opportunity to ask him, so I said, "O chief of the Believers! Who were those two ladies who had backed each other (against the Prophet)?" Before I could complete my question, he replied, "They were 'Aisha and Hafsa."



[SIZE=2]Indien hij van u scheidt, is het mogelijk dat zijn Heer hem betere vrouwen dan u zal geven, die Moslim zijn en onderdanig, gelovig, gehoorzaam, berouwvol, vroom, gewend te vasten, weduwen of maagden. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]66.5[/SIZE]



The actual words are ' faqad saghat quloobukuma', Saghoo in Arabic grammar means bent or crooked. Shah Waliullah has translated this phrase: "har aaiyeena kaj shuda ast dil shuma", and Shah Rafiuddin translated the words as "crooked have become your hearts". Hadhraat Abdullah bin Masood, Abdullah bin Abbas, Sufyan Thuri and Dhahaak described the words as 'zaaghat quloobukuma' ie. "your hearts have diverted away from the right path". Imam Raazi in his commentary states "adlat wa maalat anilhaq wa huwa haqqar rasool sallal laho aliahey wa sallam" that means "you have removed yourselves from the truth, the truth in this context refers to Rasulullah (s). Allama Alusi in his explanation of this verse states "maalat anilwajib min muafiqatuh sallaho alahe wa sallam mujibbee maa yuhibuh waa karaahat maa yakrahu ila mukhaalifateh" that means "it is incumbent on you to support the Prophet in whatever he likes or not, but your hearts in this matter have turned away from supporting him to opposing him".
Sayyid Abul A'la Maudoodi in his Tafheemul Qur'an


[SIZE=2]


een andere tafsir

If ye twain turn unto Allah repentant) if you two, i.e. Hafsah and 'A'ishah, repent of hurting and disobeying the Prophet (pbuh) ((ye have cause to do so) for your hearts desired (the ban)) for your hearts have deviated from the Truth; (and if ye aid one another against him (Muhammad)) but if you help one another to harm and disobey him (then lo! Allah, even He, is his protecting Friend) then Allah is his Protector and Helper against you, (and Gabriel) will help him against you (and the righteous among the believers) all true believers are helpers to him against you: Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, 'Ali, may Allah be well pleased with, and all other true believers; (and furthermore the angels are his helpers) and the angels are with all these his helpers against you.

link Tafsier



beschuldigen jullie de shieeten met dit ?? ik wacht op jou antwoord


Ja, je moeder moet je respecteren, mocht je hun beschuldigen of lasteren , dan laster je ook de profeet SAW, hebben jullie geen lering getrokken van de beschuldigingen op Aishah ra en de ayas in de Quran daaromtrent?

15-03-2007, 10:17



Citaat door Al_Jafari:
Streefde Ayesha naar Qisas voor het bloed van Uthman?

In Muttalib al Saul pagina 116 lezen wij dat toen Ayesha Basra bereikte, Hadhrath ' Ali een brief aan haar schreef, hier een verklaarde deel van:

Ali: “Vertel me Aisha, welke rol heeft een vrouw in het leiden van een leger en voor het hervormen van de Ummah?
Je beweert dat je Uthmaan’s dood wil wreken terwijl Uthmaan een man was van Banu Ummaya en je een vrouw bent van Banu Taym Ibn Murra.”

Dit is een bewijs dat Aisha het recht niet had in de Sharia om naar Qisas voor Uthmaan te eisen. Vandaar was de eis van Ayesha vals. Toen Imam ' Ali haar eis had verworpen, was het haar plicht onder Sharia om zijn besluit goed te keuren. De vraag naar Qisas kon SLECHTS uit de verwanten van Uthmaan komen, welke Ayesha niet was. Ondanks dit feit, verkoos Ayesha om de commentaren van Imam ' Ali te negeren.

Het vragen naar de moordenaars van Uthmaan sprak de Sharia tegen. Alleen het Staatshoofd kon de Wet van Qisas afdwingen.

We zien dat Aisha alles voor Uthmaan zou doen om hem te wreken. Merkwaardig vinden wij dat dit niet het geval was en wij hebben deze verklaring door Imam ' Ali in een brief die aan Ayesha wordt geschreven zoals die in Seerath al Halabiyya Volume 3 pagina 356 wordt geregistreerd:

Ali: “U hebt de bevelen van Allah en zijn boodschapper genegeerd door u huis te verlaten en u heeft gevraagd naar die dinges waar u het recht niet op had. U wenst de Ummah te hervormen, vertel me, welke rol kan een vrouw spelen in het leiden van een leger en het hervormen van de Ummah? Je beweert Uthmaan’s dood te willen wreken terwijl Uthmaan een man was van Banu Ummaya en je een vrouw bent van Banu Taym Ibn Murra.” Als wij verder kijken dan was het slechts gisteren toen u zei: Dood Nathal, moge Allah hem doden omdat hij een kafir is geworden.”

Ibn Atheer in Nahaya pagina 80 Volume 5 en Ibn Mansur in al Lisan Arabisch Volume 11 pagina 670 van "Lughuth Nathal" staat er:
“Nathal was iemand die een lange baard had en Ayesha zei dood deze Nathal, hiermee bedoelde ze Uthmaan.”

In Volume 3 pagina 100 van Tareekh Kamil de verslagen van Ibn Atheer:

Ubayd bin Abi Salma ontmoette Ayesha toen ze onderweg was naar Medina. Hij zei dat Uthmaan vermoord werd en de mensen voor 8 dagen geen leider hadden, Aisha vroeg: “Wat deden ze dan?”, hij antwoordde:” De mensen gingen naar Ali”. En toen zei ze: “Neem me terug naar Mekka.” Ze draaide haar gezicht naar Mekka om en zei: “Ik ga je wreken, Uthmaan.” Ubayd zei toen: “ Je beschouwt Uthmaan opeens als onschuldig, alhoewel u degene was die zei: “Dood Nathal, dood deze jood”.

De fatwa van Aisha waarin staat dat Uthmaan gedood moest worden kan in de volgende bronnen gevonden worden:

1. Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
2. Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
3. Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, "Dhikr Jamal"
4. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
5. Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
6. Qamus page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
7. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 "Dhikr Jamal"
8. Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122
9. Shaykh Mudheera page 163

In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 pagina 82 en in IQD- al Fareed paginavolume 2 pagina 210 lezen we dat:

Musruq zei tegen Ayesha: “ Het is jouw schuld dat Uthmaan stierf, je schreef naar de mensen om tegen hem te keren.
Ook in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 218 and al Imama wal Siyasa page 45 we are told that:
Ze vroegen Sad ibne Abi Waqqas wie de moordenaar was van Uthmaan? Sad zei: “De zwaard werd bewerkt door Talha en opgeheven door Ayesha.”

Het is dus duidelijk geworden wie de moordenaar van Uthmaan was: Ayesha zorgde ervoor dat de mensen zich tegen Uthmaan keerden en hem zo vermoordden.

Door zich tegen Ali te verzetten, verzette Aisha zich tegen profeet Mohammed:

Hoe kan Ayesha naar de waarheid hebben gezocht als ze zich tegen imam Ali had verzet?


Geachte spammer

Ik plaats dit stukje alleen voor jou en je fellow shias.




One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha (رضّى الله عنه&#1575 is that she left her house to fight Ali (رضّى الله عن&#1607 in the Battle of the Camel. This lie has been propagated so many times by the Shia scholars that people have started to think of this as fact. In the words of Ibn Khaldum: “The more a supposed ‘incident’ becomes popular, the more a network of unfounded tales and stories is woven around it.”

The truth is that both Umm Al Mumineen (Mother of the Believers) Aisha (رضّى الله عنه&#1575 and Amir Al Mumineen (Commander of the Believers) Ali (رضّى الله عن&#1607 were innocent of the Fitnah during the Battle of the Camel (al-Jamal). The real culprits who instigated the Battle of the Camel were the Shia, who have historically been the cause of much Fitnah.

[size=3]Shia Slander

Let us see what Al-Tijani, the popular Shia scholar and writer, has to say on the issue. Al-Tijani says:

“We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk…” (Then I was Guided, p. 117)

This is a blatant lie; the Shia scholars would have us believe that the entire Battle of the Camel was over “hurt feelings” and was more of a soap opera gone awry then anything else, in which a vengeful woman was hurt and she got hundreds of people to fight over this. This is nothing but a fairy-tale fit for Lifetime TV, and it does not withstand objective historical analysis.

15-03-2007, 10:25
Uthman’s Assassination [/size]

During the reign of Uthman , the third Caliph, the Islamic state had expanded far and wide, but the empire was experiencing grave financial troubles. Many poor Beduins felt that Uthman’s policies were tilted in favor of the Ummayad elite. This fact is trumpeted by the Shia scholars today, who love to slander Uthman ; they accuse him of nepotism and mismanagement.

In any case, the Beduins found a spokesman in Ali . Ali prevented these Beduins from resorting to violent rebellion and to instead use peaceful negotiation. As the Vizier and top advisor of Caliph Uthman , Ali had the ability to bring the case of the Beduins to the Caliph. Ali’s supporters were a myriad of disenchanted people, all of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman. A portion of these Shia’t Ali were the Saba’ites, the ancestors of the modern day Ithna Ashari Shia. Abdullah ibn Saba, leader of the Saba’ites, began the villification of Uthman ; many of the disenchanted Beduins in the Shia’t Ali were receptive to this Fitnah. This sub-section of the Shia’t Ali would eventually over the centuries form the Shia we see today [i.e. Ithna Ashari Shia].

Abdullah ibn Saba convinced some of the extremist Beduins in Egypt to rebel against Uthman . This was not sanctioned by Ali , who favored arbitration. In any case, Uthman heard of these Shia’t Ali who were planning on rebelling against him [i.e. open treason]. So Uthman ordered the Eygptian governor to punish the malcontents. When the Egyptian Beduins found out that the governor was going to punish the malcontents on the orders of Uthman , they decided to launch a pre-emptive strike and seige the Caliph’s home in Medinah.

This decision by the extremist members of the Shia’t Ali was not supported by Ali . When Ali heard that extremist members of his own party were plotting the murder of the Caliph, he immediately dispatched his own son to defend Uthman . Ali sent a letter to Uthman saying, “I have 500 men, so give me the permission to defend you from these people, otherwise things would happen that they would kill you.” Uthman answered, “May Allah reward you for your good intentions, but I do not want blood to be shed for my cause.” [Tareekh Damascus, p.403]

Hasan , Hussain (ra?), Ibn Umar , Ibn Al-Zubair , and Marwan rushed to the house of Uthman raising their swords. Uthman told them, “I order you to go back home, put your swords in their sheaths, and stay at home.” [Tareekh Khaleefah Al-Khayyat, p.174]

Kunanah, the slave of Safiyah, said:

“I witnessed the murder of Uthman. Four young men from Quraysh were taken out from Uthman’s house. These young men were covered by blood, and they were defending Uthman may Allah be pleased at him; Al-Hasan bin Ali, Abdullah bin Al-Zubair, Muhamed bin Hatib, and Marwan bin Hakam.” [A’asr Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah by Akram Diya’a Al-Umari, p.390. Al-Umari said that the Hadith was narrated in Al-Estia’ab with a good authentication.]


When Hasan entered upon Uthman , he said, “O Commander of the Faithful! I am under your command, so order me as you wish.” Uthman answered, “My dear brother’s son! Go back, and stay in your home until Allah carries out His order. I do not need the shedding of blood.” [Musnad Ahmed, Virtues of the Companions, #753]

And so it was that the Amir Al Mumineen Uthman bin Affan was slain by certain extremist members of the Shia’t Ali, namely the Saba’ites [the pioneers of modern day Shi’ism].

[size=3]Ali’s Caliphate [/size]

After Uthman’s death , the Shia’t Ali asked Ali to declare himself Caliph. Ali refused, namely out of anger at his own Shia who murdered Uthman . Ali did not want to be associated with these trouble-makers. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider very authentic. [It should be noted that the Ahlus Sunnah believe the Nahjul Balagha to contain many forgeries.] The Nahjul Balagha contains the sermons and letters of Ali (ra?) and in it we find sermon after sermon in which Ali condems his Shia–particularly the Saba’ites–for their extremist actions.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 191
Ali says to his "Shia":

“You should know that you have again reverted to the position of the [pagan] Bedouin Arabs after immigration to Islam, and have become different Shias after having been once united. You do not possess anything of Islam except its name, and know nothing of belief save its show. You would throw down Islam on its face in order to defame its honor and break its pledge for brotherhood which Allah gave you as a sacred trust on His earth and a source of peace among the people…You have broken the shackles of Islam, have transgressed its limits, and have destroyed its commands!”

[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm]


Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:

“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you, I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whosoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.”

[source: http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/91.htm]



At first, Ali refused to be Caliph. However, he eventually accepted the position and became Amir Al Mumineen. Upon his announcement as Caliph, there was a large grumbling from people who accused Ali of being an accomplice in the murder of Uthman , since it was well known that it was an element of the Shia’t Ali who were responsible for the seige of Uthman’s house . This accusation made against Ali is recorded in Sermon 22 of Nahjul Balagha which is titled “About those who accused Ali of Uthman’s killing.”

[size=3]Qisas

There was a public outcry for Ali to enact Qisas [i.e. find and prosecute Uthman’s killers], and no doubt Uthman’s family and tribe were anxious to see the murderers brought to justice. However, Ali decided to delay enacting Qisas for the reason that he was too preoccupied facing a civil war from people who were accusing him of murder, and this was not the time to be searching his own ranks for murderers. It was a time when people were ready to rebel against Ali , so the last thing Ali could afford to do was lose more supporters by interrogating his own Shia’t Ali. Because of this, Ali decided to delay enacting Qisas, but it should be noted that Ali had the sincere intention of eventually finding and prosecuting Uthman’s killers even though they were from his own camp. Such was the noble nature of Ali .

As a consequence of Ali’s decision to delay justice [i.e. delay enacting Qisas], hundreds of people were taking to the streets in protest. Many of these were from the same tribe of Uthman ; for example, the governor of Syria–Muawiyyah –was Uthman’s cousin and he was one of the people demanding Qisas. The Prophet’s widow, Aisha , realized that the situation was getting out of hand and that things might get ugly soon between those demanding Qisas and those delaying Qisas. She decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of Uthman’s family and friends; she herself was related by marriage to Uthman (ra?), who married two of Aisha’s half-daughters. Aisha feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali to quickly prosecute the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali . This point cannot be emphacized enough: Aisha left her house with the intention of reconciling Muslims, not to make them fight.

15-03-2007, 10:29


In Tareekh Al-Tabari, the events precipitating the Battle of the Camel are recorded. Al-Tabari narrates that a man asked Aisha : “O mother, what moved you and pushed you to this country?” She answered: “O son, to reconcile between people.” So it was that Aisha , Talha , and Zubair met Caliph Ali to urge him to find the murderers of Uthman . It should be noted that during Uthman’s Caliphate, Ali also went to Uthman to urge him to do many things at the behest of the Beduins who opposed Uthman . Hence, it can be seen that there is nothing wrong in negotiating with the Caliph and urging him to do something, as long as this is done in a peaceful and productive manner; in fact, this prevents bloodshed and violence.

[size=3]Uthman’s Killers[/size]

The murderers of Uthman [the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali, i.e. Saba’ites] obviously did not want Aisha to be successful in convincing Ali to prosecute them. “And the people who provoked the murder of Uthman [the Saba’ites] had the worst sleep ever because they came close to be doomed. They were discussing their plight the whole night until they agreed to ignite a war [between Aisha and Ali] in secret. They took that as a secret so that no one would know what evil they were planning. They woke up at dusk and while their neighbors did not feel them; they (the agitators) sneaked to do the dirty job in the darkness … they laid swords in the believers…” [Al-Tabari, vol.3, p.39, year 36H]

“The Saba’ites…who were fearing of peace…started throwing Aisha with lances while she was on her camel…Aisha said: ‘…remember Allah and Judgment Day.’ But the Saba’ites refused anything but to fight. So the first thing Aisha said when the Saba’ites refused to stop was: ‘O people, curse the killers of Uthman and their friends.’” [Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheibah, vol.8, the Book of the “Camel” in the departure of Aisha, p.718] Aisha’s contingent then returned fire in order to defend the Prophet’s wife, and soon the matter escalated into an all out conflict.

And so the Battle of the Camel was initiated, not by Ali nor by Aisha ; rather it was Uthman’s killers who attacked Aisha’s envoy (???? ???? ????) for fear that her negotiation mission would succeed and result in the subsequent capture of those responsible for the death of Uthman . Ali , Aisha , Talha , and Zubair found their contingents fighting each other, not even knowing who fired the first shot; little did they know that it was Uthman’s killers who had initiated this entire operation, hoping that it would cause Aisha’s mission of negotiation to fail. The Saba’ites would blame the entire matter on Aisha , and we see clearly today that their descendants–the Ithna Ashari Shia–have continued this tradition of blaming Aisha . This is yet another solid link between Abdullah ibn Saba and the modern day Shia, both of which slander the Prophet’s wives and his companions.

[size=3]Aisha’s Intention

Aisha’s intention for leaving her house was sincere and pure. She left to make peace between two factions of Muslims, namely the Umayyads and the Shia’t Ali. This is 100% in line with Allah’s commands in the Quran:

“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allah; but if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)

Aisha said in no uncertain terms: “I only wanted reformation.” (Shatharat Al-Thahab, vol.1, p.42) Ibn Al-Arabi explains that “her presence in the Battle of the Camel was not for war, but people…complained to her about the affliction. They hoped for her blessing in the reformation [between Muslims], and they wanted that the fighting factions would be ashamed when she is present with them and stop fighting. She also thought that. So she left her house to represent what Allah says ‘If two parties among the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them.’”



It should be noted that most people alive during the Battle of the Camel respected the Prophet’s widow, namely because she was the First Lady of Islam, the Mother of the Believers, and the Prophet’s lover. As such, she carried a great respect, and people listened to her. So it was not at all strange that she would think to use her influence to end the conflict between the Muslims; unlike the Shia who revile Aisha , most Muslims at that time had a great deal of respect for her, including Ali . It is likely that Ali would have accepted her plea to find Uthman’s killers, and no doubt this is the reason that Uthman’s killers had to start the war.

Aisha’s intentions were to prevent warfare; she even advised people to stay at home instead of adding to the Fitnah. Aisha said: “I came out to reform between people. Therefore, tell your people to stay at their house, and to be content until they get what they love, i.e. the reformation of the Muslims’ matter.” (Book of the Trustworthy, by Ibn Habban, vol.2, p.282)

15-03-2007, 10:33

..En Blijf in jullie huizen..

Al-Tijani (rafida) further alleges:

“How could Umm al-Mu’mineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: ‘And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours…’ (Quran, Verse 33:33)” (When I was Guided, p. 117)

Aisha did not leave her house displaying her finery! We fear Allah from such blasphemy; would the Shia like to share the same fate as the Munafiqeen (hypocrites) who accused Aisha of adultery in the incident of Al-Ifk and who were subsequently condemned in the Quran? We seek Allah’s Mercy from slandering the chastity of the Prophet’s own wife. Aisha left her house in complete Hijab and fully covered; thus, she did not in any way violate this verse of the Quran.

Allah’s command to stay in the house was a general condition set upon not only the Prophet’s wives, but all women in general. This does not mean that women can never leave the house; it is rather a general rule of thumb so that they remain chaste and in Purdah. However, it is permissible to leave the house for ordered duties, such as Hajj, Umrah, or travelling with one’s husband. Verses 33:32-34 were revealed to the Prophet , and he himself travelled with his wives after this. For example, he travelled with Aisha to Hijjat Al-Wida’a, and this occurred three months after the verse was revealed. Surely we are not so crass as to accuse the Prophet of violating the meaning of this verse!

Even after the Prophet’s death, the Prophet’s widows performed Hajj; it is narrated that Umar gave Uthman or Abdul-Rahman bin Auf the leadership of the caravan carrying the Prophet’s widows. “Accordingly, if it is allowed for the Prophet’s wives to travel for a benefit, then Aisha thought that by her departure a reformation of the Muslims could happen [and Muslim lives would be saved]. She interpreted it in that matter.” (Minhaj Al-Sunnah, vol.4, p.317-318)

An appropriate analogy is that Allah prohibits us from breaking our Salat midway. However, if we are in Salat and the enemies of Islam attack our camp, then it is permissible to break one’s Salat in order to defend the Muslim camp and save Muslim lives. Likewise, the Prophet’s wives and women in general were instructed to stay at home; however, in this case, Aisha thought that she could prevent bloodshed and open rebellion by using her status and prestige to act as an arbiter. In fact, if Aisha thought that leaving her house was the only way to save Muslim lives, then it would not only be Halal for her to leave her house but no doubt it would be Wajib (obligatory).

It is narrated in both Sahih Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet told Saudah , one of his wives, that “Allah has permitted you to go out of the house for genuine needs.” Imam Maududi says: “This shows that the divine injunction ‘remain in your houses’ does not mean that women should not at all step out of the four walls of the house.” (Purdah, p. 201-202)

If the Shia knew of an incident in which Aisha did not leave her house and this resulted in some harm to the Ahle Bayt Ali, then suddenly the Shia would reverse their position and use this story against Aisha . For example, if Aisha could have hypothetically prevented the assassination of Ali by leaving her house and warning him of it, would the Shia still hold to their statement that the Prophet’s wives could not leave their homes? Based on this hypothetical scenario, we see that the Shia accusations are completely biased.

[size=3]“If two parties amongst the Believers…”[/size]

Even if we accept the Shia propaganda that Aisha went out to fight Ali , then we cite the following verse in the Quran:

“If two parties amongst the Believers fall into a quarrel, make ye peace between them…make peace between them with justice, and be fair: for Allah loves those who are fair (and just). The Believers are but a single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your two (contending) brothers.” (Quran, 49:9-10)


This shows that two believers, even two of the most righteous Mu’mins on earth, can get in disagreements that become violent. This does not mean that one party must necessarily be right and the other party must be the devil. This is simpleton thought: both Aisha and Ali had legitimate viewpoints. Aisha cannot be blamed for wanting Qisas for Uthman’s murderers, a right granted by Shariah. And Ali cannot be blamed for delaying Qisas because he was trying to prevent more Fitnah.

[size=3]Shia Double Standards and Inconsistencies

It should also be noted that had it been Abu Bakr or Umar Bin Khattab who had delayed enacting Qisas for Ali’s murderers, then the Shia would slander them for this; again, to the Shia, it is not the actions which matter but rather who takes those actions. If Ali does anything, then it is right. If Abu Bakr , Umar , Uthman , Aisha , or Muawiyyah do anything, it is automatically wrong.

Having said that, the truth is that it was not Aisha who was responsible for the Fitnah but rather it was the ancestors of the Shia–the murderers of Uthman –who caused the Battle of the Camel. They had killed Uthman , and they did not want Aisha to convince Ali to swiftly prosecute them.

15-03-2007, 10:42
The Shia fairy-tale regarding the Battle of the Camel is far-fetched and full of inconsistencies. The Shia say that Aisha was complicit in the murder of Uthman , and that she used his murder as an excuse to fight Ali . In Nahjul Balagha, one of the “sayings” of Ali is the following: “They [i.e. Aisha] are demanding of me a right [i.e. Qisas] which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed.” (Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 22) The Ahlus Sunnah believes this to be an obvious forgery and a grave enormity to accuse the Prophet’s wife of murder!

According to the Shia, Aisha rejoiced when Uthman was killed. But then she heard the news that Ali was the new Caliph, and she was supposedly mortified. To quote Al-Tijani, the famous Shia scholar and writer:


“We may ask a few questions about the war of al-Jamal, which was instigated by Umm al-Mumineen Aishah, who played an important role in it…how could Aishah allow herself to declare war on the caliph of the Muslims, Ali Ibn Abi Talib, who was the master of all Muslims? As usual, our scholars, with some simplicity, answer us that she did not like Imam Ali because he advised the Messenger of Allah to divorce her in the incident of al-Ifk…” (When I was Guided, p. 117)


How could it be that the Battle of the Camel was started over Aisha’s hurt feelings ? Let us logically analyze this spurious claim. The fact of the matter is that there were hundreds of people protesting on the streets, all of them demanding Qisas for Uthman’s murder. Most of these were from the same tribe of Uthman . For example, the Syrian governor, Muawiyyah , was one such individual. There was also Talha and Zubair . The question begs: if Aisha had publically advocated Uthman’s murder and she was complicit in his murder, then why would she later be “allied” with Muawiyyah (???? ???? ???), who also fought with Ali ? This is truly a contradiction! Wouldn’t Muawiyyah have fought Aisha to punish her for murdering his cousin? Why would Muawiyyah murder his own cousin, especially the cousin who bestowed upon him favor upon favor, evidenced by the fact that the Shia scholars love to show Uthman’s nepotism in relation to Muawiyyah .

Furthermore, if we switch Ali’s name with Abu Bakr and Aisha’s name with Fatima, then suddenly the Shia would use the fact that Fatima fought Abu Bakr , and they would use this not as evidence against Fatima , but rather as evidence against Abu Bakr ! We see this glaring double-standard when we examine the Shia stance on the issue of Fadak. When it comes to Fadak, then Fatima is in the right despite the fact that, according to the Shia, she is cursing the Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph. Here, the Shia will say that Abu Bakr’s position as Amir Al Mumineen and Caliph cannot possibly compete with Fatima’s position as Chief of the Women of Paradise. When it comes to the Battle of the Camel, then Aisha’s position as Mother of the Believers is disregarded and suddenly the Shia scholars will trumpet the line that Aisha went against her own Caliph and the Amir Al Mumineen!

And is it really believable that hundreds of people would fight against the Shia’t Ali, simply because Aisha’s feelings were hurt over an incident that took place years before? The Shia scholars taint Aisha’s image by saying that she did all this simply because Ali told the Prophet to divorce her. [It should be noted that this is another Shia fairy-tale that we shall expose in another article; Ali never told the Prophet to divorce Aisha .] This reason for the Battle of the Camel does not explain why hundreds of people took to the streets against Ali . Were they all angry at this comment made by Ali ? Or was there something else they wanted?

15-03-2007, 10:43
Conclusion

The reality is that Aisha , Talha , Zubair , Muawiyyah , and hundreds of other people wanted Ali to apprehend Uthman’s killers who were in his camp. Ali always planned on doing this, and it is likely that he would have agreed to Aisha’s request to speed up the process. Uthman’s killers did not want this, and they attacked Aisha’s envoy on its way to Medinah, thereby initiating the Battle of the Camel and saving their own skin. It should be noted that both Ali and Aisha reconciled after the Battle of the Camel, and Ali even escorted Aisha back home. This fact alone should be enough for anyone; if Ali did not hold a grudge against Aisha , then surely the Muslims today should not hold a grudge against her.

It is the characteristic of the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) to accuse the believers of having alterior motives; in fact, the Quraish leaders accused the Prophet of trying to gain materialistic wealth and they said this was the reason he claimed prophethood. The Munafiqeen accused Uthman of using the Caliphate to empower his family. The Munafiqeen accused Ali of taking the Caliphate after supposedly killing Uthman. Likewise have the Shia taken the actions of the Prophet’s wives (and Sahabah) and accused them of having alterior motives. The righteous believers are those who make 70 excuses for their brothers and sisters in Islam; the upright Muslims are those who give the benefit of the doubt to their fellow believers, especially to the Prophet’s wife and lover.

Gepubliceerd door AhlelBayt.com

15-03-2007, 11:14

Citaat:
De fatwa van Aisha waarin staat dat Uthmaan gedood moest worden kan in de volgende bronnen gevonden worden:

1. Manaqib by Khawarzmi, page 117
2. Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38
3. Asadul Ghaba Volume 3 page 14, "Dhikr Jamal"
4. Al Istiab Volume 2 page 185
5. Al Nahaya Volume 5 page 80
6. Qamus page 500 "lughut Nathal" by Firozabadi
7. Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 117 "Dhikr Jamal"
8. Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122
9. Shaykh Mudheera page 163

In al Tabaqat al Kubra Volume 3 pagina 82 en in IQD- al Fareed paginavolume 2 pagina 210 lezen we dat:

Musruq zei tegen Ayesha: “ Het is jouw schuld dat Uthmaan stierf, je schreef naar de mensen om tegen hem te keren.
Ook in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 218 and al Imama wal Siyasa page 45 we are told that:
Ze vroegen Sad ibne Abi Waqqas wie de moordenaar was van Uthmaan? Sad zei: “De zwaard werd bewerkt door Talha en opgeheven door Ayesha.”

Het is dus duidelijk geworden wie de moordenaar van Uthmaan was: Ayesha zorgde ervoor dat de mensen zich tegen Uthmaan keerden en hem zo vermoordden.

Door zich tegen Ali te verzetten, verzette Aisha zich tegen profeet Mohammed:

Hoe kan Ayesha naar de waarheid hebben gezocht als ze zich tegen imam Ali had verzet?
De bronnen zijn fabricaties.

Khawarizmi was een hanafi geleerde, de hadith die hij aanhaalt in zijn boek is zwak en niet geaccepteerd, zelfs niet door de hanafis zelf.


Citaat:


AL-Iqd al Fareed

The author of this work is Ibn Abd Rabbuh al Andalusi.Ibn 'Abd Rabbuh's book "al-'Iqd al-Farid" is a literary book about which the author states in his introduction, "I have written this book, and I have chosen its rare jewels from amongst select gemstones of literature." He makes no claim that everything in his book is historically accurate and authentic. The basis of the authenticity of a historical report depends upon the trustworthiness of the chain of trasmitters[of that narration]. Al-Iqd al Fareed lacks isnad or chain of narrators for its accounts, thus placing the authenticity of its reports in jeopardy. Without an isnad a "narration" is classified as a fabrication. The great imâm ‘Abdullâh ibn al-Mubârak stated a most profound truth when he said: "Isnâd (stating the chain of narration) is part of Dîn. Were it not for isnâd, anyone could have said just what he wished"[Sahîh Muslim vol. 1 p. 87 (with an-Nawawî’s commentary)
]Above all of this, the author of this work himself was untrustworthy. Ibn Katheer describes Ibn Abd Rabbuh, the author of Iqd al Fareed, in his work al Bidayaah wan Nihayaah as a person with Shiite inclinations who disguised himself as a loyal Ummayad servant in court of the Spanish caliph. Hence his work is not a reliable source to get historical information.



Al-Aqeeli says about Nasr bin Muzahim, “He tends to be a Shia, and his narrations are filled with confusions and mistakes.” [Al-Du’afa by Al-Aqeeli, vol.4, p.300, #. 1899].

Al-Thahabi says about him, “A hardcore Rafidhi (Shia), and his narrations are not taken as authentic. Abu Khaythamah said, ‘He was a liar.’ Abu Hatim said, ‘Weak narrator, and is not taken as an argument.’ Al-Darqutni said, ‘His narrations are weak.’” [Al-Mizan by Al-Thahabi, vol.4, p.253, #. 9046].


“Al-Jowzani said, ‘Nasr was a fake person and far away from truth.’ Salih bin Muhamed said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim narrated ugly stories from unreliable narrators.’ Al-Hafudh Abi Al-Fath Muhamed bin Al-Hussain said, ‘Nasr bin Muzahim goes excess in his denomination.’” [Tareekh Baghdad by Al-Baghdadi, vol.13, p.283].

Ook hebben je leraren answering ansar iqd al fareed 2x genoemd,
Verder wordt er een shia boekje genoemd die gefabriceerd is door Hadeed.


Citaat:
Sharh Nahjul Balagha Ibn al Hadeed Volume 2 page 122
Dit boekje is een rafida boekje geschreven door ibn al hadeed, dit geldt ook voor de "nahjulbalagha" geschreven door Syed al Radi

Sharh Najhul Balagha of Ibn Abil Hadeed

It should be known that author of this work is "Ibn Abil Hadeed al-Iraqi." This person never belonged to Ahlus sunnah and was in fact an extermist Shia Mutazilite.The Mu'tazilites never claimed to be of the Ahl as-Sunnah. If anything, they regarded themselves as the opponents of the Ahl as-Sunnah.Allamah Ibn Katheer describes Ibn Abil Hadeed as follows in al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah (year 655, vol. 9 p. 82):
Ibn Abil Hadid al-'Iraqi: the poet 'Abd al-Hamid ibn Hibatillah ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Abu Hamid, Ibn Abil Hadid, 'Izz ad-Din al-Mada'ini; the man of letters, the eloquent poet, the extremist Shi'i. He is the author of a commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah in 20 volumes. He was born at Mada'in in the year 586. Then he went to Baghdad and became one of the poets in the court of the Khalifah. He enjoyed the favour of the wazir Ibn al-'Alqami, on account of the two of them having literature and Shi'ism in common.
Ibn Abil Hadeed was an extermist Shia to such an extent that he almost attributed divinity to Imam Ali ibn abi Tali[ra]. This feature is clearly evident in his poetry which can be seen in Abul Fadl Ibrahim's introduction to his Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah. No wonder that a person which such a background will prepare a work full of lies and slanders against the best generation of this Ummah.As an extremist Shi'i, his being cited on a matter concerning the Sahabah cannot be free from prejudice, and must therefore not be relied

Ik wil je hier niet meer zien spammen

15-03-2007, 11:48

Citaat door ElOmr:
geloof ??

er is maar 1 geloof !

en ik heb geen haat tegenover niemand ! integendeel JIJ bent degene die mij Haat ! ik niet

Jij bent hier degene die leugens over mij verteld ik niet !
Jij beschuldigd mij van vele zaken terwijl je me niet eens kent !!

ik kan zo blijven ...

salaam !





heel mooi antwoord om een onwetende stil te maken en helpen na te denken, als dat onwetende dat tenminste begrijpt!!!

15-03-2007, 11:51



Citaat door Al_Jafari:
Alle eerst ga islam en zijn geschiedenis bestuderen voordat je hier praat!

Tentweede ik zal hem tot het eind steunen, want hij spreekt de waarheid!

Jij hebt geen verstand van zaken! Zwijg aub, want wat je allemaal zegt slaat totaal nergens op!
Was Saddam Sunni of Shia?
Is Osama Sunni of Shia
Was Yazid sunni of shia
Zijn de tereur groepen Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jihad sunnis of shia? In welk geloof zit haat????

Neem een voorbeeld van Shia zoals Hassan Nasrullah(Hezbollah)
Dikke luie lafaard Arabieren neem een voorbeeld van Iran die 500miljoen dollar aan Palestina steunt en nog eens met wapens voluit!

Over welke haat heb jij het over? Jullie zinken steeds in haat en verkeerde uitleg! Steeds wordt de naam Islam door velen slechte sunni te schande gezet!

"Een moslims is een terrorist" waarom zou zo iets moeten bestaan? "Profeet Mohammed heeft Islam met zwaard verspreid"! Stagfirullah door wie zijn dit ontstaan? Door jullie onwetendheid! Ga een boek lezen en stop met geweld, haat en FITNA er is geen verschil tussen shjiieten en soenniet we zijn allemaal broeders en zusters! Elke dag zijn er bomaanslagen bij shjiietische wijken! Ik denk het is een aqieda en fiqh geworden is in sunni stroming 'dood shjiieten dan zullen jullie de hemel betreden'!




ik zal hem en iedereen die gezond wilt discussieren tot eind steunen! en onwetenden goed en krachtige antwoorden geven!!in sha allah

15-03-2007, 11:53

Citaat door illahlilah:



wat grabbel jij??


als je al mijn reacties had gelezen dan ben Ik hier wel degene die erg tegen geweld is. maar goed, jullie shi3a 3alamoel 3ayb..


ik reageer niet meer op jullie, omdat jullie zoooo koppig zijn , ga maar verder met je hoofd tegen de muur slaan, roep Hussayn r.a. maar tot hulp.

hasbya allah wa ni3mal wakiel.

wa salamalaikom wa rahmatoe allah wa barakatoeh.



jij bent zelf geweldadig en fitna-zaaier! hoe kun je je zo arrogant en hypocrik te proberen verontschuldigen?????????
geen een van je reacties bij deze topic wijst naar de wijsheid of broederschap!!!

15-03-2007, 12:19
assalaam wa alaikum alle gelovigen,
er wordt nogal gediscuseerd .
wat ik absoluut niet kan tolereren is dat men ahle sunnat wal djamaat samen voegt met shia DOE DAT NOOIT MEER shia mag je gewoonweg niet samen voegen met ONS.
weten jullie trouwens hoeveel boeken er zijn waar echte waarheid in staat.
wees verstandig mensen ga niet met deze idioten in discussie.

Pagina's : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272