|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Galadriel
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 2143
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: The BATTLE OF CAMEL: Aisha vs ALI = 20,000 MUSLIMS DIED! |
 |
|
What is the cause of the battle of Al Jamal?
Ali was accused by Aisha of protecting the murderer of Uthman. Aisha wanted to avenge the murderer of Uthman. But Aisha herself was not happy with Uthman. How can that be?
Who killed Uthman? Aisha or Ali? Both are suspects. Aisha wanted her cousins Zubayr & Talha to be Caliph instead of Uthman & Ali. Ali wanted to be Caliph after Muhammad died but was sad that his place was taken by Abu Bkr (whose name means the father of a virgin i.e. Aisha) because Abu Bkr was promised by Muhammad that he could be the Caliph if he allows Muhammad to bonk his little toddler daughter Aisha.
Ali is said to have sent someone to kill Uthman while Uthman was still sleeping. Muawiya also accused Ali for protecting the murderer of Uthman. These so-called rightly guided holy men and women of Islam used the death of Uthman as a pretext for power grabs and personal revenge. These so-called holy men & women of Islam lied to and about each other, denigrated each other, betrayed each other, and finally killed each other in the BATTLE OF CAMEL. THIS IS THE FRUIT OF ISLAM. 
I don't believe that Aisha waged war against Ali to avenge the death of Uthman because she herself wanted to kill Uthman. She was not happy with Ali because of one incident when Muhammad was still alive where Ali asked Muhammad to dump Aisha after she was caught having sex with a young guy. Muhammad consulted Ali for advice. Ali asked Muhammad to divorce her. Muhammad changed his mind later because Aisha was too pretty to be dumped. Divorcing Aisha means Muhammad had to sleep with uglier old Umm Salamah. He didn't want to do that. That is why he didn't mind keeping little sexy babe Aisha.  The fact that Aisha cheated Muhammad by having sex with younger guy proves to all of us that this dirty evil old man Muhammad could not satisfy Aisha in bed.
Let us all hope for more battle of Camel. It is always better to see Muslims killing Muslims instead of Muslims killing kafirs. That is Islam. If they cannot kill kafirs because they have no kafirs left to kill, they will start to kill each other. Sunnis will kill Shia every Ashura as a religious ritual that they need to perform every year just like Haj to Makka every year. RFOL
Battle of Camel is a pain in the ass for Muslim ulama. They are trying hard to hide the truth from ignorant Muslims. In fact, many ignorant Muslims are not even aware of this Battle of Camel. They thought that Aisha & Ali loved one another. RFOL The truth is Islam is all about grabbing worldly power. The evil Caliphs of Islam were greedy for power and will not hesitate to kill each other and sacrificed the lives of stupid foolish Muslims so that they could be in power.
About 20,000 stupid foolish Muslims died killing each other in the name of Islam in that great BATTLE OF CAMEL. They deserved it because this is the punishment they got for killing and raping innocent kafirs when Muhammad was still alive. Will they go to heaven for killing each other? Are they martyrs? According to Islam, if you kill fellow Muslim you will not go to paradise and have sex with 72 black eyes houris & little boys. It is not fair for them if they failed to go to heaven for killing each other while Ali is enjoying sex with 72 houris and drunk with wine in paradise. They killed each other under the command of Aisha & Ali. If they are in hell that means both Aisha & Ali must also be in hell.
There is no concept of loving one another in Islam. The immediate disciples of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Confucius, etc did not kill each other for power and wealth like the immediate disciples of Muhammad. Only evil Islam is a religion that is so crazy about this worldly power that it allows its followers to kill each other. Muslims are so worldly. If the Caliphs were holy men they would not have cared so much about gaining wealth and worldly power. These evil Caliphs & sahaba of Muhammad would not hesitate to kill each other for the sake of power and wealth. If they were holy men they would have thought about the afterlife more than this temporary world and forsake this worldly stuff like the kafir monks are doing.
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
doubtless
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 6442
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a slightly less sensationalistic view of the same topic and from a muslim country newspaper.
Link Here
| Quote: |
THINKING ALOUD: The historical Ummah — IV —Razi Azmi
Abdul Malik’s four sons succeeded him as caliphs, but not without the spilling of blood. Tariq bin Ziyad and Musa bin Nusair, the conquerors of Spain, and Muhammad bin Qasim, the victor of Sindh, fell victim to the renewed strife. All three were recalled in disgrace and subjected to torture, Muhammad bin Qasim dying as a result
The preceding three articles have revealed the dismal state of the contemporary Ummah. This concluding piece will attempt to show that the popular notion of a glorious past is far from accurate. The scale and ferocity of the rivalries, power struggles and blood-letting in past Muslim societies is stupefying. Some of the history makes for chilling reading. (Unless otherwise mentioned, quotations that follow are from the History of Islam by Prof Masud-ul-Hasan, published by Islamic Publications, Lahore, 1998, two volumes.)
The murder of the third “rightly-guided caliph”, Hazrat Usman, in the year 656 is described thus: “The rebels from various parts of the country besieged Medina. Hazrat Usman was besieged in his house. The besiegers scaled the walls, entered the room where Hazrat Usman was reading the Quran and killed him”. The ringleader of the group was Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, son of Hazrat Abu Bakr, brother of Hazrat Aisha and a stepson of Hazrat Ali, by virtue of the latter marrying his widowed mother. The 84-year old Usman “breathed his last on the afternoon of Friday, [but] the power of the rebels was so great that Usman’s body lay unburied until Saturday night when he was buried in his blood-stained clothes”(www.allaahuakbar.net).
After Hazrat Ali succeeded him as caliph, “Hazrat Talha and Zubair, two eminent companions [of the prophet [PBUH]] were the first to separate from Ali. The rebels were able to muster a considerable force at Mecca. Basra was occupied by the rebels. Hazrat Ali marched with his force from Kufa to Basra. The forces of the two sides met outside Basra. In the battle Hazrat Ayesha took the field personally [against Hazrat Ali]. As many as 10,000 Muslims died from both sides”. The situation in Hijaz became so troubled that Hazrat Ali moved his capital to Iraq. But his woes continued and the last “rightly-guided caliph” was stabbed to death while praying in a mosque in Kufa in 661.
A continuation of the struggle for power led to the murder of Hazrat Ali’s son, Hazrat Hussain, at Karbala. The forces of Yazid I “cut off the head of Hazrat Hussain. His body was trampled under the hoofs of Umayyad cavalry with savage ferocity and subjected to every ignominy”. The resulting revolts in Mecca and Medina were put down by a 12,000-strong force. After subduing Medina, the force proceeded to Mecca, “occupied all the surrounding heights, and from there bombarded the city with their mangonels. The siege lasted for 64 days”.
Upon the abdication of Caliph Muawiyah II in 684, another struggle for power ensued, from which Marwan I emerged victorious. He sent a force to capture Medina, but was unsuccessful. Reneging on his earlier commitment, Marwan nominated his son Abdul Malik to succeed him, followed by his brother Abdul Aziz. Malik’s succession was contested by his cousin Amr bin Saeed, whom Malik removed “by inviting him to a feast and then killing him”.
At the turn of the seventh century, there were three caliphs in the Muslim world, namely, Abdul Malik (in Syria and Egypt), Abdullah bin Zubair (Hejaz and Basra) and Mukhtar (Kufa and Mosul). In this triangular contest resulting in numerous battles and countless deaths, many prominent heads rolled. These included Shammar and Umar bin Saad, responsible for the murder of Imam Hussain. “Their heads were cut off and sent to Zainul Abidin, the son of Imam Hussain.” Also killed was Ubaidullah bin Ziyad, commander of the Syrian force, whose “head was cut off, and sent to Kufa where it was displayed in the audience hall where Ubaidullah had at one time displayed the head of Hazrat Hussain.”
After Mukhtar was defeated, Abdul Malik sent Hajjaj bin Yusuf to overthrow Abdullah bin Zubair in Mecca, which “was stormed with fire and sword.” Abdullah died fighting in 692. Thus concluded this particular conflict, which had lasted 12 years, with victory for Abdul Malik, whose four sons succeeded him as caliphs, but not without the spilling of more blood.
Tariq bin Ziyad and Musa bin Nusair, the conquerors of Spain, and Muhammad bin Qasim, the victor of Sindh, fell victim to the renewed strife. All three were recalled in disgrace and subjected to torture, Muhammad bin Qasim dying as a result. Under the rule of Hisham, the last of the four brothers, there was an uprising in Kufa in 740, led by Zaid, the grandson of Hazrat Hussain. The revolt failed, “Zaid was arrested, his head was cut off and sent to Hisham in Damascus.”
In Turkey, Bayazid began his rule in 1389 by murdering his brother Yaqub. After seizing the Turkish city of Sivas in 1400, Amir Timur ordered “all male citizens who had defended the city [to be] buried alive”. Bayazid proceeded to avenge the massacre, but was defeated and died in captivity. A war of succession ensued among his five sons. It culminated in the death of three and lasted 11 years, during which one of the contenders sought the military assistance of Christian Byzantium. Later, Selim I dethroned his father Bayazid II in 1512 and settled the accession issue by putting to death both his brothers and five nephews.
The end of Muslim rule in Spain is attributed to internal conflict. “Relations between Granada and Morocco deteriorated. The king of Morocco sent a force under his brother Abu Said to capture Gibralter. Yusuf III, Amir of Granada, with the aid of the Christians defeated the forces of Morocco. Abu Said was taken captive and the Sultan of Morocco made no attempt to secure his release. Yusuf III decided to exploit this position to his advantage and interfere in the affairs of Morocco. He released Abu Said and promised to help him in his fight against his brother, the king of Morocco”.
Assisted by a Granadian force, Abu Said invaded Morocco, defeated his brother and became the Sultan of Morocco. “Heretofore the Marinids of Morocco had interfered in the affairs of Granada; now the roles were reversed for the first time”. Yusuf III’s son Muhammad VIII had three stints as Amir, for he was deposed by uprisings and the machinations of Muhammad VI, who sought the assistance of Christian-ruled Castille. Finally, he was overthrown by his nephew, Muhammad X, and imprisoned. The end of Muslim rule in Spain in 1492 was thus hastened by internecine warfare, which included a revolt by Boabdil against his father when Christian forces “stood at the gates of Granada”.
In seventeenth century India, Emperor Jahangir had his son Khusrau’s eyes gouged out as punishment for a premature bid for the throne and Shah Jehan had all potential male contenders put to death to secure his position. Aurangzeb, renowned for his Islamic piety, had no scruples in killing his three brothers to wrest the Mughal throne. He even had the severed head of Dara Shikoh delivered to their distraught father, the imprisoned former emperor Shah Jehan, as payback for his having favoured Dara as his successor. Between them, these three Great Mughal emperors destroyed other independent Muslim entities in India, most notably the states of Bijapur and Golconda in the south, which were already weakened by the same rivalries and wars which characterised Muslim states elsewhere.
The above is an incomplete but representative survey of a rather murky past. Neither the past nor the present reveals a harmonious Ummah. Indeed, the only harmony appears to be between the Ummah’s past and its present.
This is the concluding article in a series of four. The third article appeared on March 17, 2005. The author, a freelance writer, may be contacted at raziazmi@hotmail.com
Home | Editorial |
_________________
Ali Sina: "The truth is out there for those who want to see it. It is beyond doubt."
Rg Veda: "He who surveys it in the highest heaven; He surely knows - or maybe He does not!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desi
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| A continuation of the struggle for power led to the murder of Hazrat Ali’s son, Hazrat Hussain, at Karbala. The forces of Yazid I “cut off the head of Hazrat Hussain. His body was trampled under the hoofs of Umayyad cavalry with savage ferocity and subjected to every ignominy”. |
"Allah u Akbar"
Allah's justice prevailed.
Mohammad's family paid for mohammad's insanity in mohammadian istyle.
"Allah u Akbar"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galadriel
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 2143
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The rebellion of Hadhrath Ayesha against Hadhrath 'Ali (as)
Hadhrath Ayesha's entry onto the battlefield of Jamal was a violation of the Qur'an
Allah (swt) states clearly with regards to the wives of Rasulullah (s):
"And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;...." Al-Quran 33:33
In Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 under the commentary of this verse we read a narration that states
"when Hadhrath Saudah (RA), wife of the Prophet (s), was asked why she did not perform Hajj and Umrah (regularly) like other wives of the Prophet (s)? Saudha (RA) said, "I have performed Hajj and Umrah (before) and Allah has given me the order to stay at home. By God I will not leave home until my death." The narrator added "by God, Saudah (RA) did not leave her home after the Prophet (s) until her death, when her funeral was taken out".
This verse came down exclusively for the wives of Rasulullah (s) and in the commentary of this verse we can see that Hadhrath Sauda deemed it as a clear injunction for her to remain at home.
Abu Sulaiman's defence is contradicted by the fact that Rasulullah (s) had told his wives during Hajjatul Wida (final pilgrimage) that this WAS their first and last Hajj and that in future they were to remain within their homes. To prove our claim we present al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 7 page 104, where Ibn Kathir under the Chapter "Zainab binte Jahsh" records the following:
"During the Farewell Hajj, Prophet (s) had told his wives that "This is your last Hajj, after that you have to pray on floor mats". The narrator then added that except for Zainab bint e Jahsh (RA) and Saudah(RA) all other wives used to go for Hajj but these two used to say that "nothing shall move us".
Rasulullah's order and Hadhrath Saudah's commentary of this verse is clear proof that there was a mandatory duty placed by Allah on the wives of Rasulullah (s), that they remain within the confines of their homes. Despite this Hadhrath Ayesha opposed this explicit verse of the Qur'an and left her home to instigate opposition against the Imam of the time.
We have already proven that this verse placed an unconditional order on the wives to stay at home. With regards to Abu Sulaiman's claim that she 'interpreted in that matter', we challenge Ansar.org to show us when she cited this verse and said I interpret this as follows. The fact is that they can try as hard as they can, Abu Sulaiman and his Ansar cronies have no evidence that Ayesha interpreted the verse in this manner. On the contrary we read in Tafsir Durre Manthur Volume 5 page 196 commentary of Surah Ahzab, Hilayat al Awliya Volume 2 page 48, Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" and Tabaqat al Kabeer Volume 8 page 81 under the Chapter "Dhikr Ayesha" that:
"When Hadhrath Ayesha used to recite the Ayat ("And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance;.." Al-Quran 33:33) she used to cry so much that her cover used to get wet with tears".
We have already proven the fact that Rasulullah (s) had told his wives during his last Hajj that this was their last Hajj and that they would have to stay at home after this. Those wives who followed this command used to recite this ayat to prove their point. Therefore we can say that it was mandatory for Hadhrath Ayesha to stay at home. The crying of Hazrat Ayesha at the recitation of the verse is clear proof that during her battle with Imam 'Ali (as) she had gone against this ayat which is specific for the Prophets (s) wives.
If as Abu Sulaiman asserts it was not mandatory for her to stay at home and that she had an alternative interpretation of this verse that permitted her to rebel against the Imam of the time, then why was she crying whenever she recited it? Abu Sulaiman can advance as many excuses as he likes but the truth is that the realisation had dawned her, that by leaving her house and fighting Imam 'Ali (as) she had violated this Qur'anic order, one that placed a condition on the wives of Rasulullah (s) to remain within their homes. Ansar have no basis to provide their alternative translation for their commentary contradicts the command of Allah (swt), the order of Rasulullah (s) and the testimony of Ayesha against herself.
Imam Ali (as)'s letter to Hadhrath Ayesha testifies to her being on the wrong path
We read in al Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 38, Matalib al Sa'ul page 112 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 that
"Prior to the Battle of Jamal he [Imam Ali] wrote a letter to Ayesha in which he said 'by leaving your home you have opposed the order of Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s)"
Ansar can feel free to offer as many excuses as they like, the fact of the matter is that the Imam of Truth, Ali (as) felt that Ayesha had no basis to support her stance, she was acting in opposition to Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s). Whose opinion should we rely on, Abu Sulaiman's or the Gate of knowledge Imam 'Ali ibne abi Talib (as)?
Hadhrath Ayesha's reply demonstrates her uncompromising attitude towards an amicable settlement
Matalib al Sa'ul page 116 and Fusul ul Muhimma page 72 both record Hadhrath Ayesha's defiant reply to Imam 'Ali (as)'s letter:
"Son of 'Abu Talib, the difference between us is irreconcilable, time is running out, and we shall not submit to your authority, whatever you wish to do, do it".
What type of efforts for peace and reconciliation are present in this reply? Hadhrath Ayesha had demonstrated open opposition to Imam 'Ali (as), a refusal to accept his authority and a challenge to him to stop her opposition party. Imam 'Ali (as) hence was left with no other choice but to quash the opposition. Hadhrath Ayesha had made clear that her intention was that of open defiance and disobedience to the Imam of the time.
Letter of Ummul Momineen Hadhrath Umme Salmah to stop Hadhrath Ayesha from participating in the Battle of Jamal is concrete evidence that Hazrat Ayesha was in error
For authentic references from the books of Ahl'ul Sunnah, see following:
An-Nihaya by Mubarak bin Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Ibn Athir Jazri (d. 606 A.H.) vol 2, page 353; Ibid. vol 1, page 226-237; Ibid. vol 3, pages 271, 331 and 434; Ibid. vol 5, pages 35, 64, 115, 132, 137 and 158
Al-'Iqd al Farid by Abu Umar Ahmed bin Abd Rabbah Qartabi (d. 328 A.H.) vol 2, page 327 (description of battle of Jamal)
Qamus by Firozabadi (d. ???) page 371
al Imama wal Siyasa by Muhammad bin Qutaybah Dinuri (d. 276 A.H.) vol 1, page 53 (description of battle of Jamal)
Sharh Nahjul Balagha by Azzuddin Abdul Hamid al-Madaini (also known as Ibn Abi al-Hadid M'autazali) (d. 655 A.H.) vol 2, page 124
Balaghatun Nisa by Ahmed ibn Abi Zahir ibn Tayfur (d. 280 A.H.) page 7
"When Ummul Momineen Aisha decided to go for Jamal, Ummul Momineen Umme Salmah wrote to her: "From Umme Salmah wife of the Holy prophet to Aisha Ummul Momineen, And I praise Allah, There is no God except Allah, and then (I want to say), you are the medium between the prophet and his followers (Ummah). And you are guardian of his honour. The Holy Quran has gathered you so don't despair…. Pillars of this religion cannot be upheld on women. Women are praised for keeping down their eyes and hiding their bodies. Allah has exempted me and you from this task (of leading the battle). What will you say on the day of Judgement when Allah's Prophet will denounce you from Paradise on the deserts that you torn the veil which Allah had concealed you with". Then the announcer will announce that the mother (Umme Salmah) remained here (didn't go for the battle) so should you".
The Qur'an has clearly ordered wives of Prophet to stay in their houses (and stay in your homes, 33:33). This order of Allah is only for the wives of Prophet (S) and Hazrat Ayesha's participation in battle of Jamal against Hadhrat Ali (AS) is a clear violation of order of Allah in the Holy Quran and his Prophet (S).
The prohibition on Hadhrath Hafsa that she not join Ayesha proves that Ayesha was misguided
We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 231 that:
"Hadhrath Hafsa binte Umar made preparations to join Ayesha, but (her brother) Abdullah Ibne Umar prevented her from going".
If the stance of Ayesha was correct then why did 'Abdullah Ibne Umar; a leading companion prevent his sister from joining in the rebellion? Clearly he deemed it inappropriate for the wife of Rasulullah (s) to behave in such a manner.
The barking of Hawabs dogs at Ayesha proves she had left the right path
We read in al Imama wal Siyasa page 59 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" with regards to Ayesha that:
"When she began her opposition to 'Ali, she and her supporters began to make their way to Basra. On route, the dogs of Hawab began to bark at them. Ayesha asked Muhammad bin Talha "Which place is this?". He said "Its is Hawab" to which Hadhrath Ayesha replied "Take me back for on one occasion Rasulullah (s) said, 'Amongst you (wives) is one at whom the dogs of Hawab shall bark.' He (s) said to me specifically, 'Be careful in case it is you'." Muhammad bin Talha said 'Leave these things and proceed' and the Sahaba Abdullah bin Zubayr swore by Allah that they had left Hawab during the first part of the night, he brought some men who testified likewise. The Ulema of Islam have declared the event of Hawab to have been the first false testimony in Islam".
Ayesha wanted to install herself as the Imam over the nation
In Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 43 Chapter "Dhikr Jamal" the narrator states:
"I was walking through Jamal and witnessed a man on the ground rubbing his heels and reciting poetry, another narrators states that someone asked (the same man) 'Who are you?' to which he replied 'I am in that woman's army who intends to become Ameerul Momineen".
Rasulullah (s) condemned women at the helm of a people
We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:
Narrated Abu Bakra:
During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."
Source:
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/index.php
It is nice to see that some Muslims believe that Baby Aisha is going to hell for fighting Ali the Bastard.
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galadriel
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 2143
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: AISHA MURTAD |
|
|
It is nice to see Muslims condemning the toddler wife of Muhammad -Aisha the Babe. In this article you also can see how that scoundrel scum bastard Caliph Ali degrade women.
Aisha the Mother of all faithful fought against Ali the Commander of all faithful. My all time favorite war story.
AISHA IS CONSIDERED A MURTAD FROM ISLAM!
Hadhrath Ayesha's enmity towards Imam 'Ali (as)
Hadhrath Ayesha's enmity to Imam 'Ali (as) would open like a pot
'Ali Muttaqi al Hind in Kanz al-`ummal, Chapter 8 Kitab "Mawa azafee katheeya'thul taweela" records the testimony of Imam 'Ali (as):
Hadhrath Ali said, "Ayesha fought me because firstly being a woman she possessed a weak judgement and secondly she bore enmity towards me and it would open in the same way a pot is opened. She would have never fought anyone other than me in that way".
Hadhrath Ayesha's refusal to mention Imam 'Ali (as) by name is proof that she hated him
A mild version can also be located in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 3 hadith 761:
Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah told me that 'Aisha had said, "When the Prophet became sick and his condition became serious, he requested his wives to allow him to be treated in my house, and they allowed him. He came out leaning on two men while his feet were dragging on the ground. He was walking between Al-'Abbas and another man." 'Ubaidullah said, "When I informed Ibn 'Abbas of what 'Aisha had said, he asked me whether I knew who was the second man whom 'Aisha had not named. I replied in the negative. He said, 'He was 'Ali bin Abi Talib."
Try as they might, even al-Bukhari alludes to the fact that Hadhrath Ayesha was unable to mention Imam 'Ali (as) by name. Abu Sulaiman would of course differ and seeks to deny that ANY animosity was borne by Ayesha towards Imam 'Ali (as). The difficulty for him is that the Ulema of Ahl ul Sunnah have conformed this fact. In his commentary of this hadith, Badr al Din Hanafi in "Umdah al Qari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari" Volume 2 page 740, Chapter 4 "Hud ul Mareez"- acknowledges that:
"Hadhrath Ayesha, could not bear hearing a good thing about 'Ali, and this is solid evidence of her being an enemy of Ali, for Nasibis to proclaim that the narrators of these Hadith are weak, is not a valid excuse, because this is testified in the annals of history".
Later on the same page Badr al Din Hanafi comments:
"Muammar narrates that Ayesha was never happy narrating anything good about 'Ali, Zuhri narrates that Ayesha did not possess the ability to say anything good of 'Ali".
If Abu Sulaiman still insists on denying this fact, we shall now present a 'complete' version of this tradition which proves clearly that Ayesha failure to mention Imam 'Ali (as)'s name whilst recollecting this incident, was not on account of temporary amnesia but was in fact due to her hatred of him:
When Ubaidullah Ibn Utbah mentioned to Ibn Abbas that Aisha said "In his death-illness the Prophet was brought to (Aisha's) house while his shoulders were being supported by Fadhl Ibn Abbas and another person", then Abdullah Ibn Abbas said: "Do you know who this 'other man' was?" Ibn Utbah replied: "No." Then Ibn Abbas said: "He was Ali Ibn Abi Talib, but she is averse to name him in a good context."
The references for the above narration can be located in the following texts:
Musnad by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, pp 34,228
al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, part 2, p29
History of al-Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1800-1801
This is also loacted in the English translation.
History of al-Tabari (English) Volume 9 page 169-170
al-Ansab al-Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 544-545
Hadhrath Ayesha hated Banu Hashim and Imam 'Ali (as)
In Iqd al Fareed page 231 we l read that:
"Following the Battle of Jamal Hadhrath Ali sent a message to Ayesha via Ibn Abbas that she leave Basra and return (from where she came). Ayesha replied 'Yes I am returning of all the cities, I hate this city the most since this is the one in which Banu Hashim reside".
In Al Imama wal Siyasa Volume 1 page 45 we learn that:
"Following Uthman's murder Zubayr approached Ayesha in Makka and said 'Look they have made 'Ali Khalifa. She said, What right does 'Ali have to rule over our necks? I will not stay in Madina as long as 'Ali is in power".
In Rauzathul Ahbaab Volume 3 page 65, we read that:
"After the Battle of Jamal Imam 'Ali approached Hadhrath Ayesha and said 'You have treated me like an enemy'".
We also read in Rauzathul Ahbaab Volume 3 page 10 that:
"Ayesha was clouded by her hatred of 'Ali".
Ayesha's reaction at the death of Imam 'Ali (as)
"When news of 'Ali's death reached Aishah, she said: And she threw down her staff and settled upon her place of abode, like the traveller happy to return home".
"…the verse is proverbial ands is cited indicate pleasure at something".
This reference can also be located in Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 181 and Shaykh ul Mudhira page 156. For Abu Sulaiman to use his authority and make this claim, knowing that his adherents blindly believe his every word since he is an advocate of Mu'awiya, is indeed a cause for concern. We would ask his readers to ask themselves honestly 'If Abu Sulaiman can not even be honest about such a basic fact, then how much credence should be given to anything that he says?'
Ayesha's happiness at the death of Sayyida Fatima (as)
We read in Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn al Hadid page 439 Chapter 2
"When the Prophets daughter died all the wives except Ayesha came to console Banu Hashim and she said that she was unwell and the message which she sent to Hadhrath Ali (as) clearly depicts her joy at this sad occasion".
Ayesha's happiness at the death of Ibrahim ibne Rasululullah (s)
In Sharh Nahj ul Balagha by Ibn Hadeed page 238 Volume 2 we learn that:
"When Ibrahim died Ayesha was happy inside, although she displayed sadness outside, Fatima and 'Ali were very saddened by his death".
Fatwa of Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, "One that expresses happiness at the suffering of Ahl'ul bayt (as) is a murtad"
In Tuhfa Ithna Ashariyya Shah Abdul Aziz states on page 263:
[b]"What view should we hold of those people who express happiness on Ashura when Imam Hussain was killed, who marry on that day who disrespect the family of the Prophet and the descendents of Sayyida Fatima? It is correct to refer to such individuals as Murtad".[/b]
http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/ayesha/en/chap7.php
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galadriel
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 2143
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
MUSLIMS CAN NOW BE OFFICIALLY CALLED INFIDEL KAFIRS AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMAD!
The founders of Islam i.e. the persons who brought you the Quran and Hadith were infidels! They killed each other for power.
| Quote: |
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 687:
Narrated Jarir:
The Prophet ordered me during Hajjatul-Wada'. "Ask the people to listen." He then said, "Do not become infidels after me by cutting the necks (throats) of one another. " |
| Quote: |
'The best of my followers are those living in my generation (i.e. my contemporaries), and then those who will follow the latter" (Sahih Bukhari. V. 5. Number 2.)
|
Aisha the Mother of All Believers -->  <--- Ali the Commander of All Believers = 20,000 Dead Muslims
Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 197
'Abdullah b. Mas'ud:
The Prophet, said, "Abusing a Muslim is Fusuq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)."
Tadkhirath al Khawwas page 26 we are informed that: "Uthman bin Haneef was arrested and a messenger was sent to Ayesha for her opinion on what should be done to him. Ayesha said that he should be killed. A woman pleaded for his (Uthman's) life so Ayesha ordered that he be imprisoned, he was flogged 40 stripes and the hair from his hair, beard and eyebrows was removed. Ayesha and her supporters also killed a further 70 people without reason".
In al Istiab Volume 1 page 322 we are told that: "Ayesha and her companions killed 40 people inside the treasury and arrested Uthman bin Haneef, she stated that he should be executed".
In Muttalib al Saul page 119 we are told: "In Kufa Abu Burdha Azdi asked Hadhrath 'Ali, 'why were people killed at Jamal?'. 'Ali replied 'They killed my Shi'a and my officials without any justification, then they fought me, despite the fact that they gave me bayya, they killed 1000 of my companions".
"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (Quran Surah Nisa, v 93)
Quran says that Aisha and Ali are cursed! HAHAHAHAHAH!
LANAT ALLAH BE UPON ALI & AISHA FOR HAVING MUSLIMS (including the so-called Companions/Sahabas &Mujahideen) KILLING EACH OTHER!
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Galadriel
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 2143
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sahih Bukhari Book 2 (Belief)
Volume 1, Book 2,
Number 10:
Narrated Abu Musa:
Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?" He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."
Whose Islam is the Best? Aisha (Sunni) or Ali (Shia) ?
_________________
Muslim, compare Quran with THIS WISDOM & your Friday sermon with THIS SERMON. Which one can make you a better person? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
