Way of the Sunnah and the Rafaeed

[heesham]

Salamoon Manith’thaba alhuda

I felt the need to reply to Mahdi’s reply to Brother Showkot’s original posting on the subject about Khaliphs and the Islamic State. His message was intermingled with the Shiah (Rafaeed) philosophys and the orthodox Sunni (Ahl as Sunnah) beliefs. This is an issue which the vast majority of our Muslim brothers and sisters seem to be unaware of.

BROTHERS AND SISTERS I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCEPTING ONLY SAHIH SOURCES IN ISSUES RELATING TO ISLAM.

Below I have tried to highlight the flaws of the Rafaeed beliefs, which in many ways contradict our orthodox ways of the Prophet (pbuh), his companions and the Salaf as-Salih.

The Rafidees was founded by Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jew, who appeared at the time of Khalifa of Uthman. He pledged allegiance only to Ali (RA) and caused mayhem due to his beliefs. He was the cause behind the death of Uthman (RA). They (Rafidees) curse the companions and declare them to be disbelievers, in particular Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (pbuh). They also believe the Qur’an to be incomplete. Indeed, many have their own (distorted) forms of the Qur’an.

I have used the > key as an indicator for his (Mahdi) quotes, underneath which I have posted my reply.

> first as i said there is not a single aya > of quran to mention or command that we >must setup an islamic state.

Firstly, we need to bear in mind that Islam is more than just the Qur’an (word of Allah) it encompasses the qualities and attributed of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in his sayings and deeds. IF THE QUR’AN WERE THE THEORETICAL SOURCE OF OUR RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS THAN THE PROPHET (PBUH) IS ITS PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION.

Someone asked ‘Aisha (Radiallahu Anha) about the noble characteristics of the Prophet (pbuh). She answered, “Have you not read the Qur’an. His character is a complete explanation of the Qur’an.” Hence, since he is the best example for us to understand and deduce the message of the Qur’an it is imperative that we try and imitate these examples. AND PART OF THIS EXAMPLE WAS HIS ESTABLISHEMENT OF THE ISLAMIC STATE.

“Say (O Muhammed (pbuh) to mankind): “If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic monotheism, follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah), Allah will love you….” (Al Qur’an 3:31)

A Muslim state by definition is one that clings to the ways of the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, although the Qur’an and Sunnah have clear guidelines which allow a basis in all affairs, it is fair to say that it does not deal with the specificities that come with time. Therefore, Islam allows opinions of its rightly guided servants (e.g. companions of the Prophet (pbuh, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali) who base their judgement in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, applying it to the time and situation. Thus, an Islamic state would assume their judgement providing a clear answer was not possible from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet.

> also, no such hadith is in existence.

Hadith is the saying and deeds of the Prophet (pbuh). Hence, there is no need for him to stress the need for an Islamic State as he showed it clearly through his establishment of the Islamic State.
In a Hadith related by Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi the Prophet (pbuh) said as follows: …..“Verily he among you lives (long) will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Rashidite Caliphs.”

> 1-an islamic state can only be set up by >al mahdi a.s. this is why he is coming. if >it were possible to do so without him then >why would he come.

Not true!

We had the Rashidite Khaliphate after the Prophet (pbuh) through Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA) may Allah (swt) be pleased with them all. Later we had the Khaliphate of Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz known and accepted by the Salaf as the Khaliph as salih. He was called Khaliph as Salih because he was not a continuation of the Rashidite.

The Mahdi -according to the pure sources - will come at the end of time; he is one of the Rightly-Guided Khaliphs and Imams. Infact, the seal. He is not the “Mahdi” who is expected by Shiahs, who they claim will appear from a tunnel in Samarra. This claim of theirs has no basis according to pure sources. He will be from the Family of Hasan (RA) and his role will be as the seal of the Rashidite Khaliphate, restoring the Earth with as much justice and security as there has been injustice and insecurity. He will lead the Muslims in battle against the Dajjal and Prophet Isa (as) will kill the Dajjal.

> the fact that his coming is mentioned by >hadith and also, quran says 'leyuzhherahu >alal deene kuleh' (it will encompass all >relgions) means that his coming is a >necassary element. therefore, it cannot be >without him.


This revelation has already been fulfilled by the coming of the Prophet (pbuh). His coming will not change this reality.


> i am sure you would also agree is that in >the case of imam mahdi's a.s. state(the >pure islamic) any disobedience is a sin. he >is absolutely right and he himself is a >measure of truth.

I object to the above statement. Imam Mahdi will not carry any new message but will re-establish the way of the Raheeq al-Makhtum. He will follow the way of the Prophet (pbuh) and will be judged as any other man. How can we claim any one man to be absolutely right or truth, these are attributes of the Almighty Allah (swt).

> in the case of the islamic government we >can say that. imam hussain a.s. refused to >give bay'a to yazid.

True

> imam ali a.s. refused to give bay'a to abu >bakr, these are narrated in muslim, >tirmidzi etc.

Typical Rafaeed belief.
There were no questions over the appointment of Abu Bakr. The whole Muslim Ummah agreed overwhelmingly to his Khaliphate. Even the Prophet (pbuh) made it absolutely clear through his indirect signals that he wished for Abu Bakr to become the next Khaliph.

> people withdrew bay'a from othman

This was only people like Abdullah ibn Saba (founder of Shia’ism) who only wished to cause mischief.

> due to his unislamic rule and corruption >in his state which led to his killing.

Astaghfirullah!!!! May Allah have mercy on you.

The Prophet (pbuh) said “Do not rebuke my Companions. If some one of you spends as much gold as Uhud, he will not reach (the reward of) one ‘mud’ of anyone of them, nor half of it.”

The Shias are known for their curses and slanders upon the companions.

Uthmans rule was part of the Rashidite Khaliphate and what can be greater than that.

‘Abdur Rhman bin ‘Auf (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as saying: Abu Bakr will go to paradise, ‘Umar will go to paradise, ‘Uthman will go to paradise, ‘Ali will go to paradise, Talha will go to paradise, Zubair will go to paradise, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Auf will go to paradise, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas will go to paradise, Sa’id bin Zaid will go to paradise and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jerrah will go to paradise.

> in simple words welayate faqih of imam >khomeini has proved, in the absence of any >quranic verse or hadith, that an infallible >person can and should, as a duty, form an >islamic rule.

Was khomeini infallible????? Can human beings be infallible???????
Even Adam (as) was fallible. Only Allah (swt) is infallible.

>now please give me your answer to your >questions and also tell us to what kind of >a state would you give bay'a and how that >state is formed prior to your and other >muslims bay'a. in other words how could >anyone form a state witouht fisrt having >support and bay'a.

If you would allow my answer.
Personally, I myself would only give Baya to a state that I could accept as being of the Ahl As-Sunnah wal Jama’a. Those who followed the methodology of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions.

MAY ALLAH GUIDE THE UMMAH TO THE WAYS OF THE SUNNAH. AMEEN

Heesham
‘The Great’

[Nur]

g

[This message has been edited by Nur (edited 15 October 2000).]

[Nur]

Salaam,
Brother Heesham I agree that we have to use authentic sources in issues relating to Islam. I hope you will agree with me on the following points:

1) The Quran is the most authentic source of all and is the ultimate truth and as commanded by the Prophet (PBUH) any utterance of the Prophet (PBUH) should be checked against the Quran. If it contradicts the Quran it should be rejected. There are also a number of other things which have to be taken into account when deciding the authenticity of a hadith, including the piety of the narrators, whether it contradicts other sahih hadiths, whether there is a continous link back to the Prophet (PBUH), whether all the narrators in the reporting of a hadith are known, etc.

2) One cannot reject a hadith simply because it contradicts what one has been taught nor can one accept a hadith simply because it supports their view. When rejecting one has to give a valid reason for rejecting it and saying its weak simply because it contradicts one's view is not sufficient and is actually being unjust.

3) When there are two conflicting hadiths, both cannot be accepted - we have to accept that which is the most authentic of the two, the authenticity being based on its consistency with the Quran, its consistency with other hadiths, etc.

Brother Heesham, having studied the history of Islam I have to disagree with your views about the origin of shiasm. To say that Abdullah Ibn Saba is the founder of shiasm is to ignore authentic historical facts, to ignore clear hadiths of the Prophet (PBUH) and the teachings of Ali and other companions of the Prophet (PBUH) and it implies that the whole of the muslim umma from were foolish enough to be tricked by one jewish individual.

Other researchers and scholars of Islam agree that the shias are muslims. Ahmad Deedat went to Iran in the early 1980s and concluded that the shias of Iran are the best muslims in the world. Also a fatwa was given by the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar University in 1959 which stated that there is no more difference between the shias and the sunnis than there is between the four schools of thought and that it can be thought of as a fifth school of thought as the shias follow the madhab of Imam Jaffar who even th sunnis accept and the Imams of the 4 sunni schools of thought accepted and were taught by. I will, Insh'Allah post the fatwa if you like.

The views expressed by Mahdi are views held by many sunnis too. In fact Imam Shafi, the founder of one of the 4 schools of thought, was accused of being a rafidite and he said if following the Ahl-ul-Bayt meant he was a rafidite then he was proud to be one. Nisai, the author of one of the sahih hadith books was also accused of the same for praising Ali and as a result he was tortured and killed horribly. Imam Abu Hanifa became student of Imam Jaffar's and refused a government position - as a result he was imprisoned, tortured and killed.

Imam Khomeini was a shia, but one of his teachers was a Hanbali. Although there are differences between shias and sunnis what they have in common is greater and makes it possible for them to work together and unite. The opponents of Islam with the help of their hypocrite agents have tried to destroy Islam by creating disunity between muslims and it is they that have made up stories so that muslims accuse one another of being kaffir.

One can disagree with shias, but one cannot say that they are not muslims nor can they deny that there is evidence for what they say in sahih sunni books. For someone to deny this after studying related hadiths in the sahih books and in the sunni history books they would have to be unjust and unislamic.




[This message has been edited by Nur (edited 15 October 2000).]

[Nur]

Originally posted by heesham:
Salamoon Manith’thaba alhuda

I have used the > key as an indicator for his (Mahdi) quotes, underneath which I have posted my reply.


>now please give me your answer to your >questions and also tell us to what kind of >a state would you give bay'a and how that >state is formed prior to your and other >muslims bay'a. in other words how could >anyone form a state witouht fisrt having >support and bay'a.

If you would allow my answer.
Personally, I myself would only give Baya to a state that I could accept as being of the Ahl As-Sunnah wal Jama’a. Those who followed the methodology of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions.

MAY ALLAH GUIDE THE UMMAH TO THE WAYS OF THE SUNNAH. AMEEN

Heesham
‘The Great’

Salaam,
By "Ahl As-Sunnah wal Jama’a" you mean those who follow the Quran and the sunna. Well I have read the books of Imam Khomeni and no one can argue about his piety and thefact that he did follow the Quran and the sunna. Also he has not in any of his books cursed any of the companions and in fact he asked the shias and the sunnis to unite in his speeches and he addresses sunnis in the most respectful way. Also I would like to point out again the fact that the majority of muslims all over the world, especially the sunni muslims, supported and held as valid Imam Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie - so in effect he was the leader of all muslims.

[muhammad]

Salaam to all,
For the attention of Heesam.

Quote:
"The Rafidees was founded by Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jew, who appeared at the time of Khalifa of Uthman. He pledged allegiance only to Ali (RA) and caused mayhem due to his beliefs. He was the cause behind the death of Uthman (RA)."
I'm finding this discussion very interesting. However, I cannot find much information concerning the history of Abdullah ibn Saba. Since you are placing so much emphasis on the story, could you please give the full history of "exactly" how the shia religion was created by Abdullah with all the references and sources. The only reference I can find about him comes from only one person - Saif ibn Omar.

Regards,
Muhammad

[Abdur_Rahman]

Salamoon Manith’thaba alhuda

May His peace and blessings be decended upon Muhammad and the aley Muhammad (family of Muhammad Saw0, and all the seekers of truth.

I felt the need to reply to Mahdi’s reply to Brother Showkot’s original posting on the subject about Khaliphs and the Islamic State. His message was intermingled with the Shiah (Rafaeed) philosophys and the orthodox Sunni (Ahl as Sunnah) beliefs.

though there exists different schools of thought but all muslims belive in the same fundamentals, anyone who thinks that he is right and all else are wrong he himself is wrong. As a sunni muslim of Hanafi school I saw no intermingling with evidence, i.e. wrong evidence with right edivence it was as clear as the clean water.

BROTHERS AND SISTERS I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCEPTING ONLY SAHIH SOURCES IN ISSUES RELATING TO ISLAM.

I agree brother please you yourself must also accept this and apply the same rule i.e. accept only the authentic evidence that does not go against the quran.

Below I have tried to highlight the flaws of the Rafaeed beliefs, which in many ways contradict our orthodox ways of the Prophet (pbuh), his companions and the Salaf as-Salih.
from all the shia brothers (12ver Imammi) that I have known I have not seen a single one that contradicts the Prophet. Rather it is we the sunnis that contradict the prophet of God, just look at our lives and see how much contradiction exists how much of the Prophetic commands do we accept?
a few example
- Saddam- a evil man who has and still is killing muslims both shias and sunnis and certain stupid muslims follow him and think he will be a saviour.
-Saudi Arabia- How many times have the Saudi royal families have allowed the destruction of the Holy Kabah and the tombs of the Holy prophets and the noble companions, and how many muslims lives have they taken even within the vicinity of the Kaba where it is haram to kill even a fly?
Government of most of the sunni world are all slaves to the west.


The Rafidees was founded by Abdullah ibn Saba, a Jew, who appeared at the time of Khalifa of Uthman. He pledged allegiance only to Ali (RA) and caused mayhem due to his beliefs.

please back this up with authentic evidence. As far as I know this figure of ibn saba is a imaginary figure even the orientalist say that, 'though some claim that shiism was created by this ibn saba but there is no trace of this person in history'.( Reference to the Islamic Encyplopidia)

The term shia is not a new thing but it was first used by the Prophet himself ( reference available on request)

He (abdullah ibn saba)was the cause behind the death of Uthman (RA).

No he was not, the real cause that led to the death of caliph Uthman was his weakness and nepotism ( he appointed most of his family members to the governing body) most of his family members of authority were very corrupt eg Marwan his advisor, and the corrupt and power hungry governnor of syria Muawiyya.
The people of Egypt were being oppressed by tthe governor appointed by the Chalip Uthman, they came to Medina to complain to the chalip, with Ali's help the people managed to convince Uthman that the governor in questions needs to be removed from office, Uthman agreed and gave a letter to them in this regards, so they left happy for egypt.

But on their way back they stopped Uthamans slave riding Uthmans Camel, they searched and found a letter addressed to the egyptian governor form Uthman, it said 'as you find this letter and when the egyptian people reture kill them all, chopp their heads!'
Furious with this the egyptians returned angryly to Medina, they confornted the chalip who denied that it was his letter, the peopel said is it not your stamp of the chaliphate, he said yes, they said is this not your slave and camel , Unthman said yes, in whch case the peopel demamded that Uthman should be held responsible and therefore should resign. uthman said he knew nothing of it and the letter had been forged, withoput his knowledge, in which case the peopel demamded that being a Chalip and some one uses his seal of authoruty without his knowledge then he is not capable of being a chalip.
Ali intervened and told Uthman that he should remove Marwan his advisor if he wants to live because the peopel will try to kill him, uthman agreed but Marwan persuaded the Chaliph not to do so and therefore he refused the depand of the people who were revolting his rule.

There was Ayesha also who spoke against Uthman and his rule because she said that he was polluting the laws and ways of the Prophet of God, when the revolutionaries (peopel who were agianst uthman) sorrounded Uthmans house Ayesha left for Mecca.
In the mean time Uthman sent messages to Muawiyya in Syria for help but he ordered his soldgiers not ot enter Medina untill the 'situation was over'. Uhtman though help would arrive from his cousin Muawiyya but it never did.
The peopel blockaded his house, food and water, only Ali and this two sons were allowed to go and give his some food and water, they also guared his gates to stop anyone entering the building.
but somehow some group of people managed to enter Uthmans house and they killed him while he was reading the Quran, his wife tried to stop and in the process some of her fingers was cut off.

then the peopel gathered around Ali to lead but he declined saying tot he effect ' when we wanted what belongs to us you you blockaded and now that we do not want it you ask us to take it...' Some of the first to give baya to Ali was Zubair and Talha.

Anyway after his election Ayesha on one hand and Muawiyya on the other started to instigate against Ali on the pretext 'the revenge of uthman's murder'. on this pretext Ayesha declared war with the Amirul Mu'mineen whom the peopel elected as their leader.
The first peopel who gave baya i.e. Talha and zuabir broke thier alligiance with the Amirul Mu'mineen and sided with Ayisha, this war was known as the Battel of the Jamal (Camel) since Ayisha was riding and commanded her army from a camel. Both Talha and Zubair were killed, and after her defeat was returned honourably under escort on the command of Imam Ali to Mecca or Medina.

On the other hand Muawiyya also never gave Baya to Amir'ul Mu'mineen on the pretext to avenge the murder of Uthman. According to
the hadith you supported and presented by Islamc Boy if a chalip is choosen and another declares himself as chalip then kill the second one acroding to this hadith Muawiyyas head should have been chopped off and anyone who sided with muawiyya was certainly in the wrong and also should have had thier heads chopped off.


They (Rafidees) curse the companions and declare them to be disbelievers, in particular Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman and the wives of the Prophet (pbuh).

bring your proof where they curse them. But surely one should be able to critically analyse anyone to come to the truth whether it hurts the feelings.

They also believe the Qur’an to be incomplete. Indeed, many have their own (distorted) forms of the Qur’an.

Have you ever seen this distorted quran with your own eyes and have you any proof where anyone says that the quran is incomplete?

If you can produce these two evidence then I swear that I will become you slave for the rest of my life, if you can not then will you agree to be my slave for the rest of your life????

I have used the > key as an indicator for his (Mahdi) quotes, underneath which I have posted my reply.

> first as i said there is not a single aya > of quran to mention or command that we >must setup an islamic state.

Firstly, we need to bear in mind that Islam is more than just the Qur’an (word of Allah) it encompasses the qualities and attributed of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in his sayings and deeds. IF THE QUR’AN WERE THE THEORETICAL SOURCE OF OUR RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS THAN THE PROPHET (PBUH) IS ITS PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION.

Yes and who disagrees with that?

Someone asked ‘Aisha (Radiallahu Anha) about the noble characteristics of the Prophet (pbuh). She answered, “Have you not read the Qur’an. His character is a complete explanation of the Qur’an.” Hence, since he is the best example for us to understand and deduce the message of the Qur’an it is imperative that we try and imitate these examples. AND PART OF THIS EXAMPLE WAS HIS ESTABLISHEMENT OF THE ISLAMIC STATE.

Again true, as you have said AND PART OF THIS EXAMPLE WAS HIS ESTABLISHEMENT OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. But this was not the only example, this is only part of many other parts.

What mahdi tried to say is that there is no Direct reference to establish an Islamic State either in the Quran or the Hadiths, but there are indirect relatios to that.

Allah Taala orders us to live in justice, establsih regular prayers and give regular Zakat etc, establsihing an islamic state can only help us in doing these. But you can not have an islamic state if there are no islamic people.

“Say (O Muhammed (pbuh) to mankind): “If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic monotheism, follow the Qur’an and the Sunnah), Allah will love you….” (Al Qur’an 3:31)

it does not say anything about the 'Islamic state' it only says what is says!

A Muslim state by definition is one that clings to the ways of the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, although the Qur’an and Sunnah have clear guidelines which allow a basis in all affairs, it is fair to say that it does not deal with the specificities that come with time. Therefore, Islam allows opinions of its rightly guided servants (e.g. companions of the Prophet (pbuh, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali) who base their judgement in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah, applying it to the time and situation. Thus, an Islamic state would assume their judgement providing a clear answer was not possible from the Qur’an or the Sunnah of the Prophet.

I agree we should consult the opinions of the pious companions so long as they themselves were holding tightly to the 'rope of Allah'

> also, no such hadith is in existence.

Hadith is the saying and deeds of the Prophet (pbuh). Hence, there is no need for him to stress the need for an Islamic State as he showed it clearly through his establishment of the Islamic State.

Yes but what about his examples prior to the establishment of an Islamic state in Median?

In a Hadith related by Abu Dawud and at-Tirmidhi the Prophet (pbuh) said as follows: …..“Verily he among you lives (long) will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Rashidite Caliphs.”

I have also heard and read a Sahih hadith were it actually says the prophet (saw)said
" I leave you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, these two things will never part and will meet me in the pool of Kauthar, these two weighty things are the Book of God (Quran) and my Ah Lul Bait (Holy Family of the Prophet). Mentioned in Muslim, Tirmizi Abu Dawood, Musnad of Imam Hanbal, and dozens of others.

> 1-an islamic state can only be set up by >al mahdi a.s. this is why he is coming. if >it were possible to do so without him then >why would he come.

Not true!

We had the Rashidite Khaliphate after the Prophet (pbuh) through Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA) may Allah (swt) be pleased with them all. Later we had the Khaliphate of Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz known and accepted by the Salaf as the Khaliph as salih. He was called Khaliph as Salih because he was not a continuation of the Rashidite.

What about the Chalipahte of Muawiyya, Yazid, and the numerous others from the Ummayyad and the Abbasid who are well known for their Tyrranny and oppression against the Muslims, they were also known as Chalips and Amir'ul Mu'mineen but went to butcher the innocent lives of the sincere and god fearing muslims ????

The Mahdi -according to the pure sources - will come at the end of time; he is one of the Rightly-Guided Khaliphs and Imams.

OK

Infact, the seal. He is not the “Mahdi” who is expected by Shiahs, who they claim will appear from a tunnel in Samarra. This claim of theirs has no basis according to pure sources.

Do you know which tunnel it is, I would like to go and do Ziarat!

He will be from the Family of Hasan (RA) and his role will be as the seal of the Rashidite Khaliphate, restoring the Earth with as much justice and security as there has been injustice and insecurity. He will lead the Muslims in battle against the Dajjal and Prophet Isa (as) will kill the Dajjal.

Yes The Imam Mahdi will indeed be from the Holy Family of the Prophet (Saw)

> the fact that his coming is mentioned by >hadith and also, quran says 'leyuzhherahu >alal deene kuleh' (it will encompass all >relgions) means that his coming is a >necassary element. therefore, it cannot be >without him.


This revelation has already been fulfilled by the coming of the Prophet (pbuh). His coming will not change this reality.

Right, no principle laws of the Reality will change all that Iman Mahdi will do is to rule the people with true Justice and peace.

> i am sure you would also agree is that in >the case of imam mahdi's a.s. state(the >pure islamic) any disobedience is a sin. he >is absolutely right and he himself is a >measure of truth.

I object to the above statement. Imam Mahdi will not carry any new message but will re-establish the way of the Raheeq al-Makhtum. He will follow the way of the Prophet (pbuh) and will be judged as any other man. How can we claim any one man to be absolutely right or truth, these are attributes of the Almighty Allah (swt).

Did mahdi say Imam Mahdi will bring new laws apart from what has already been given?

> in the case of the islamic government we >can say that. imam hussain a.s. refused to >give bay'a to yazid.

True


> imam ali a.s. refused to give bay'a to abu >bakr, these are narrated in muslim, >tirmidzi etc.

Typical Rafaeed belief.

Typical Wahhabi response!
And NO This is a belief held by history. Ali DID REFUSE giving alligiance to Abu Bakr and he demanded that it was his right and not Abu Bakr's.

There were no questions over the appointment of Abu Bakr. The whole Muslim Ummah agreed overwhelmingly to his Khaliphate.

The whole Muslim Umma did not agree to this, there were a group of peopel led by Ali who refused to accept Abu Bakr as the Chalip, this group included people whom the Prophet of God have said Paradise is garanteed for them, and they were some of the formost and outstanding companions both in piety and love for the Prophet they included:
Salman Farsi
Mikdad
Abu Dhar Ghifari etc


Even the Prophet (pbuh) made it absolutely clear through his indirect signals that he wished for Abu Bakr to become the next Khaliph.

The prophet made his choice cristal clear for his choice for the Successor, his clear choice was Ali. There are dozens and dozens of Sahi Hadiths (our own sunni ones) which established the Successorship of Imam Ali over all others, reference available on request.

> people withdrew bay'a from othman

This was only people like Abdullah ibn Saba (founder of Shia’ism) who only wished to cause mischief.

> due to his unislamic rule and corruption >in his state which led to his killing.

I have already stated the event and causes that led to the death of Chalip Uthman.

Astaghfirullah!!!! May Allah have mercy on you.

May the Almighty have mercy on you brother as well as the rest of his creation!

The Prophet (pbuh) said “Do not rebuke my Companions. If some one of you spends as much gold as Uhud, he will not reach (the reward of) one ‘mud’ of anyone of them, nor half of it.”

The Shias are known for their curses and slanders upon the companions.

But how do you explain Rebuking of the Holy Prophet of Islam himself by some of the most outstanding companions, I hope you have the heart to hear this do you know the event of the Black Thursday? more on request.

Uthmans rule was part of the Rashidite Khaliphate and what can be greater than that.

‘Abdur Rhman bin ‘Auf (Allah be pleased with him) reported the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) as saying: Abu Bakr will go to paradise, ‘Umar will go to paradise, ‘Uthman will go to paradise, ‘Ali will go to paradise, Talha will go to paradise, Zubair will go to paradise, ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Auf will go to paradise, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas will go to paradise, Sa’id bin Zaid will go to paradise and Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jerrah will go to paradise.

who said they wont?

but the fact of the matter is Uthmans rule was weak due to his Nepotism which broke off the link from the prophet. more later.

> in simple words welayate faqih of imam >khomeini has proved, in the absence of any >quranic verse or hadith, that an infallible >person can and should, as a duty, form an >islamic rule.

Was khomeini infallible????? Can human beings be infallible???????
Even Adam (as) was fallible. Only Allah (swt) is infallible.

I do not know about Khomeni But all the Prophets are infallible including the family of the Prophet. This verse is a witness to the Infalibility of the Ahlul Bait. Allah only wishs to keep you oh Ahlul Bait pure and spotless...

Why would otherwise Allah send us prophets and leaders who could be prone to erros, if this is was case the effect would have been catastrophic because they could have given us the wrong sort of guidence which could take us all to hell!

>now please give me your answer to your >questions and also tell us to what kind of >a state would you give bay'a and how that >state is formed prior to your and other >muslims bay'a. in other words how could >anyone form a state witouht fisrt having >support and bay'a.

If you would allow my answer.
Personally, I myself would only give Baya to a state that I could accept as being of the Ahl As-Sunnah wal Jama’a. Those who followed the methodology of the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions.

As they are YOUR own opinions I have nothing to say.

MAY ALLAH GUIDE THE UMMAH TO THE WAYS OF THE SUNNAH. AMEEN

No problem with that

May Allah protect the oppressed and give them strenght to fight back as in Palestine. Ameen

Heesham
‘The Great’

brother one last point, why are you calling yourself The Great, even though its in '' but does not this sound arrogant, let others call you great if you really are, why give you self your own titles!?!?

Khudahafiz and Take care
AR

[This message has been edited by Abdur Rahman (edited 16 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Abdur Rahman (edited 16 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Abdur Rahman (edited 16 October 2000).]